What major project does downtown need most?

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:35 am

Including only speculative projects(no PAC, condos, or KC Live!) what project does the downtown area need most? What would most benefit the downtown area?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:02 am

well, i voted for the arena, because the stadium was not even close to a proposal (I talked to someone from EB). It'd be nice, but the arena should be the first priority

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:57 am

Just because it is not "close to a proposal" is not a reason it should not be first. We are starting from scratch with most, if not all, of the projects here; why the arena first?

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:20 am

I think building the Royals stadium downtown is one of the least important. Our current arena is in bad shape and in a horrible location. At least Kauffman stadium is still one of the best stadiums in MLB. Plus I still hate that proposed location.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:23 pm

Thank God I was sitting down when I read that Devin did not vote for the office tower!

I voted for the fortune 500 company downtown because, in addition to Block, another high profile businsess would get major attention from everyone, and probably do more good in reversing the perception of the urban core than anything. Addtionally, it would provide more revenue for the city, spur more development, and add more folks in the core that would patronize KC Live. It would also add another possiblity for sponsorship of the arena and/or the ballpark. Plus, more potential residents for the lofts and other housing downtown.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:16 pm

tat2kc wrote:Thank God I was sitting down when I read that Devin did not vote for the office tower!

I voted for the fortune 500 company downtown because, in addition to Block, another high profile businsess would get major attention from everyone, and probably do more good in reversing the perception of the urban core than anything. Addtionally, it would provide more revenue for the city, spur more development, and add more folks in the core that would patronize KC Live. It would also add another possiblity for sponsorship of the arena and/or the ballpark. Plus, more potential residents for the lofts and other housing downtown.

I think we are starting to get through

to him!

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:36 pm

A few thoughts about this thread.

"A new arena next to KC Live!"
We need a new arena, Kemper was a disaster...locaton, location, location...

"A new 40+ story office building"
sure...let's do it, maybe Waddell & Reed will buckle..

"A Royals stadium across from Crown Center/Union Station" (WINNER********************************)
Anyone that's ever been to a real urban stadium (Wrigley, Camden Yards..) would vote for this, it's a no-brainer and exactly what KC needs to keep the Royals in KC and bring downtown ALL the way back back into the big-time. 82 home games times 25-35 thousand people walking to downtown destinations...it's a CANT MISS

"A Royals stadium somewhere else in the downtown area"
See, the "somewhere else" bothers me... look at Kemper's location...it destroyed downtown's centrality ...negated it altogether. And for what? Whoever made this decision was part of the debacle of downtown, all at taxpayer expense. I DON'T trust this city to put the stadium in the best place, there's too much money involved and someone will get rich and the stadium will only go in a terrible spot.

"The relocation of a Fortune 500 HQ"
See 'A new 40+ story office building'

"Massive riverfront mixed-use redevelopment and beautification"
Just ANOTHER STUPID idea that will ONLY de-centralize downtown. They are talking about the area between the Paseo Bridge and the ASB Bridge. This is WAY OUT OF WALKING DISTANCE FROM DOWNTOWN and a very stupid idea. The leaders here are ignoramouses (sic?). Yes that land does need to be developed, but NOT at the expense of downtown. Again...the stupid KC mentality of sprawling development versus true urban critical mass is what this 'riverfront' development is about. And someone again wants to get rich, this land can wait until a PRIVATE developer comes in and does it, the city should not be involved, sell the land if they have to.

"Towering bronze statue of Mayor Kay Barnes in front of City Hall"
No statue.

Post by **mean** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:01 pm

I would only like to say that Kemper is in a great spot, the city just never followed through with ensuring the rest of the bottoms were brought up to speed. If the west bottoms were a thriving neighborhood now, we'd all be thanking the City Gods for putting it where it is.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:00 am

I would only like to say that Kemper is in a great spot, the city just never followed through with ensuring the rest of the bottoms were brought up to speed. If the west bottoms were a thriving neighborhood now, we'd all be thanking the City Gods for putting it where it is.

