A DT ballpark north of the loop?

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:49 am

Downtown stadium site discussed in letter

By STEVE PAUL

The Kansas City Star

Another move has been played in downtown stadium bingo, and this one seems to favor the north side of the central business district for a potential economic boost.

In response to objections raised over a possible baseball stadium in the Crossroads Arts District, City Manager Wayne Cauthen has stated that he now prefers a site on the North Loop.

That location spans roughly four blocks around Seventh and Wyandotte streets. The site overlooks the north side freeway and the River Market area.

It could represent a significant redevelopment spark for surrounding blocks, downtown interests say, building on the steamrolling revitalization occurring on the south side of the downtown loop.

Cauthen's comment, in a letter dated Dec. 23, came as news to Buzz Willard of Tower Properties, the Commerce Bank affiliate that owns some of the North Loop property envisioned for a stadium.

â€œA safe assumption is that part of the site that's needed would include our ground,â€

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:52 am

The north loop site has always seemed like a viable spot, albeit potentially a little trickier traffic-wise. However at least one viable building would have to go in order for a stadium to fit on that site. I know that in order to build a stadium downtown something would have to be torn down. But as you can see in the photo below, in order to fit something comparable to Kauffman on that site, we'd have to lose at least one of the following:

The Historic Suites Lofts
The Phoenix, and possible one or two other active Garment District buildings
The block of in-use office buildings in the southeast part of the site
[/list:u]

It just all depends on where in the site you stick the stadium. If you put it in the far northeast corner, you lose Historic Suites. If you center it, you lose Historic Suite's swumming pool, the Phoenix, and an office building. Move it a bit further south and you lose Garment District buildings and other office buildings.

Don't get me wrong, this is one of the potential sites I think would be work. It has a lot going for it. It's a big gaping hole with several bars and restaurants within walking distance, it's right next to the freeway, it would have an urban feel despite the buildings seen from the stands being shorter, and it would be far better able to take advantage of existing parking garages. I'm just showing what we might have to lose with this site to make it work.

Maitre D · Post by **Maitre D** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:50 pm

Again: do we really care what some starving artists in the "CrossRoads" think? Hell no. They have no pull in having this stopped anyway, tell them to stick it.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:59 pm

pittsburghparoyal wrote:Again: do we really care what some starving artists in the "CrossRoads" think? Hell no. They have no pull in having this stopped anyway, tell them to stick it.

one of the hottest neighborhoods in the country as named by many national publications. They has pull for a reason.

Post by **chrizow** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:06 pm

yeah, let's not listen to the core group of folks who got our downtown resurgence started.

if we slapped a new K on top of all their work, that would be ridiculous. there are so many places in KC that need a stadium-shot in the arm, and it isn't the crossroads.

and PA, there are people who work and live in the Crossroads that make more bank than you or i ever will, so calling them "starving artists" is not only wrong, but obviously pejorative. i doubt too many "starving" people are living in $300,000 lofts. they are lawyers, ad execs, financiers, doctors, whatever.

now, the artists that sell their works in the crossroads galleries may well be starving artists. but they probably live somewhere else in the city.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:39 pm

Well put chriz.

The only problem I have with a northeast loop location is the view. Can't face southwest toward the skyline or else you get the sun in the batter's eyes. So that leaves us looking at a freeway interchange and the paseo bridge.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:44 pm

As I"ve said before, build the ballpark OVER the N Loop. It will tie City Market into the CBD as one seamless area.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:50 pm

I think someone mentioned before the dangers of someone driving a truck bomb under it.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:00 pm

KCNorthlander wrote:I think someone mentioned before the dangers of someone driving a truck bomb under it.

That can happen under Bartle Hall too. Or practically anyplace in NYC, which has subways under it.

That kinda paranoia comes from those who pander to fear.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:01 pm

ppa, i'm sorry but learn some respect. Those are good people, they are really helping the city, they add life to downtown and they pay city taxes. They help make downtown what it is today.
They are NO different than you are, other than some of them are respectful and less closed minded.

ComandanteCero · Post by **ComandanteCero** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:06 pm

I agree with Ignatius, build it over the highway and connect the River Market and the North Loop, the proposed parking lot is too close of a fit (even after tearing down buildings around it). And the security thing is just paranoia (a bomb powerful enough to do harm to a suspended structure over the highway could just as easily be driven next to the stadium and cause equal if not greater damage). It's time to be innovative, connect the Loop and the River Market!!!

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:10 pm

pittsburghparoyal wrote:Again: do we really care what some starving artists in the "CrossRoads" think? Hell no. They have no pull in having this stopped anyway, tell them to stick it.

Typical trash talk from you, man. It's hard to have constructive discussions about city issues with your unthoughtful comments pulled out of the air.

PowerCat, if you want to keep this board alive with people who want to have constructive discussions, critical or booster, you won't keep those who are making a difference if the board is mostly just those who want to rant pointless nonesense.

This could be a better forum if it could attract those actually involved in making things happen in the city. But if detractors who have nothing to contribute run this board, the do'ers will not post and the detractors will succeed at what they wanted to accomplish.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:26 pm

ignatius wrote:
KCNorthlander wrote:I think someone mentioned before the dangers of someone driving a truck bomb under it.
That can happen under Bartle Hall too. Or practically anyplace in NYC, which has subways under it.

That kinda paranoia comes from those who pander to fear.

Maybe so, but I suspect that the city would veto such a location for that very reason. It's a bit different than Bartle Hall due the concentration of people in one spot.

The problem with finding a location really drives home the lack of forward thinking involved in surrounding the CBD with interstate highways. I love the suggestion for the southern leg of the loop (to become a tunnel) but not sure this would work on the north due to the topography. On the south leg, the walls of the the tunnel are already built but on the north, the highway is not as deeply set of confined making it a bit tougher to cover. A tougher problem would be that the topography slopes towards the Missouri River making the northern edge lower than the southern. The northern edge would have to be built up to make it all level.

Why do we even need two interstate routes around downtown? Couldn't we just ripout the northern leg of I70 and route all traffic around the south and then, on the west side of downtown, let it exit south to rejoin I-70. That creates all the space you need for a ballpark and then some. The part of the highway between Paseo Bridge and Broadway is a bit superflous anyway.

BVC · Post by **BVC** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:02 pm

After more consideration, I would love for the site to be either the North Loop, East Loop, or even east of Charlotte or McGee. The Crossroads doesn't need to be ruined by a St Louis or Detroit style mass development that ruin the fabric of the city. The current and future inhabitants of the Crossroads are more important to the health of downtown rather than a stadium. Not only that, the underground press that the Crossroads is getting as one of the hippest urban areas in the country isn't too shabby.

Also, would a Westport or south of Crown Center location work? I think we have a lot of options and we should consider every location possible in order to garner the greatest interest for the stadium.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:05 pm

Highlander wrote:
ignatius wrote:
KCNorthlander wrote:I think someone mentioned before the dangers of someone driving a truck bomb under it.
That can happen under Bartle Hall too. Or practically anyplace in NYC, which has subways under it.

That kinda paranoia comes from those who pander to fear.
Maybe so, but I suspect that the city would veto such a location for that very reason. It's a bit different than Bartle Hall due the concentration of people in one spot.

Bingo. Plus no one is going to be driving a truck down a subway tunnel.

Otherwise I love the idea. I am strongly opposed to any crossroads location.

KC may be a decade or so behind other cities, but here is our chance to leapfrog them and put a major attraction in a location that doesn't disrupt the urban fabric but adds to it.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:20 pm

Someone can easily drive a truck next to most ballparks too. Again, it's pandering to fear and America has go to stop that shit. As soon as you change your plans for the sake of fear, you have let the terrorists win.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:59 pm

Well there is pandering to fear and then there is common sense.

But anyway to keep the topic on track, you are right there is too much of that going on in the US today.

Critical_Mass · Post by **Critical_Mass** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:14 pm

Isn't the idea to build a smaller urban-scaled ballpark, much like Wrigley or Fennway? I thought they were looking at 25,000 seater or something. It wouldn't require a footprint the size of Kauffman, though there still may be need for demolition (or if it's a historical structure, maybe it could be incorporated into the stadium).
Anyway, regarding terriorist plots against the Royals, I don't think it's the city's job to worry about that. Only government & military structures are now designed w/ that type of security in mind.

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:27 pm

Well, terrorism or no terrorism, any discussion of building a stadium over the north freeway is moot because the topography of the north freeway would make building over it nearly impossible. I think the people who keep talking about covering the north freeway assume it's already in an open tunnel like the south freeway. It's not. It would be a project of probably a billion dollars or more to completely rebuild the freeway trench just to create the ability to build such a gimmick.

Driving in from north of the river this afternoon I tried to envision a stadium at that site and I really liked the image I saw in my head. Someone with good photoshop skills ought to take a crack at it.

eliphar17 · Post by **eliphar17** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:42 am

This is how I envision it - having the stadium go to 9th Street doesn't work without tearing down the new garage at 9th and Central or the buildings just west of the New York Life building. This site would easily be one of the most dense of any in the MLB in terms of immediate surroundings. (Exciting! People would realize KC really is a big city!) (The stadium used is Coors Field, with alterations, but still to scale.)