Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
Locked

Rolling Roof supporters claim that Kansas City could compete for a Final Four if the roof is approved. What do you think?

Yes
39
80%
No
8
16%
I don't participate in polls
2
4%
 
Total votes: 49

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

kevink wrote: The taxpayer contribution is 675M, not 425. The new events would come in new stadiums, too - this is a silly argument. The renovations may be somewhat cheaper than 2 new facilities, or 1 new/1 renovated, but not very much so, and the owner contribution is still abysmal in any case.

Count me as one who thinks the NCAA will never choose Arrowhead for a Final 4. A regional finals every 4 years in the Sprint Center sounds like a great deal to me, especially for our downtown. If we compete in the Final 4 game, we lose that likelihood, and lose some of the benefit of building the Sprint Center.
Two new stadiums would likely run about $1.1B to $1.2B ($400M to $450M for baseball and $700M to $750M for football, and those are realistic numbers for when the stadiums would actually be built).  So rehabbing and adding a rolling roof would appear to be a better alternative than that.  Having one new and one rehabbed will not pass.  Why?  Why would the Chiefs settle for a rehabed stadium if the Royals get a new stadium.

Why wouldn't the NCAA consider Arrowhead?  Kansas City could put a package together as well as any other city.  If you do not think so then you really do not have faith in the City or the region.

With a Final Four in KC we would also get a regional the year before - a bonus.  That should not hurt our chances for other regionals in a rotation.  And a Final Four in KC will definitely benefit Downtown way more than not having one at all.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 33839
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by KCPowercat »

I don't think a FF would hurt our chances at regionals but I also think it's highly unlikely they could fit Arrowhead to host a final four due to condensation, etc....which has already been said by the experts.  Still a Super Bowl and All-Star game are very appealing.
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kcdcchef »

KCPowercat wrote: I don't think a FF would hurt our chances at regionals but I also think it's highly unlikely they could fit Arrowhead to host a final four due to condensation, etc....which has already been said by the experts.  Still a Super Bowl and All-Star game are very appealing.
i do not understand what would be condensing, since, they stated yesterday they would strip the turf and dirt all the way down to the asphalt that is below the dirt now.

not overly inconvienent, since they strip the grass away every spring anyways.

even if it is just a super bowl and an all star game, fine by me!
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
kevink
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: MidtownKC

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kevink »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Two new stadiums would likely run about $1.1B to $1.2B ($400M to $450M for baseball and $700M to $750M for football, and those are realistic numbers for when the stadiums would actually be built).  So rehabbing and adding a rolling roof would appear to be a better alternative than that.  Having one new and one rehabbed will not pass.  Why?  Why would the Chiefs settle for a rehabed stadium if the Royals get a new stadium.

Why wouldn't the NCAA consider Arrowhead?  Kansas City could put a package together as well as any other city.  If you do not think so then you really do not have faith in the City or the region.

With a Final Four in KC we would also get a regional the year before - a bonus.  That should not hurt our chances for other regionals in a rotation.  And a Final Four in KC will definitely benefit Downtown way more than not having one at all.
Those numbers are complete bunk. Votes are done in today's dollars, not dollars 10 years from now. If Phoenix can build a brand new football stadium with every amenity conceivable (including a grass floor that rolls in and out of the stadium) for 450, and it opens this year, there's no way a new stadium here costs nearly twice that. Their price also included land acquisition, which a new football stadium at TSC would not have.

Construction costs are certainly increasing, but not at 25% per year, or the rate at which some of these numbers get tossed around.

But mostly we should focus on what the taxpayer contribution will be, and what they get for it in return.

I'm good with giving the Chiefs either a renovated Arrowhead or new stadium at TSC - whatever their heats desire, as long as they contribute at least 2x what they are doing now. Hell, 1/3 of their contribution won't even be their money - it comes from the NFL.
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kcdcchef »

kevink wrote: Those numbers are complete bunk. Votes are done in today's dollars, not dollars 10 years from now
but we are not voting now, earliest we would vote on new stadiums if april 4th passes would be 2007, no way to get new stadiums on a ballot this year, too big of a campaign.

if it is on a ticket in 2007, which, would never happen anywhere outside of narnia, then the ground does not get broken until 2008, earliest. after it is approved, which voters of this region will not approve new stadiums anyways, it is another year or even 2, to get the construction rolling. look at sprint center. at any rate, 2008 or 2009 to break ground, on 2 new stadiums, by then, would be over a billion, and we all know it.
kevink wrote: Those numbers are complete bunk. Votes are done in today's dollars, not dollars 10 years from now. If Phoenix can build a brand new football stadium with every amenity conceivable (including a grass floor that rolls in and out of the stadium) for 450,
so a stadium that broke ground 4 years ago in the middle of the dessert, not developed city land, cost 450 m and you think a new one in a downtown could be built for that in 3 years from now?
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 33839
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by KCPowercat »

SB & Allstar are fine with me as well.  I would think condensation would come more from not being able to completely seal arrowhead than the grass itself.
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Dear Lenexa:

Here are some quotes from you on this subject:

Supposedly there has been a tremendous amount of fan disatisfaction and complaints with some of these recent venues.  If you shell out thousands for a prime front and center seat and still can't see for shit due to the crappy angle - you probably are going to have a word or two for the NCAA.  Its not just the distance from the court - the seating angles in football stadiums are not suitable for bball.  Yes there is a lot of money to be made, but I don't think the NCAA will want the Final Four to continue developing a reputation as the major sporting event where the fan is gauranteed a shitty experience.

Television and corporate sponsorship, plain and simple.

Actually when they started going to the football domes - the stated objective was to allow more fans of the teams to go, not to make more money.  They have a lot of corporate pukes and media types and what not, that hog a lot of the tickets so the thought was that if they had more seats, they could get more actual fans in and make it more like a real college basketball game atmosphere.  It is becoming increasingly obvious that it made it even less like a real college basketball game atmosphere.

Yeah but the difference in revenue is minor in the bigger picture and that increased revenue is comming at the expense of the reputation of the event.

Its a few million out of a multi-billion event.  Hardly a cash cow.  Money wasn't even the motive for doing it in the first point.

reasonable, logical points once again hit the inpenetrable brick wall.  Its like carrying on a debate with the professional spin doctors on political TV shows that just ignore anything inconvenient to their own argument rather than address it - only less talented, and not as well-spoken.

Way to ignore everything posted ahead of you.

Bullshit, he still hasn't addressed my points and neither have you.  You both chose to simply restate your position without any acknowledgement of what else was said.  Of course we all know what your acknowledgment will be "show me proof! show me proof! all appease the great and wise chef's whim's regardless of whether he stays on track or pays the least bit of attention to what anyone else is saying"

You points were answered by:

Postings by bahua:

Yeah. They want to pack in 80K people for the same price, and a worse view/experience. It makes sense for the ticket-sellers, but we fell for it.

Sure, but wouldn't that sponsorship be there anyway, regardless of the venue? If they can make more money for hosting the event in a massive terrible stadium, and people will pay it, then what reason do they have to change?

Plus there were posting by the Chef and myself to counter you.  You chose to ignore what the three of us said and still stuck to your same argument.

You chose to ignore that the NCAA is only soliciting stadiums for the Final Four.  The Final Four still sells more tickets than an arena could hold.  And other statements concerning money.  Money talks, most of this money goes to the member schools.  These schools need as much money as they can get so they do not have to cut back on athletic programs in other sports.  Football and basketball are the money makers for colleges.  They lose some of this money and sport programs are cut back.  So as long as the money is flowing they will stay in stadiums and bypass arenas for the Final Four.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by shinatoo »

kevink wrote: Those numbers are complete bunk. Votes are done in today's dollars, not dollars 10 years from now. If Phoenix can build a brand new football stadium with every amenity conceivable (including a grass floor that rolls in and out of the stadium) for 450, and it opens this year, there's no way a new stadium here costs nearly twice that. Their price also included land acquisition, which a new football stadium at TSC would not have.

Construction costs are certainly increasing, but not at 25% per year, or the rate at which some of these numbers get tossed around.

But mostly we should focus on what the taxpayer contribution will be, and what they get for it in return.

I'm good with giving the Chiefs either a renovated Arrowhead or new stadium at TSC - whatever their heats desire, as long as they contribute at least 2x what they are doing now. Hell, 1/3 of their contribution won't even be their money - it comes from the NFL.
First off let me go on the record a a NO vote. Second, it sounds like you are drinking Keitsmans coolaid (as these were his points on Tuesday and you have KevinK as your screen name). Hear are my issues with your numbers (I work in construction and estimate commercial construction cost often)

The new Arizona Cardinals Stadium was bid three years ago. So with the unusual rise in construction cost over the last 3 years (10% a year) we can add another 148.95 million to that number for todays dollars. Arizona, like Kansas, is a right to work state, you can pay workers whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate the minimum wage. In Missouri, on publicly funded projects, you have to pay prevailing wage, which means you eather have to hire union or pay what the union is paying (typically not 5.35 an hour). When I estimate a job in Missouri I usually add 20-25% to cover the labor. For this example I will keep it low at 20% because there is higher percentage of unskilled work that goes into a new building. This brings our total building cost in todays
Missouri dollars to 718.74 million.

If you decide to go new you will have 18-24 months to do the design, plus the election would probably be in November, so lest say on the good side this thing would be bid in two years. In two years construction will have slowed back down as most of downtown will be wrapping up, so we will estimate another 7% increase a year.....

This brings the Grand total to $822.9 million.

Lets say the Baseball stadium will cost 2/3rds of that number or $534 million.

For a grand total of $1.357 billion dollars!!

The guys that come up with these numbers ( you have heard of HOK? the world premier sport architect firm) know what they are talking about.

By the way, I don't work for HOK or do any business with them.
User avatar
kevink
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: MidtownKC

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kevink »

shinatoo wrote: First off let me go on the record a a NO vote. Second, it sounds like you are drinking Keitsmans coolaid (as these were his points on Tuesday and you have KevinK as your screen name). Hear are my issues with your numbers (I work in construction and estimate commercial construction cost often)

The new Arizona Cardinals Stadium was bid three years ago. So with the unusual rise in construction cost over the last 3 years (10% a year) we can add another 148.95 million to that number for todays dollars. Arizona, like Kansas, is a right to work state, you can pay workers whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate the minimum wage. In Missouri, on publicly funded projects, you have to pay prevailing wage, which means you eather have to hire union or pay what the union is paying (typically not 5.35 an hour). When I estimate a job in Missouri I usually add 20-25% to cover the labor. For this example I will keep it low at 20% because there is higher percentage of unskilled work that goes into a new building. This brings our total building cost in todays
Missouri dollars to 718.74 million.

If you decide to go new you will have 18-24 months to do the design, plus the election would probably be in November, so lest say on the good side this thing would be bid in two years. In two years construction will have slowed back down as most of downtown will be wrapping up, so we will estimate another 7% increase a year.....

This brings the Grand total to $822.9 million.

Lets say the Baseball stadium will cost 2/3rds of that number or $534 million.

For a grand total of $1.357 billion dollars!!

The guys that come up with these numbers ( you have heard of HOK? the world premier sport architect firm) know what they are talking about.

By the way, I don't work for HOK or do any business with them.
I'm not Kietzman - you can easily find out who I am by looking through archives. And, I'm also an architect, and know a thing or 2 about construction.

First off, the AZ deal included land acquisition - not an issue at TSC. Zero that out. Land acq for the Sprint Center is 25M, and it's about the size of land needed for downtown baseball should we ever want to do that. That aspect WILL go higher, especially the longer we wait, and the hotter DT gets.

Second, we don't know the structure of the AZ deal. It could be a fixed bid 3 years ago, or could be cost-plus. My understanding is that they just had overruns to push it to the 400+ range, so my guess is cost-plus primarily. If so, that means the prices are current, not 3 years old.