You are truly eeeevil if you believe that, or just want to be controversial. There isn't a city official alive that will take credit for Kemper's location. What part of Iowa are you from? The city was NOT supposed to "follow through" - the city wasted it's money building Kemper there and NOBODY wanted to invest in the West Bottoms. What are you refering to when you say " the city just never followed through with ensuring the rest of the bottoms were brought up to speed"????????

At least you have enough sense to say that " the city never followed up"..... they never do, they can't be trusted. Kemper should have been built downtown. The Big 12 might still be here, the FFA convention might still be here and the Kings NBA club might still be here. We can all thank the " city gods" you refer to for the white elephant known as Kemper that was built in the DEAD West Bottoms. By-the-way...for all you Johnny-Come-Latelys to KC... the west bottoms was TOTALLY dead up until a few artists started buying warhouses 3-4 years ago. prior to that is was and has been a wasteland since Kemper was built.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:29 am

whoa...defensive?

I think he is implying that the West Bottoms actually has(had) a lot of potential to be a very hip urban neighborhood.

When you place projects like zoos, stadiums, headquarters, arenas, etc. in a city, it if foolish to expect these projects to magically transform a neighborhood. That is precisely the reason the city is getting involved with KC Live!, KCK got involved with Village West, and StL is doing the stadium village. Had the city provided a better vision for the West Bottoms, it could have been an appropriate location for a major attraction.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:57 pm

I think LyRiCaL GanGsTa is pretty much nailing it in his two previous posts.

Post by **staubio** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:04 pm

Honestly, though, couldn't you see many of us making the very same decision? In discussing a vison for a downtown stadium, plenty of people have suggested locations closer to the jazz district. On the surface, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. Perhaps activity would grow to link the area with downtown -- there is no way of knowing.

I don't think the decision to build Kemper where it is was, in itself, among the worst decisions made in this city. It could have been good intentions toward a revival of the bottoms that led to its placement there. Perhaps those good intentions weren't backed up with a good plan. Obviously, nothing started the ball rolling. The shame is that nobody took a step to develop around it. Perhaps additional development should have been in marriage with the Kemper project.

...which begs the question -- if it did so little for the bottoms, what will it do for downtown? I maintain that there is but one good reason to have the arena downtown, and I've said this plenty of time: enhancing the convention sell. How often will we use the space, though -- I have no idea. To me, though, downtown is prime real estate. It will be the pinnacle of urban density. Do we need to take up a city block for a facility that will sit empty most of the time?

We need baseball! Lets leverage Kemper as best we can and get something started in the west bottoms. It isn't impossible. Meanwhile, we can focus our downtown energy on a new baseball stadium that will actually bring people downtown a hell of a lot more often.

...and yes, I've only been in Kansas City for one year. I don't really think that matters. Perhaps we need some minds that are less jaded taking part in the fray. I'm struggling to see how hostility toward newcomers adds to the discussion any. This city had enough of a "legacy" mentality already.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:29 pm

The issue with an "empty block" could concievably be used with the ballpark also. there are many weeks/months that this could sit empty. An arena at least has the prospect of being used year around. Not bashing the ballpark, just playing devil's advocate..

Staubio- we need newcomers to help bring the city to its potential! It is important for those of us who've been here a while (11 years for me) to bring in others and learn what works in other places, and what newcomers feel we are missing here. So, at least from me, Welcome and glad you are here!

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:59 pm

Here are the main reasons used for building a new arena:
Kemper has a reputation from SOME as an outdated dump not suitable for Big XXII, concerts or whatever else.
--Kemper's current location has no synergy between events, tourists, shopping, hotels, restaurants, etc.
--A large arena near Bartle hopes to create that synergy which will make KC a more desirable convention destination.
--The South Loop is heavily blighted and an arena would create activity in the area.
--KC is getting passed up on the national concert wire by newer venues in Oklahoma City, Des Moines, and Omaha (I am not sure the validity of the "competitive cities" argument as Kemper is still larger than any new arenas in these regional cities)

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:49 am

Honestly, though, couldn't you see many of us making the very same decision? In discussing a vison for a downtown stadium, plenty of people have suggested locations closer to the jazz district. ......

