Why a Downtown Stadium Didn't Get Off The Ground

[aknowledgeableperson]

Many of the DT stadium supporters may think I am trying to gloat, but I am not.  This tread may not last long but it is meant to be serious.

Why was the KC area not willing to get behind a downtown stadium?

Discussion of the idea started too late.  For some a downtown stadium was not a radical idea, but for many, many more it was.  Drastic change does not happen overnight, it takes time.  The discussion of this idea should have started 8 to 10 years ago.  Then a stadium idea could have been discussed as part of the rebirth of downtown instead seen as something that was not needed now that downtown appears to be doing quite well.

When the Downtown Council presented their idea (it was not a plan) they should have had an area designated so that discussion could have been more specific instead of the generic discussion of a vague "downtown experience".  TSC was a known item to many, a downtown stadium was generally an unknown.

The DTC should have had a more concrete grasp of a future cost of a stadium, not some questionable cost based on old data.  At least the TSC plan had known costs to the taxpayer.

The downtown stadium idea presented by TSC was an isolated structure.  It would have been received better by many if it was part of a redevelopment plan for a larger area, like St. Louis, instead of an individual building plopped down in the neighborhood.

Many voters were not willing to give up on TSC.  All new stadiums recently built replaced aged stadiums that were in far worse shape than the Royals stadium or replaced multipurpose stadiums.  Both of these types are now considered obsolete, whereas Royals Stadium was not seen as obsolete but as a building that could be rehabbed, much like many of the buildings downtown that have been rehabbed in the recent past.

Many voters could not get past the idea of why build a new stadium for the Royals but the Chiefs only deserved a rehabbed stadium.

For some voters, by voting yes the issue became settled.  Voting yes brought some closure to the issue.  By voting no just prolonged the agony.


The DTC and many downtown stadium supporters could be accused of not dreaming big enough.  A new downtown stadium in the middle of a 16 to 20 block area with rehabbed, rebuilt, or newly constructed buildings.  A new football complex at TSC with a retractable roofed stadium.  A development plan along Blue Ridge Extension between I-70 and Raytown Road.  Maybe include the road north of TSC between I-435 and Blue Ridge Extension, and Raytown Road between the same roads, and maybe extend this development farther east and west along Raytown Road.

Where was their "Vision"?

[ComandanteCero]

Michael, i think this thread's for you.

[AllThingsKC]

Also....perhaps you can add the teams owners to the list.  David Glass said he was against a downtown ballpark.  So, who knows whatever message that sends to people.

But, overall, a great post, AKP.

[Deleted User]

This wasn't even worth reading. Some people won't admit they're wrong when they know they are.

We got screwed, y'all.

[shaffe]

I wish that the vote would have been defeated.  Not because I hate the TSC, or think that the royals should be DT or nowhere.  But because I wish there just would've been more options.  I wish that jackson county would've come to the owners and said "hey, we're trying to figure out how to make this work out amazing for ALL parties at the end of this lease.  you've been here 40 years, bear it a little longer, and we'll have something awesome on the table for ya".  that would have bought the city a long time to really look into ALL of the options.  obviousely the most desirable option is the royals downtown in the middle of another entertainment district with the chiefs out at TSC in a brand spankin new stadium.  but perhaps that couldn't happen, we'll never know.  i just wish there would have been more options out there, and part of that is the leadership that was behing a DT baseball stadium being a little slow on the issue.  i honestly think that in 10 years we'll look across the state and wish that we had taken the time to look at all of our options before deciding on a route.  the renovation option would've been there later on down the road.

[AllThingsKC]

i honestly think that in 10 years we'll look across the state and wish that we had taken the time to look at all of our options before deciding on a route.  the renovation option would've been there later on down the road.

It would have been hard to get a DT ballpark...since David Glass said he was against it because "the majority of our fans don't want it."  ---    And, that was probably relfected in the outcome of the vote. 

[skim82]

The outcome of the vote was not from people who wanted to keep Kauffman at the TSC.

It was the outcome of a $2million dollar fear-mongering campaign that suggested that KC could lose both teams if something is not done. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

Also....perhaps you can add the teams owners to the list.  David Glass said he was against a downtown ballpark.  So, who knows whatever message that sends to people.

Yes, Glass did not help.  But a bold plan could have helped build support among the public and persuade him to the other side.  Basically, it was too little too late.

[AllThingsKC]

Yes, Glass did not help.  But a bold plan could have helped build support among the public and persuade him to the other side.  Basically, it was too little too late.

I agree.  But, for the past few years, it seems as if the whole KC attitude was, "I don't want a downtown ballpark....where would I park?"  A lot of people in KC had that attitude, and it would have been hard to overcome.

[Burton]

Discussion of the idea started too late.  For some a downtown stadium was not a radical idea, but for many, many more it was.  Drastic change does not happen overnight, it takes time.  The discussion of this idea should have started 8 to 10 years ago.  Then a stadium idea could have been discussed as part of the rebirth of downtown instead seen as something that was not needed now that downtown appears to be doing quite well.

Blame Clever.

At least the TSC plan had known costs to the taxpayer.

Yeah, but the taxpayer didn't know what exactly they were getting in return for 225 million dollars that the White Sox didn't just get for 68 million privately funded dollars.

[tat2kc]

How about we hold off on downtown stadium discussions for a decade or so, until the new leases are due for renewal?

[KCMax]

Glass could have been persuaded to come downtown. He basically wanted the best deal available to him. IF there could have been a way to finance a downtown stadium with minimal contribution by him, he would have jumped at it. I still think that would have been a bad deal for taxpayers. But I do think Glass would have done it. He is good friends with Astros owner Drayton McLane, who has a downtown stadium. Dan Glass was quoted as saying downtown baseball was a great idea. They simply wanted to stay at TSC because it required very little contribution.