Third, as I mentioned, the AZ stadium has every unbelievable amenity known to sports. We may decide, as with the Sprint Center, that we don't need all of those items here. The Sprint Center is shy of 300M, when American Airlines in Dallas was over 400M, and opened 5? years ago. I'm sure KC will be happy with the Sprint Center, and it will get us the Big 12, and NCAA events with a somewhat-less-extravagant deal. We wouldn't be building Coors Field here - instead, it would be more on the scale of PNC Park or Comerica Park.

Fourth, it may or may not be prevailing wage - depends on who the contracting agent is. Even so, union deals are not *always* more expensive. Typically, yes, but not always so. In St Louis, we work on union projects that are actually cheaper than non-union, interestingly enough.

The numbers you quote would make this more expensive than stadia in far more expensive markets than KC, and I simply do not buy that. Our market is pricier construction-wise than many Sun Belt cities, but not more expensive than coastal cities with constrained land and labor markets.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by shinatoo »

Well Kevin, i suppose we could argue numbers all day. I think you would agree though that it will be more expensive to build a new Arrowhead in 2009 than it was to built the Cardinals stadium last year.

But fundimantality we are on the same page. To much tax money, not enought owner money. I have set my standards, I will vote for no more than 50% tax money for renovation and no more than 70% tax money for building new.
User avatar
kevink
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: MidtownKC

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kevink »

shinatoo wrote: Well Kevin, i suppose we could argue numbers all day. I think you would agree though that it will be more expensive to build a new Arrowhead in 2009 than it was to built the Cardinals stadium last year.

But fundimantality we are on the same page. To much tax money, not enought owner money. I have set my standards, I will vote for no more than 50% tax money for renovation and no more than 70% tax money for building new.
Agreed. Although, I would vote for more $ for the Royals than the Chiefs. The Chiefs make so much money in this town, and the NFL will give them essentially free $, so I expect more. The Royals do have an inferior business model, and I'm stupid enough to want to give them more help, even though they are inept. I'm hard-pressed to support spending more than 50% for the Chiefs, in any arrangement.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by shinatoo »

kevink wrote: Agreed. Although, I would vote for more $ for the Royals than the Chiefs. The Chiefs make so much money in this town, and the NFL will give them essentially free $, so I expect more. The Royals do have an inferior business model, and I'm stupid enough to want to give them more help, even though they are inept. I'm hard-pressed to support spending more than 50% for the Chiefs, in any arrangement.
True. I will ammend my stance to be only for the Royals. Chiefs should put in 50% either way, unless they build a facility that truely supports our convention buisenss like the Edward Jones dome does in the Lou. Walkable in downtown and covered/retractable.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Hey, Lenexa, did you read this?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 227674.htm

A highlight:
The NCAA went to football stadiums on a permanent basis in 1997, and there are no plans to reconsider smaller arenas. The ticket demand is too great. Each team in this year’s Final Four receives about 4,000 tickets. The NABC gets 3,500. Other tickets are committed to corporate sponsors.

Already, those ticket commitments will exceed the seating in almost every arena currently built.

The points you raised were valid but a leason to be learned is that money trumps anything else just about every time a decision is made.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kcdcchef »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Hey, Lenexa, did you read this?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 227674.htm

A highlight:
The NCAA went to football stadiums on a permanent basis in 1997, and there are no plans to reconsider smaller arenas. The ticket demand is too great. Each team in this year’s Final Four receives about 4,000 tickets. The NABC gets 3,500. Other tickets are committed to corporate sponsors.

Already, those ticket commitments will exceed the seating in almost every arena currently built.

The points you raised were valid but a leason to be learned is that money trumps anything else just about every time a decision is made.
well, akp, lenexatokcmo is just going to come back with you or i failed to read his tired worthless meaningless points 3 pages earlier on the subject. in fact, according to lenexatokcmo, the ncaa does not care about making the 6m plus more they get off using domed stadiums.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Highlander
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 10169
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by Highlander »

kevink wrote: Agreed. Although, I would vote for more $ for the Royals than the Chiefs. The Chiefs make so much money in this town, and the NFL will give them essentially free $, so I expect more. The Royals do have an inferior business model, and I'm stupid enough to want to give them more help, even though they are inept. I'm hard-pressed to support spending more than 50% for the Chiefs, in any arrangement.
I've enjoyed reading this informed and civil discussion and agree that the Royals are in need of more help than the Chiefs, their problems self-inflicted notwithstanding.  I also agree that it is insane to spend that much money on a renovation when the obvious venue for baseball, recognized now by almost every city in the US, is in the central business district.

Nonetheless, how do you educate an incredibly intransigent public on this issue?  At times, I wonder if the average Kansas Citian ever travels outside the city to see how other cities have evolved in the last 10-20 years.  I am hoping that the renaissance that is going on downtown will open eyes and change attitudes but, as you say, the time to invest in a downtown stadium is now when land prices still make it attainable (having said that, in spite of all that is going on downtown, it is still losing jobs to the suburbs).  As much as I would love to see a downtown stadium and see it as the only sane solution to the sports dilemma facing KC today, the momentum is clearly in the opposite direction....still toward the suburbs.
User avatar
kevink
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: MidtownKC

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by kevink »

Highlander wrote: Nonetheless, how do you educate an incredibly intransigent public on this issue?  At times, I wonder if the average Kansas Citian ever travels outside the city to see how other cities have evolved in the last 10-20 years.  I am hoping that the renaissance that is going on downtown will open eyes and change attitudes but, as you say, the time to invest in a downtown stadium is now when land prices still make it attainable (having said that, in spite of all that is going on downtown, it is still losing jobs to the suburbs).  As much as I would love to see a downtown stadium and see it as the only sane solution to the sports dilemma facing KC today, the momentum is clearly in the opposite direction....still toward the suburbs.
It's a tough and good question. Hopefully, IMHO, we'll have a chance to revisit it after Tuesday. Of course, if 1&2 pass, this is moot.

But, I do think generally people are smart, and will support a well-thought out initiative. Recent examples include the Sprint Center, Union Station & several infrastructure-related votes. Also understand that any sports-related tax will have probably 1/3 of the voters against it no matter what it is.

That all being said, it seems to me that a regional initiative that spreads the cost out, and limited it to 10 years or so (25 is crazy for sports facilities, since they will need major new $ in 15-20 years), with a fair contribution by the owners, would stand a good chance of passing. People do have civic pride, do generally like pro sports, and want to support something. But it needs to be intelligent and fair.

As to whether people here get out and see other cities, I think you might be surprised. All they'll really need to do starting next week is drive to STL, and see what they have done, and is in the works. If not, San Diego is a great example, as their stadium moved from the 'burbs, and so are many others DT that have had a positive impact. An awful lot of Kansas Citians go to Chicago each year to see the Cubs, for example, and understand how that works.

I'm not one who believes a DT stadium would be a "savior" or the ultimate piece. But, it's one more piece that would help balance out the DT scene, and I think it's important for a city/county/region to maximize its assets, especially those that are publicly funded. 81 games a year, with 1-3 million visitors, plus other events, should be located with some spinoff ED in mind. That's the beauty of where the Sprint Center will be, vs where Kemper was. Development is not a zero sum game, and the beauty of vibrant places is that they create more business than just stand-alone entities. Witness the DT boom in Denver, which not only hasn't slowed, but seems to be accelerating.

But in the end, if KC really wants to stay suburban, b/c of either nostalgia for Kauffman or ease of parking, then that's what we'll have to live with. It won't be the end of the world, but it would certainly be a large missed opportunity.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Official: Arrowhead Final Four Speculation

Post by KCMax »

I was at a BBQ last night with some project managers for a heating and cooling company, they're doing work at the Sprint Center. One guy said he heard that at the press conference for the rolling roof, county officials said that it would only take $100,000 to heat up Arrowhead. The project manager I was talking thought that was ridiculous and said it would be closer to a million dollars each time they wanted to heat that place up.

Its ridiculous that there are so few details worked out at this point.
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag
Locked