I don't think the decision to build Kemper where it is was, in itself, among the worst decisions made in this city. It could have been good intentions toward a revival of the bottoms that led to its placement there. ......

...which begs the question -- if it did so little for the bottoms, what will it do for downtown? ....

I don't think anyone would make the decision today to build an arena in the West Bottoms ( If Kemper wasn't there already), even with some of the cool renovations going on there now. It doesn't jive with downtown, no flow... It was stupid decision then and I'm sure someone got paid big bucks and ripped off the city then. Probably some landowner in the West Bottoms that pulled strings and gave kickbacks to the council that OKed it. I am very cynical because this city USED to be WORLD CLASS. Denver, Seattle, Indianapolis, Portland, Atlanta, Dallas, and Minneapolis were PUNK cities, total jokes... when KC was KING in the 30's, 40's & 50's. NOW these cities have ALL passed us by. Why? Because we allowed idiots to take control of the KCMO gov't and school district. We NEED a freakin' revolution, wake up!!! The decisions we make now affect the future. Why would anyone want to put a new baseball stadium OR a new arena in a non-established, non-thriving, NON-DEVELOPED neighborhood? Do any of you LIVE in 18th & Vine? No and very few people want to live there. Why not put a stadium in the center of it all and watch the ADDITIONAL development from that tremendous success blow up to 18th & Vine and the east side of downtown. Suburbanites are not afraid of CC and Union Station. They would come there in a heartbeat, drop the kids off at Union Station and go watch a game. Those same suburbanites are totally freakin', insanely-afraid of east downtown & 18th & Vine and will never go there...period. It is undeveloped and still non-safe, it's that simple. Nobody lives there for that very reason. I know there are a few places in the 18th & Vine area that are being developed but are still very suspect.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:08 am

I think he is implying that the West Bottoms actually has(had) a lot of potential to be a very hip urban neighborhood.

Trailer, many areas have the potential to be a hip, urban neighborhood, so what? Putting Kemper there was the single-most stupid error that helped decentralize and destroy downtown KCMO. The West Bottoms is still light-years away from becoming a viable, tourist/convention area, don't you agree?

(disclaimer: the following is an example of sarcasm from a loyal KC Downtown supporter) That drive down the hill on 12th Street and then through the ghost-town maze of dark, deserted, empty warehoused, one-way streets was a real winner with the masses in the 70's & 80's when we lost every single convention and event associated with KC and Kemper. Way to go KCMO city leaders!

Let's not make another stupid mistake again.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:38 am

this thread has been viewed 486 times to date, yet there are only 27 votes cast....or 5.5% of all viewers vote

what is up with that?

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:52 am

LyRiCaL GanGsTa wrote:Denver, Seattle, Indianapolis, Portland, Atlanta, Dallas, and Minneapolis were PUNK cities, total jokes... when KC was KING in the 30's, 40's & 50's. NOW these cities have ALL passed us by. Why? Because we allowed idiots to take control of the KCMO gov't and school district. We NEED a freakin' revolution, wake up!!!

Exactly!!!

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:30 pm

Thanks Que, my dad used to tell me stories about KC being the "San Fransisco of the midwest" and KC was also known as "The Little Apple" because it was the only midwest city that resembled New York. The 1952 flood photos show KC was very dense, totally urban and we have completely lost that. I truly believe that in the last 40 years city gov't has had a strange mentality to put 10 feet of grass and a surface parking lot in front of every new building and in allowing criminals and crazies to take over entire parts of downtown without any policeing. I hope we can bring this city back, I think we can by making downtown the very best it can be...urban, dense, a critical mass and then suburbanites WILL come back.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:44 pm

I thought Manhattan, KS, was known as "the little apple."

KCRag Forum