LJWorld.com / Drive for green

Archive for Sunday, January 13, 2008

New apartment projects back on course for Lawrence

January 13, 2008

Special to the Journal-World

The Links calls for 480 one- and two-bedroom apartments on an 80-acre site west of the intersection of Wakarusa Drive and Queens Road at the northwestern edge of Lawrence, but the focus is on its open space: an area dominated by a proposed full-length, nine-hole golf course that would available for unlimited play by residents at no extra charge. The course also would be open to the public.

Special to the Journal-World

Apartment buildings at The Links would be identical to others, such as this one, that already are owned and operated by Lindsay Management Co. Inc., of Fayetteville, Ark.

Developers once again are lining up to build hundreds of new apartments in Lawrence, renewing hopes for the sluggish construction industry while rekindling fears of saturating a market that has endured relatively high vacancy rates in recent years.

Two of the projects alone — The Links, proposed on 80 acres of open land at the edge of northwest Lawrence; and The Exchange, planned for near 31st and Ousdahl streets — would boast a combined total of at least 1,600 new bedrooms, to be marketed to everyone from new college students to seasoned retirees.

Apartments at The Links would be built around a new nine-hole golf course, available for unlimited play by apartment residents at no additional charge. Any unfilled tee times would be available to other members of the public, either through a limited number of memberships or daily greens fees.

Add in the outdoor pool, fitness center and other features, and the folks at Lindsey Management Co. Inc. are looking to make a major investment after studying the market for the past dozen years.

“College towns have been very good to us,” said Hugh Jarratt, a corporate attorney for the company based in Fayetteville, Ark.

Lindsey’s interest in Lawrence surfaced as the city’s last major apartment boom materialized: in 1996, when more than 1,100 apartment units hit the market.

The multifamily market has been relatively quiet since then, although a few projects — including The Legends, a rent-by-the-bedroom project along West 24th Street in southwest Lawrence — have opened up and made inroads.

Market ‘stress’

The question now is just how this next era of major projects, and others said to be entering the development pipeline soon, might affect the market.

Marilyn Bittenbender, a commercial Realtor who represents developers and property owners on sales of land and buildings in Lawrence, said that the incoming projects might inject some welcome uncertainty into the multifamily residential market.

Older properties, either already or on the way toward being distressed, would be among the first to risk losing tenants as people opt for newer properties.

She said that some may be slated for needed redevelopment — such as conversion into professional offices or replacement by neighborhood shopping areas — while some rental homes might even become available for a return to single-family ownership.

“Sometimes people need to be encouraged to do things,” said Bittenbender, a broker for Grubb & Ellis | The Winbury Group, who has represented Lindsey Management on its project. “And if we don’t offer incentives, then sometimes we need to experience that through a little bit of stress.”

That’s what happened in 1996, said Tim Keller, a property appraiser who has tracked Lawrence’s apartment industry. As the new offerings flooded into the market, it left many marginal rental properties gasping for air, forcing them to grab for lifelines through upgrades and redevelopment.

Rental rise

Nowadays, Keller said, developers also may be counting on having more renters to draw from. Rising foreclosure rates and tightening credit opportunities may be forcing homeowners, and an increasing number of potential homeowners, to live in rental housing.

“I think that’s what these guys are capitalizing on,” Keller said.

Both The Exchange and The Links are looking to tap into specific markets, Keller said, through focused offerings: The Exchange plans to cater to college students by offering student-friendly lease structures and a range of recreational and entertainment amenities, and The Links, attractive to golfers living as renters.

“They’re hoping to cannibalize off existing units by offering these amenities that these other places don’t offer,” he said.

More golf?

Dick Stuntz, president of Alvamar Inc., said that the opening of a new nine-hole golf course certainly would affect the owners and operators of other golf courses in town: Alvamar has a total of 36 holes, split between private and public courses; Lawrence Country Club has 18 holes for private use; the city’s Eagle Bend Golf Course features 18 holes for public use; and The Orchards offers a nine-hole executive course for public use.

“It’s certainly not going to help,” Stuntz said, upon learning of the plan last week. “Anytime you add golf holes, you’ll cut up the pie. It just spreads (the market) thinner.”

Jarratt said that his company already had developed similar projects in at least a dozen other college communities, such as its hometown Fayetteville and including Columbia, Mo., and Lincoln, Neb.

The projects are especially popular among “empty nesters” looking to downsize, he said, while about 20 percent of the units in such projects are occupied by college students.

The Links would be on 80 acres east of Queens Road at the edge of northwest Lawrence. An extension of Wakarusa Drive would stretch through the project, whose course would feature par-3, par-4 and par-5 holes.

Land-use issues related to the proposed project are slated to be considered Jan. 29 by Lawrence city commissioners, and Jarratt is looking forward to sharing his company’s plans with the community.

“We like Lawrence. We want to be a good neighbor in Lawrence, and we take a lot of effort to be a good neighbor,” he said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

13 January 2008 at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

People quoted as supporters in this article are not paying attention. They believe because THEY have made so much money over the years on inflated real estate values that the community has done equally well. Meet the glass house thinkers. These are your believers in economic displacement because it serves them well. Economic displacement wrecks the local tax base and increases taxes on local homeowners who do not the benefit from reckless decisions. Of course this cannot happen without the approval of our current city(at least 4) and planning commissioners approval who have been swept into office by large sums of special interest dollars from the real estate industry.

Now for some reason the community has not been able to afford the maintenance on old infrastructure which now has become a victim of neglect by local governing officials representing the special interest groups that funded their campaigns.

*There has to be a need for more office space.
*There has to be a need for more residential.
*There has to be a need for more commercial retail
*There has to be a need for another golf course
*There has to be a need for more multiple family dwellings
*There has to be a need for more sprawl……there has never been a need for expensive sprawl.

The need does not exist.
13 January 2008 at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The development industry confuses growth in supply with growth in demand. Economic growth is assessed by the growth in demand, which is the growth in people and their income. When we have more people and these people have more income, then their spending will demand more goods and services.

These goods and services may include more homes and support more retail stores. Note that building more homes and stores does not generate more people or income. Demand must precede supply and support supply. If supply is built beyond the available demand, then bad things happen. Older neighborhoods decline. Older shopping centers empty out and become blighted. Developers never pick up the cost of this blight; they simply look to the taxpayers to pay the very expensive costs of redevelopment. Even this expensive redevelopment fails unless there is sufficient demand for the revitalized space.

It is crucial to the health of any community that the growth in supply be kept at a pace that matches the growth in demand. Unfortunately, the development and construction industries are prone to overbuilding. This is true throughout the nation, not just here in Lawrence . Preventing excessive growth in supply is easy and costless; it only takes growth controls by the community.

This is the purpose of the market analysis requirement integrated into the planning process.
13 January 2008 at 10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Real Estate companies need turnover to make their money. So of course they support construction, necessary or not.
13 January 2008 at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

One has t wonder why these developers from out of town always want to market to students or younger people, apartments! I thought Lawrence was being touted as a retirement town, of couse it really isnt' , but if it were, why wouldn't then this new complex be 55 and older with the golf course, etc. Maybe better yet it would be at 31st and Ousdahl. So now we have 888 beds of apartments at 31st and Ousdahl and more out west all headed into the campus. Does Arly Allen see the fault in this? Arly is the one who wanted student renters to live as far away as possible. A truly astute developer and city, which we have neither of, would create this shangri la of apartment living close to the center of town.

Where is Marty Kennedy when we need the “bulldozer”.

Lawrence has one of the goofiest planning staffs in the country, and leaders following, both from the Chamber, the county and the city commission.

Ho hum, another 2008 full of nothingness.

How come the closing of Highline Auto on 6th street wasn't told of in the business section. Interesting story going on there. Did I miss it in the J/W?
14 January 2008 at 2:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

Apartments are a dime a dozen already in this town. These people are flat out nuts! Not only that, but the infrastructure costs are far higher for apartment buildings than anything else.

Why does the City allow all of these apartments to be built? Someone needs their heads screwed on straight. If there were a moratorium on anything, it should be on apartment buildings. Build it and the renters will come? KU's student population is pretty constant and hasn't increased significantly in 40 years. Where will these companies get their residents?

This town has taken the wrong direction for too many years. Apartments! This is crazy folks.
14 January 2008 at 7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“This town has taken the wrong direction for too many years. Apartments! This is crazy folks.”

Wonder what these developers are being told by the commercial real estate folks?
14 January 2008 at 8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The links is a perfect example:

Following the construction of the $88 million sewage treatment plant,which in and of itself increases the cost of community services, will be more:
* water and sewer lines
* streets and repairs
*houses
*public schools
* fire stations
* law enforcement manpower
*sidewalks
* snow removal
* bike trails and cross walks
* Traffic signals
* Traffic calming
* developers requesting more tax dollar assistance(new infrastructure) for their warehouses and retail strip malls.
*In general increases the cost of community services to all taxpayers.
14 January 2008 at 8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

It is NOT the duty of the taxpayer or local government to maximize profits for speculators. Otherwise taxpayers realize tax increases to cover the cost of additional demand on community services.
14 January 2008 at 1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Perhaps the real estate community movers and shakers should pay for all new infrastructure? Attach the cost to each new structure. It is the development community who demanded more infrastructure for the purpose of more new construction. I do not need more new construction and new infrastructure. If Lawrence,Kansas said no to any additional housing projects taxpayers would be money ahead…..and existing housing would retain its' value for years to come.

It is the real estate/development that want to expand Lawrence to a population of 250,000 and will profit handsomely from out tax dollar subsidy.
Another 170,000 people in Lawrence,Kansas will NOT improve the quality of life. An influx of jobs paying $70,000-$100,000 might improve our quality of life but more homes simply will not.

Remember if a new housing moratorium were mentioned the powers that be said prices would go through the roof? Prices went through the roof anyway.

Now property values are dropping to accompany an over built market. Now the real estate community wants to further flood the market.