Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:23 pm

Wow...

If you think that's the worst part of town you have a lot of the city to see. It's not even in the top 10.

This is my top 5
Around Nicholson Ball Diamond Park
Around Independence Plaza Park
North on Manchester Trafficway from I-70
Along Coal Mine Rd north of Blue Parkway
Central Paseo Industrial (not the far north, not the far south, around 9thh to 12th and centered on Tracy)


I've been in a lot of industrial areas in a lot of the city and easily 80% of the neighborhoods. I am very rarely interested in not exploring and leaving a place quickly.

And for no development, did you forget there's a youth baseball complex going into Parade Park?
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-co ... 536247.htm

It also doesn't make it worth to listen to you when you make personal attacks to distract from being wrong.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby im2kull » Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:41 pm

flyingember wrote:
harbinger911 wrote:Just look at all of the blue surface lots and unused/underused parcels.

Image


Yes, taking land from a Children's hospital is a project that people can get behind.



The scale of that proposal is off horribly. The DT arena takes up 4 square blocks. An MLB stadium more than likely needs at least 9...

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12052
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:58 pm

"We're talking about 1/2 billion dollar investment"
By the time a downtown stadium is built, probably 20 to 30 years from now, the cost would be to the north of that amount. And given how fast arenas are replaced the just might be forced to build a new arena at the same time.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12019
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby FangKC » Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:59 am

flyingember wrote:Wow...

If you think that's the worst part of town you have a lot of the city to see. It's not even in the top 10.

This is my top 5
...
Central Paseo Industrial (not the far north, not the far south, around 9thh to 12th and centered on Tracy)
...


It might not be ideal now, but I predict in the future this area will become more desirable. The north end of the neighborhood is already an actively-planned development zone anchored by a university.

If I were a very wealthy developer, this is the area I would start targeting for future redevelopment--buying up parcels. I predict this is where future big office projects will go--especially after the Loop is further built out. There are many advantages. Some of the blocks are already mostly cleared. There are few historic buildings left that you have to work around. Some of the existing buildings that would be demolished are simple warehouse buildings. A developer would have the whole block to work with in many cases, and could build structured parking underground and in the centers of the block. It's surrounded by freeway access, and it would be fairly easy to extend the streetcar into the neighborhood in a couple of places. It's already right next to the Downtown Loop.

I also think at some point it will be cheaper, and easier, to buy and assemble parcels in Paseo West than in other locations to do larger redevelopment projects. Here there would be less resistance than a neighborhood like the Crossroads, where there would be more of a fight because a developer might want to tear down an existing building. High rises would do less harm here because you don't have to worry as much about adjacent historic properties, and you could design more freely to incorporate parking, retail, and office needs. Of course one would need the developers to be willing to do that sort of planning, and want to create a walkable neighborhood and desirable product. And you would need the City to stand firm on zoning and not allow suburban type development.

It would probably be better, and easier, to locate larger employers in Paseo West than trying to cram them in parts of the downtown Loop and the Crossroads.

If I were developing this neighborhood, I would build out residential at the same time as office and retail. It sort of reminds me of the area being developed now around Union Station in Denver.

http://tinyurl.com/hmtkx3a

http://tinyurl.com/nb97mys

http://tinyurl.com/p3n4s2g

http://tinyurl.com/qjbcr6x

shinatoo
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5782
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lee's Summit

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby shinatoo » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:00 pm

Over 670. Move 35 to the west bottoms. Uses wasted land, corrects a highway planning mistake. If it has a rolling roof can be used for convention space.

Spectacular DT view.

Would make more sense, from a convention standpoint, if it were a domed football stadium.

Image
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Sun Dec 13, 2015 11:01 am

Any bottoms plan has to contend with the ultimate NO entity.

The railroads. They can hold up any plan for years by themselves

Maybe I-35 should be there, doesn't mean there's any chance if ever will be.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby im2kull » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:32 pm

harbinger911 wrote:The point is you don't pick a spot that's isolated and dead that has no synergy with other amenities.


Wait, isn't THAT exactly what a stadium is? There's a density of ZERO for almost 8/10ths of the year at a downtown stadium. It's a huge waste of space.

Do you think the Sprint Center has helped downtown more, or the P&L district?

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12019
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby FangKC » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:02 pm

I don't think you can really isolate them that much. It's the combination of the two that has brought vitality back. But of the two, I would say P&L District, and that is mostly because of the grocery store. It also added three additional entertainment venues (movie theater, revamped Midland, Copaken stage) that are non-bar/restaurant. The other thing P&L did was make new-construction apartment towers possible. When done, P&L will be responsible for getting five new mid-high-rises built downtown: H&R Block tower, One Light, Two Light, Three Light, Four Light, and the new building north of the former KC P&L tower.

Sprint Center is kind of different than a stadium, since it didn't result in a sea of parking lots around it. It uses existing downtown parking garages, and really the only big surface lot it probably created (at 12th and Grand) will likely get developed itself in time. The LIVE stage at P&L also has created a gathering place downtown that gives the City more marketing value than almost anything else.

Having Sprint Center and the three additional entertainment venues creates a lot of foot traffic--especially on nights when there are simultaneous events at several of them.

User avatar
WinchesterMysteryHouse
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:54 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby WinchesterMysteryHouse » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:01 pm

This is pipe dreaming of the highest order.
Kauffman isn't going anywhere.
Downtown stadiums are logistical nightmares.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:19 pm

WinchesterMysteryHouse wrote:This is pipe dreaming of the highest order.
Kauffman isn't going anywhere.
Downtown stadiums are logistical nightmares.

suburban stadiums are too

Look at Atlanta's new stadium. It's the project where people figured out the scope keeps growing but the price doesn't. And now a key way to actually get to the stadium won't be built for the first year.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12019
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby FangKC » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:10 am

We should also be reminded of the politics of stadium placement. The stadiums were located where they are because they needed support from eastern Jackson County to finance and build them. Since that time, the number of residents in eastern and southern Jackson County (Independence, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Lee's Summit, Grandview) has increased, while the population of KCMO in Jackson County has remained the same, or dropped some. Thus, if the county is involved in financing any future stadiums, or deciding where they go, then Jackson County residents outside of KCMO probably have more influence now than when the sports complex site was originally selected and built.

So, any downtown stadium would have to be supported by the Jackson County legislature and voters. If they don't support it, the only way it could happen is for KCMO to finance the stadium alone, and to do that, there would also have to be support from residents in the Northland.

The other political force would be the State of Kansas, who might attempt to lure both teams across the state line using STAR bonds.

Certainly it would come down to what the team owners wanted. They might not care about a downtown stadium. And yes, they might be given a better deal in Kansas.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12052
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:43 am

Fang, I would agree with the above. And I would add one reason why the stadiums were placed there is because two stadiums were built. Don't forget the in-thing at the time was "multi-purpose stadiums". And to help minimize the cost for two stadiums they were built on land that was already publicly-owned. So for those who are trying to place a downtown stadium try to factor in what the potential land costs would be decades from now. And if the downtown area continues to redevelop as it has those land costs are sure to escalate.
And don't forget the politics of just moving the team, especially if the team, and Jackson County, doesn't want to move. What would bethe cost of buying out the current lease if the team attempts to move before it expires?
A third item to consider is what kind of revenue source will a downtown stadium offer to take the place of the teams current parking revenues. For a small market team while not a major part of the overall team revenues parking does bring in much needed funds to help with the bottom line.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:32 am

Wow, it's a bigger source of cash than I expected.

It's $10 parking per car per game for baseball. 82 home games that's $820. A row of 122 spots that's 100k earned in one season.
$1.50 per square foot seems to be a reasonable cost estimate for repaving. I'm sure they get a bulk discount so that's a fair number.

A row of 122 spots is 33810 square feet with aisles. That's $50,000 to repave it, maybe double or triple that with painting. The lifespan of concrete is in decades when you only have cars on it 25% of the year.

Over ten years the facility earned $1 million from those 122 spots and spent maybe 10% of that on maintenance.

Parking clearly pays for the maintenance and labor to take the money with a lot of profit on top.

So obviously this shows there needs to be a replacement for this revenue. One idea is shared parking passes. The royals give out passes that can be used in a bunch of lots and garages, you're assigned one based on ticket location. The team doesn't have to pay for the maintenance or labor and they share the revenue with the owner of the parking. If you show up with a single game you pay nothing to the team for parking but your ticket is a little higher. You may have to pay to use a garage out of pocket or you can try and park on street. Just like going to the Sprint Center today where they can provide VIP parking however they want but there's no dedicated garage.

User avatar
WSPanic
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3160
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby WSPanic » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:23 pm

Not to endorse or argue with what anyone says here - because I honestly can't muster the will to care about this again - but $10 is way too low. May as well up that to $20 per spot by the time this is built.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby im2kull » Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:35 pm

harbinger911 wrote:
im2kull wrote: Wait, isn't THAT exactly what a stadium is? There's a density of ZERO for almost 8/10ths of the year at a downtown stadium. It's a huge waste of space.


No, that's not what new urban stadiums are.
While baseball stadiums are empty most of the year, they have become centerpieces for newly developed trendy neighborhoods from scratch.


So they look pretty..and are visual"Centerpieces"...and that's it. Yep, a total actual economic waste. Zero density for nearly 300 days a year. I want real development, not fluff that looks good in drawings but sucks when the actual facts pour in. Pretty things don't sustain redevelopment and future development. They might spur a moment of adoration, but that's it.

harbinger911 wrote:East Village/San Diego
Image


You're really over generalizing by posting this picture and claiming that Petco Park is responsible for the development that occurred in the East Village. Petco Park is a well documented example of how building new ballparks downtown doesn't actually create a positive economic impact on their own, and are even slightly negative at best. Petco Park has been around for nearly TWO DECADES now, and 95% of the development in that picture is from just the last couple of years. San Diego has many things that attract people to live downtown and in the East Village, and Petco isn't one of them. There's been a huge amount of monies poured into redeveloping that area, outside of the ballpark, and that's what's just recently spurred the new developments. Here's a few good articles and quotes on the subject.

Downtown San Diego: on the rise
http://sandiegodowntownnews.com/downtow ... -the-rise/
The simple fact is that San Diego County no longer has the large land tracts available for development, as was the case in the past. We can no longer grow out —we must grow up. The fact of the matter is that Downtown is one neighborhood that is happy to accept the needed density to accommodate that growth. But population growth is only part of the story when it comes to Downtown’s new boom. Downtown San Diego is also seeing this influx of investment because America and, in fact, the world, is in the midst of an urban renaissance and renewal that is remaking our economy and our neighborhoods. Increasingly, people of all ages — from millennials to baby boomers — are flocking to urban centers like Downtown San Diego in search of a quality place that offers the ability to live, work and play in a vibrant and diverse community.


Petco Park's broken promise
http://ourcitysd.com/business-economics ... 8coTf.dpbs
No, the ballpark has not created a wealth of new jobs. Only 29 more workers were employed in downtown in 2011 compared to 2004 — Yes, 29.

“There is strong evidence that the bulk of the benefits from East Village revitalization have been captured by private developers, whereas many of the costs have been borne by San Diego residents,” the book states.

Critics also point out that the revitalization started with the expansion of the convention center, and may have continued without the ballpark. “Very few of the condos were built because of the ballpark,” Mike Aguirre, the former city attorney, told the San Diego Reader in 2010.

Critics also say the ballpark has failed to transform the East Village into a vibrant community. A number of storefronts remain empty. Last year, Our City San Diego profiled one business — Wine Steals — that left the ballpark village because there wasn't enough business.


City Promised New Money Would Pay for Ballpark; It Can’t Prove It Does
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/l ... e-it-does/
When voters OK’d the construction of Petco Park in 1998, boosters of the project promised that new condos, hotels and shops nearby would drum up enough new cash to cover the cost of the ballpark. But a decade after the Padres’ first game there, the city’s spending millions to pay off the stadium. The other pitch for Petco Park, beyond revitalizing East Village, was that the developments around the ballpark would cover the city’s costs. And it’s not clear that’s actually happening.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:56 pm

A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.

longviewmo
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby longviewmo » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:07 pm

flyingember wrote:A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.


You do realize they just built the stadium in the parking lot of the old one?

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:32 pm

longviewmo wrote:
flyingember wrote:A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.


You do realize they just built the stadium in the parking lot of the old one?

I didn't check. But it does show that a stadium being new doesn't make a difference with development in an area. Good test case for this.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2273
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby phuqueue » Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:13 pm

flyingember wrote:
longviewmo wrote:
flyingember wrote:A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.


You do realize they just built the stadium in the parking lot of the old one?

I didn't check. But it does show that a stadium being new doesn't make a difference with development in an area. Good test case for this.

This is a ridiculous point. Nobody is arguing that development follows a stadium wherever it goes (why go all the way to New York to discredit that argument when you can just look at the TSC?), just that a stadium can be a valuable anchor to bring vibrancy to a neighborhood that has other things going for it too. Willets Point doesn't "look" like an industrial park, it basically is an industrial park, and it has been for decades. It's a dump, figuratively and in some places literally. Nobody is going to live next to a stadium just because there's a stadium there, when their other neighbors are junkyards and waste disposal plants and auto repair shops. This idea that just because it's NYC there should be development all over the place reveals a total lack of familiarity with the city. Willets Point is prone to flooding, its only transit link to the rest of the city is the overcrowded and unreliable 7 train, and it literally doesn't have sewers. The guys who own those junkyards and waste disposal plants and auto repair shops also don't want to sell. Despite all this, actually, the city is pushing to redevelop the area, so you might yet see development spring up around the stadium. I'm not sure whether the Mets deserve any credit for it though.

I'm actually agnostic myself as to the development benefits of a downtown stadium, but it's a little bit ludicrous to use Citifield as an example of how a downtown stadium won't spur development. There's nothing about Willets Point that is "downtown."

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Postby flyingember » Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:25 pm

phuqueue wrote:Nobody is arguing that development follows a stadium wherever it goes


harbinger911 wrote:While baseball stadiums are empty most of the year, they have become centerpieces for newly developed trendy neighborhoods from scratch.


that sounds a lot like a claim of development following stadiums wherever they go, or really close to that

I disagree with it but clearly the current location hasn't driven any development. Next time the city builds new, maybe it's time to try a new location?


Return to “New Stadiums Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests