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

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
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 » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:38 pm

Fair point, I don't usually read harbinger's posts, but nobody else is trying to make that argument

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 » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:08 pm

As someone who, again, is agnostic on the development benefits of a stadium anyway, I think it's at least clear that if you plop down a stadium in the middle of nowhere it's not going to cause an amazing new neighborhood to sprout up around it. We already see this at every baseball stadium that isn't surrounded by a vibrant neighborhood. Nobody is champing at the bit to live next door to a stadium just because sometimes baseball games are played there. Notably this thread is about whether the Royals should move to a downtown stadium, not whether a new stadium for the Royals could be used to build a new neighborhood from scratch in some other down and out corner of the city (even if harbinger did actually use the phrase "from scratch"), which is more what you're talking about when you suggest that there should be development all around Citifield. I think it's fair to entertain arguments that a stadium that is placed into a neighborhood where people already live or that could be made into a place where people would want to live (this goes for many of America's old downtowns, which are centrally located, typically have existing beautiful building stock, etc, but not for a site like the TSC or Willets Point) could help give that neighborhood an additional shot in the arm, although I don't know whether I fully buy it myself. That's a chicken and egg thing and I'm not sure how much credit stadiums deserve for developing neighborhoods vs how much credit neighborhood development deserves for getting a stadium built there. But I don't think Citifield is the smoking gun you're looking for here.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5292
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 18, 2015 3:34 pm

It's clear that a stadium doesn't directly lead to development.
Obviously the stadiums are fine where they are.
But would they benefit downtown more than the drawback of being a giant stadium downtown?

I just don't know. I would really have to see the numbers of building new next to the existing stadium vs building new downtown and what business owners near other downtown stadiums say. for example, if all the places next to the Cardinals stadium are bullish for the stadium that would help sell one in KC.

Say we can prove one would be a good idea

There's two locations that are clearly reasonable places to put one, each with their own drawback.
The large park site on Indep Ave has clear location issues but it's a dead zone today and has good access. it's also a great place to put parking garages in without annoying a lot of people.
The 18th/Vine location is a better neighborhood, overall better site, but requires forcing two entities to move, destroys a historical building and is much more likely to develop the location anyways.

To me the 18th/Vine location makes the most sense if a downtown stadium is a done deal, if hypothetically the city just is looking for where to put one. the claims for this site sold me on it over my idea for a good location. I like the idea of bundling into the project a brand new bus service center and yard for the KCATA

If people were iffy about supporting one and we needed an easy location I think the Indep Ave site is an easier sell, despite the drawbacks. There's no historic building or major facility to move to build.

The other possible locations seem like they're better locations for residential or office towers. I really dislike the idea of putting one along the north loop.

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 » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:18 pm

So... who's paying for this thing?

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 14937
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

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

Postby DaveKCMO » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:05 pm

WSPanic wrote:So... who's paying for this thing?


more direct taxpayer support is a non-starter for me.

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 » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:00 am

Let's see. The proposed football stadium in St. Louis is pegged at $1.1B. Now I don't know how that cost compares to a new baseball stadium at current prices, of course Yankee Stadium was $1.5B in 2009, but I can see that a cost would be maybe $672M (cost of Atlanta's new suburban stadium including parking, land, and infrastructure) for new. Now figure 20 years from now.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5292
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

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

Postby flyingember » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:44 pm

Atlanta's total stadium cost we'll be well above that. Count on that one being more like $800 million

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-go ... cos/npNGt/

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/11/1 ... sit-costs/
$350 million in road costs alone

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 » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:38 pm

Looks like the $672M is just for the stadium alone. It's the other projects and costs associated with or related to the stadium that are fueling the higher costs. The team is plowing in a huge (450M) mixed use development that is also affecting these other costs and projects.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5292
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

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

Postby flyingember » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:39 pm

$672 million is quoted as the stadium and roads cost in articles from March 2015. You had it right the first time.
I can't find it again but that price was deemed a joke, they keep expanding it and the price stays the same.

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 » Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:47 pm

There are a lot of projects tied to both the stadium and the adjoining mixed use development that have either been added or made bigger or estimated costs were too low. But the stadium itself and infrastructure related to it has not changed.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5292
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 20, 2015 9:45 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:There are a lot of projects tied to both the stadium and the adjoining mixed use development that have either been added or made bigger or estimated costs were too low. But the stadium itself and infrastructure related to it has not changed.

Read the articles I posted. Critical access bridges so people can get to the stadium have been going up in cost. It has been changing.

That's going to be part of the cost problem KC has. What is part of the project and what isn't? Its really easy to redirect "not stadium" costs onto the general budget. There's already a lot of work needed in any area we could put a stadium that we could do anyways.

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 » Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:43 am

Such as:

"Lee said the type of development originally zoned for the Braves site would have required similar, if not more, investments in infrastructure. But that assumes the entire site would have been sold and developed all at once.

“Infrastructure improvements associated with this development would have been required for any development on this site,” Lee wrote in an email."

"J.C. Bradbury, a sports economist at Kennesaw State University, said related stadium costs are difficult to count accurately because it involves projects that sometimes have been planned for years, but which take on greater priority when a stadium is built.

“But there’s no doubt that SunTrust Park is influencing the timing,” he said.

An example of that is the plan to build a $4.3 million firehouse in Cumberland. That project had been stalled since the Great Recession, but will now be constructed with 2016 special sales tax revenue.

“The station was planned since 2004 when we anticipated growth in the area, but due to the economic slowdown we held on to those plans,” Cobb Public Safety Director Sam Heaton said. “Now that we are seeing that growth, which does include the mixed-use around the stadium and additional offices and hotels, we need to add that station.”

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 » Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:04 am

Here's something to consider...

WHAT IF:

Building a downtown stadium STALLED downtown development by occupying vital space that is currently available for other, higher density uses? I'm serious. Why throw money at something that could hamper future development when current developments are already spinning momentum into future developments? Especially when that money could go towards other uses to further private development much more than a stadium could.

bobbyhawks
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3678
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm

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

Postby bobbyhawks » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:01 am

im2kull wrote:Here's something to consider...

WHAT IF:

Building a downtown stadium STALLED downtown development by occupying vital space that is currently available for other, higher density uses? I'm serious. Why throw money at something that could hamper future development when current developments are already spinning momentum into future developments? Especially when that money could go towards other uses to further private development much more than a stadium could.

There is still way too much empty or destroyable property in and around downtown for this to be a legit concern, in my opinion.

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 » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:34 am

Do you hold that property back from development, and how many locations, on the hope that a stadium happens? Much like a certain area of downtown that is quite popular now that didn't see the development for over two decades.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5292
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

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

Postby flyingember » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:59 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Do you hold that property back from development, and how many locations, on the hope that a stadium happens? Much like a certain area of downtown that is quite popular now that didn't see the development for over two decades.


More like a decade. The lease ends in 2030 so stadium planning will begin 3-5 years before. Early discussions in 2025, studies starting in 2026-27, picking a location and buying land/eminent domain in 2028, a tax to build in 2029 and construction in 2030-32

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 14937
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

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

Postby DaveKCMO » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:00 pm

harbinger911 wrote:THAT happened - you FAIL.


dude. cool the fuck down. now.

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 31, 2015 6:35 pm

harbinger911 wrote:
im2kull wrote:Here's something to consider...
WHAT IF:
Building a downtown stadium STALLED downtown development by occupying vital space that is currently available for other, higher density uses? I'm serious. Why throw money at something that could hamper future development when current developments are already spinning momentum into future developments?


WHAT and WHERE?
The 10 Square block area around/near 19th & Oak has so much surface parking it could take $2-4 billion in development to densely fill just that area alone. Downtown KCMO has large swaths of surface parking lots that would take $10s of billions to develop them all densely.
I can't think of any large area (other than perhaps the north loop) that a stadium could stall any "possible" future development.


Yes, I'm talking about directly in and south of the loop. Anything south of 17th I don't care about. But everything else is prime land for developments with actual density. Like the Hyatt being proposed. Future residental towers, etc. That's an extremely important part of KC that HAS to have high density in it's future if there's any hope of crossing out the freeway loop as a barrier.

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 31, 2015 6:39 pm

harbinger911 wrote:Petco and East Village were designed to spur residential development.
THAT happened - you FAIL.


Yawn. THAT happened IN SPITE of the stadiums development. And it happened nearly two decades AFTER the stadium was built. So no, you cannot attribute the East Village development to the stadium itself. You can attribute it to private developers seizing opportunity to develop an otherwise derelict area regardless of stadium construction that happened twenty years earlier.

and 95% of the development in that picture is from just the last couple of years.
You don't know squat. San Diego is my second home.

Then please explain how all those buildings that were built in the past few years, weren't actually built in the past few years. =D>
Last edited by im2kull on Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
taxi
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:32 am
Location: North End
Contact:

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

Postby taxi » Thu Dec 31, 2015 6:51 pm

im2kull wrote:
harbinger911 wrote:Petco and East Village were designed to spur residential development.
THAT happened - you FAIL.


Yawn. THAT happened IN SPITE of the stadiums development. And it happened nearly two decades AFTER the stadium was built. So no, you cannot attribute the East Village development to the stadium itself. You can attribute it to private developers seizing opportunity to develop an otherwise derelict area.

and 95% of the development in that picture is from just the last couple of years.

You don't know squat. San Diego is my second home.

Then please explain how all those buildings that were built in the past few years, weren't actually built in the past few years. =D>[/quote]
You two should get a room.

Happy New Year!


Return to “New Stadiums Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest