Kansas City urges Valentine, KC Life to find common ground in face of demolitions

As organizers continue to urge for protections in the face of continued home demolitions in Midtown Kansas City, and a potential developer says new rules could put its future plans to build new apartments on vacant land at risk, city officials are urging the two sides to find a way forward.

The Valentine Neighborhood Association has asked the city to turn part of Valentine — between 35th Street, Southwest Trafficway, Valentine Road and Pennsylvania Avenue — into the Norman School historic district, a city designation that’s intended to preserve neighborhoods with a unique character through additional protections and rules.

Property owners in a historic district must get permission from city officials to make exterior changes that would be visible from the street. Substantial changes would go before the historic preservation commission for review. If denied, a project may not be able to move forward for three years.

A substantial change could include building a deck or garage, changing the siding material or adding fencing by the sidewalk. It would also include constructing new buildings, to make sure they fit the area, or demolishing an existing one.

Valentine residents have pushed against demolitions in their neighborhood for decades. Hanging over the Norman School proposal are the demolitions last fall of over 20 buildings in Valentine, outside the proposed historic district, that have left northern Valentine almost entirely empty.

Those now-vacant properties are owned by Kansas City Life Insurance, which is based in Valentine and owns several parcels in the area. The company said the buildings were unsafe and presented a risk to the neighborhood ahead of possible future redevelopment.

KC Life then tore down four more buildings this month, including old colonnade apartments, that were in the proposed historic district. The buildings appeared to be in poor condition and the city labeled them dangerous, leading to their demolition.

They were just the latest old buildings in Valentine to disappear in an area north of Valentine Road that once had 286 structures. Just 72 remain, according to neighborhood association data.

KC Life, which opposes the historic district proposal, has since presented a vision for redevelopment in Valentine, which would include building dozens of new apartments. The company has not yet filed formal plans with the city and now says that its plans could be at risk if the historic district is approved.

The historic district proposal has taken months to weave through multiple hearings at City Hall. On Tuesday, the City Council’s neighborhoods committee put the request on hold until December to allow time for neighborhood leaders and KC Life to have a conversation and find some common ground over a complex issue.

“This isn’t an issue of kicking the can down the road,” said Eric Bunch, council member for the Fourth District. “It’s an issue of what’s at stake, both in the historic nature of these properties, but also what’s at stake for this vacant land that continues to be a problem for the Midtown neighborhood. We owe it to ourselves to get this right, and both parties need to get together to figure that out.”

Neighbors divided

The proposed Norman School Historic District, which is named after the school that has since been turned into lofts, developed as a streetcar suburb in the 20th century and includes various unique architectural styles, including Kansas City shirtwaist homes. The streetcar was taken out in the 1950s as Summit Street became the six-lane Southwest Trafficway.

Owners and residents in the proposed district appear to be split on the question of creating the historic district.

The historic preservation commission and city staff have recommended approval, while the planning commission gave no recommendation after voting against approval.

Advocates say historic status will guide responsible growth and sustainable development and attract investment while preserving neighborhood character and increasing property values. They say city officials are flexible and easy to work with during the historic review process.

“We want to see redevelopment and investment in properties, and we want to see quality development on the vacant lots that respects the history of the neighborhood,” resident Anna Seydel said during a Tuesday hearing.

Organizers also say historic status would help prevent demolition by neglect.

Neighborhood leaders have worked on gaining local historic status for the whole neighborhood as well as federal historic status, which could unlock tax credits for future redevelopment and preservation.

But opponents say historic status could inhibit and delay any future redevelopment, including on KC Life’s vacant land, while placing new costs and burdens on homeowners in the neighborhood. They say historic status is the wrong response to the KC Life concerns.

“I’ve spent 10 years making calculated decisions on what to do with my home, when to do certain projects, never thinking I would need to consider that my neighbors would ask me to sacrifice my own budget, my time and my decisions for their hatred of a company,” resident Julie Fast said during the hearing.

Development plans at risk?

Taylor Harrington, an attorney representing KC Life, said concerns about future development can be addressed through the city’s existing reviews and rules. She said historic status is unnecessary and inconsistent with the city’s existing planning documents.

The company says that it plans to redevelop its vacant lots in Valentine, including building dozens of new colonnade apartments along Southwest Trafficway that would be similar to existing apartments in the neighborhood.

“Some have asked why Kansas City Life has not moved forward with its plans for redevelopment,” Harrington said. “That answer is simple: We cannot move forward in face of this uncertainty.”

Harrington said that if historic status is denied, the company is prepared to move forward with its redevelopment plans under the existing standards.

But if it’s approved, the company does not see an immediate path forward and would have to go back to the drawing board to see if the plan would still be economically viable under the new regulations.

Harrington also says that the narratives around KC Life are false and points to still-standing buildings that the company has maintained or sold in Valentine as well as successful developments it’s been involved with around the country.

Council member criticizes demolitions

Council member Crispin Rea, Fourth District At-Large, lives in the proposed historic district. He said the city’s ethics commission ruled that he does not have a conflict of interest in considering the issue, and he has since been involved with both the neighborhood and KC Life.

Rea, who is not on the committee, spoke during the hearing.

“It is frustrating to see the extent to which my neighbors, people that I know, are divided on this and feel strongly about this,” Rea said. “I hope that no matter what the outcome is, folks in the neighborhood can come back together and continue to be the tight-knit neighborhood that we have had leading up to this point.”

One frustration, he said, was that KC Life began demolishing buildings in a way that was not productive, transparent or collaborative.

“There were many warnings along the way that we were headed into something like this if there was not increased transparency,” Rea said.

There have been many conversations along the way with officials, he said, where they have begged, asked, persuaded and pressured some movement on KC Life’s properties.

“I don’t think it was intended this way, but I’ll be honest, the comment that if this passes, the land’s suddenly not going to be developed is a bit insulting, and I don’t use that word lightly. It did feel like an ultimatum,” Rea said.

“I don’t think that was the intent, but it’s hard for me to assign the level of weight to that statement that you would choose, because we have been begging KC Life to do something with this vacant property, and I don’t think it’s going to be the historic that suddenly prevents that from happening.”

Bunch said he would encourage someone to mediate a conversation for a planning process that everyone can get behind, because he guarantees there will be common ground between the sides.

“If there is not progress on this, we have to take action one way or another, but I want to see … in concept, a development plan for the Valentine neighborhood on KC Life properties, that the neighborhood is able to provide input on,” he said.

Bunch said he wants to see a good-faith effort toward a collaboration between the parties to redevelop the properties, because he cannot stand to see the properties sit and have nothing done with them.

Rea has proposed an ordinance that the City Council is expected to consider that would call on city staff to create new maintenance standards for historic buildings.

This story was originally published October 29, 2025 at 3:45 PM.