[BadBIrdlb]

How about we hold off on downtown stadium discussions for a decade or so, until the new leases are due for renewal?

By then they will have started knocking down all the brick downtown staduims and moving them back to the suburbs. 

[doogieslap]

Great post above, max.   Had anyone gone forward with DT, Glass's contribution wouldn't have been much more than it is now.....and it would have left the city and others to foot the vast majority of the bill.

What also hurt the DT argument is that there was never a settled site.  And without a settled site, how can anyone do a reliable cost-analysis of a new park?

I agree with the top.   This process should have started 10 years ago.  And if that falls on the lap of Cleaver, then so be it.  It seems like perspective has largely come into focus about parts of his tenure.

[knucklehead]

Two things killed downtown baseball.

First, David Glass said he didn't want a downtown stadium. It would be sucide for a politician to back a new stadium proposal and tax that was opposed by the team.

Second, Glass claimed the vast majority of Royal's fans he talked to wanted to stay at Kauffman.

If Glass would have supported a downtown stadium, it would have happened. He opposed it and it didn't happen. It is actually pretty simple.

[sethyg]

Two things killed downtown baseball.

First, David Glass said he didn't want a downtown stadium. It would be sucide for a politician to back a new stadium proposal and tax that was opposed by the team.

Second, Glass claimed the vast majority of Royal's fans he talked to wanted to stay at Kauffman.

If Glass would have supported a downtown stadium, it would have happened. He opposed it and it didn't happen. It is actually pretty simple.

Not to stir the pot at all, but, I never saw that quote from Glass.  I only heard it as hearsay.  Does anyone have a link to it?

And who exactly is Glass talking to?  When was the last time regular fans got to tell Glass their opinion?  My thought is that he's talking to fans that are his friends and of course they want to do whatever he wants.

My opinion is that Glass, being the cheap owner we've learned that he is, didn't want to bother with a downtown stadium because it would be too much money out of his pocket.  In addition, why would he care about contributing to a revitalized downtown Kansas City when he lives in Arkansas?  To me, it's actually pretty simple when you think of it in those terms.  But what's the worth in debating it now.  Glass got what he "wanted," which was really to save his own money.

[KCMax]

He said it several times on 810. My guess it was season ticket holders and Royal Lancers. The older crowd.

[sethyg]

He said it several times on 810. My guess it was season ticket holders and Royal Lancers. The older crowd.

Thanks Max.

[mean]

Many of the DT stadium supporters may think I am trying to gloat, but I am not.  This tread may not last long but it is meant to be serious.

Cool, I'll play. I'm sure we can keep this rational and reasonable.

Discussion of the idea started too late.

Probably, but two things. First of all, if talk had started 8-10 years ago, the idea might have been squashed before it ever got anywhere, especially if it had been part of the original P&L. Only just now has the regional perception of downtown KC been elevated to a point where such a thing would have been feasible.

In any case, the lack of prior planning shouldn't have been a show-stopper. If the county wanted to do what's best for the city, rather than what's best for the teams, they would have negotiated a much smaller package and reanalyzed the situation in 3-5 years, using the intervening time to see if downtown retains or increases its viability and desirability as a stadium location, and given the public more time to absorb the idea.

When the Downtown Council presented their idea (it was not a plan) they should have had an area designated so that discussion could have been more specific instead of the generic discussion of a vague "downtown experience".

Agreed. They had a pretty good presentation, but nothing concrete. What's worse, they abandoned it as soon as the Glorioso smear machine started revving up.

At least the TSC plan had known costs to the taxpayer.

Well, known in theory...

The downtown stadium idea presented by TSC was an isolated structure.  It would have been received better by many if it was part of a redevelopment plan for a larger area, like St. Louis, instead of an individual building plopped down in the neighborhood.

Well, it certainly could have been. It was never even allowed to progress that far!

Many voters could not get past the idea of why build a new stadium for the Royals but the Chiefs only deserved a rehabbed stadium.

Voter ignorance is not a very good excuse. The point is, the K is great but in the wrong place, while Arrowhead is great but in the right place. Baseball grew up in pre-WW2 urban areas and has a longstanding urban tradition. Football grew up after WW2 in the car-age and has a longstanding suburban tradition. Had those supposed rich pro-downtown landowners invested $1.6 million in "voter education" efforts, I daresay voters might have different perceptions...of course, there never WERE rich, greedy, pro-downtown landowners...

For some voters, by voting yes the issue became settled.  Voting yes brought some closure to the issue.  By voting no just prolonged the agony.

Anyone who voted yes thinking they'd bring closure to the issue is probably misguided. I expect they will need more money for further renovations well before the tax expires. But, maybe they won't. We'll see.

The DTC and many downtown stadium supporters could be accused of not dreaming big enough.  A new downtown stadium in the middle of a 16 to 20 block area with rehabbed, rebuilt, or newly constructed buildings.  A new football complex at TSC with a retractable roofed stadium.  A development plan along Blue Ridge Extension between I-70 and Raytown Road.  Maybe include the road north of TSC between I-435 and Blue Ridge Extension, and Raytown Road between the same roads, and maybe extend this development farther east and west along Raytown Road.

I completely agree. Frankly, I think the DTC completely bungled the whole thing, and then ran and hid from the Glorioso smear machine, raising the white flag of surrender and admitting defeat without even offering any kind of fight. If this is any indication of how the DTC plans on fighting for downtown in the coming years, we might as well forget about them and find some real visionaries.

[KCMax]

If the Sprint Center had been built by now and hosting events, we'd have a much better chance of having downtown baseball.