Anti-Arena Campaign

Post by **chrizow** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:34 am

i agree with KC on this. really, major league sports often, like it or not, distinguishes between "Big League" cities and minor cities. Number of teams is another indicator.

Major league sports are just, in my opinion, part of a total package that includes good arts, shopping, nightlife, etc that makes a city attractive, both to residents and to companies.

without major league sports, KC would basically be another OKC or Omaha or Des Moines. there is nothing wrong with those places, but they play a secondary role to KC economically and (arguably) culturally.

having all the pieces of the puzzle makes a city more attractive and desirable for everyone. KC has much of the puzzle, but lacks a vibrant downtown and has a serious sprawl problem. we have the arts, the sports (for now), etc.

as a parallel, look at where the sports teams are going and look at what is happening to those places. Charlotte, Arizona, Florida, etc. They are exploding. it may be a chicken and egg situation, but i think commerce and sports and cultural institutions add together and make a city vibrant.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:22 am

chrizow wrote:i agree with KC on this. really, major league sports often, like it or not, distinguishes between "Big League" cities and minor cities. Number of teams is another indicator.

Major league sports are just, in my opinion, part of a total package that includes good arts, shopping, nightlife, etc that makes a city attractive, both to residents and to companies.

without major league sports, KC would basically be another OKC or Omaha or Des Moines. there is nothing wrong with those places, but they play a secondary role to KC economically and (arguably) culturally.

having all the pieces of the puzzle makes a city more attractive and desirable for everyone. KC has much of the puzzle, but lacks a vibrant downtown and has a serious sprawl problem. we have the arts, the sports (for now), etc.

as a parallel, look at where the sports teams are going and look at what is happening to those places. Charlotte, Arizona, Florida, etc. They are exploding. it may be a chicken and egg situation, but i think commerce and sports and cultural institutions add together and make a city vibrant.

LA doesn't have an NFL franchise, but that hasn't stopped people from moving there. Until a few years ago, Houston had the same number of major pro teams as KC and Buffalo; which city's population grew at the fastest rate compared to the other two? Detroit has all four major sports, yet people continue to move away. Denver and Phoenix didn't have NHL or MLB teams until the past decade, and their population grew significantly before their arrival. Why? The reasons I've always read are jobs, climate and cost of living. Boomtowns such as Charlotte get franchises because a lot of people have already moved there; it's not the other way around.

Unless you're a die-hard sports fan, factors such as a job opportunity, climate or proximity to friends and family probably will decide where you live.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:34 am

KC0KEK wrote:Huh? I'd like to see some proof that entertainment and sports are key factors that companies consider when deciding whether to leave or move to downtown. Parking, public transportation, proximity to employees' homes and the price of office space are the factors that companies generally cite when reporters ask them to explian their decision.

I wasn't talkin' about downtown on this one, I was talkin' about sports and entertainment in general. We could have many more companies in KC, but the overrall perception is we're less exciting as a Minneapolis or a Denver. If we lost our sports and arts, no matter how great our parking and public transportation is, we'd lose opportunities to keep or recruit new companies to the area.

As far as downtown entertainment, companies left downtown for Crown Center and the Plaza because they were pedestrian friendly and close proximity to restuarants and shopping. I can almost bet that H&R Block wants an entertainment district near their new headquarters. I can remember some KC law firm that wanted to be close to entertainment, and that was one deciding factor for them (near PAC)?

Post by **mean** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:48 pm

It's about quality of life and having MLB is important to me and my family as well as the Zoo, WOF, Union Station, Nelson and so on. I am not the only one that feels this way.

No, but you're in the minority. Also, the MLB is the only thing you mentioned which asks for subsidies yet pays its employees more than anybody here will probably ever make.

I'm not getting any further into this....you rant about unresearched opinions but I have yet to see any research on either side.

Then you haven't looked. I asked for facts from others and have seen none, specifically so that when someone asked me for facts I could drop a fat load of them. A good place to start would be this article from the Pitch. If that's too local for you, I will commence the load-dropping either tonight when I get home or tomorrow.

Anyway, I love the city. We all do. We all want what is best. When determining what is best, reason goes a lot farther than emotion.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:47 pm

KC0KEK....it's pretty easy to sit back and ask for proof of how companies decide where to move when it's such a subjective matter....what should I do, phone the Top 500 CEO's and ask them what they factor in when they want to move?

Here is one article that speaks on company relocation:

http://www.facilitycity.com/busfac/bf_03_04_cover2.asp

specifically it mentions:

Quality of Lifeâ€”To many companies improving the quality of life for their employees is an important consideration. Companies look at factors such as the access to quality housing, low crime rates; shorter commute times; quality education at the primary, secondary and college levels; abundant quality day care; and access to high quality health care when evaluating potential new communities. These requirements must also include a wide range of choices in cultural, recreational, religious, housing and education opportunities. The character and personality of a community needs to be explored in order to be sure there is a "good fit" between the culture and values of the firm and those of the new community.

Another (first sentence)
http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/tpl/sec4.htm

Specifically about Boeing moving to Chicago:
http://www.realestatejournal.com/reloca ... owski.html

"When Boeing Co. was making its decision to relocate to Chicago from Seattle in 2001, quality-of-life information about the lifestyles available here was one of the determining factors," says Mr. O'Connor. "We have a section of our site called The Good Life that provides information about the colleges that students at particular high schools went to, what neighborhoods those high schools were located in, and recreational activities as well."

Also you can't simply compare number of franchises in cities vs. growth rate...everybody knows the population is shifting from the NE to the SW....

I'm not saying we should simply open up the vault and let everybody come grab a handful but this crazy talk of shutting off all public subidies for corp. and teams and facilities is unreasonable to say the least. Yes, like SF with the Giants, we should make sure it makes sense....but let's not look at CA as an example....just look what they are going though right now.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:30 pm

You can’t compare KC to SF, come on! Listen, it’s this simple when it comes to KC. If we want the things that make this city great or new things that will make this city better, WE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM. I’m not saying a new baseball stadium should be funded entirely from tax money, but with the economics of baseball, there is not an owner in the world that is going to spend 200 plus million on a stadium after on top of loosing 20 million a year and after spending 100 million on a team that will never pay for itself unless that owner (Glass) sold the team to someone that plans to move it out of town. Sure this is a lot of money, but having MLB in KC leaves a dramatic economic footprint in this town. Probably more than any other MLB town out there. I don’t think people realize how much national exposure we get from the Royals, Chiefs etc and how many tourists visit KC because of the Royals and then find all the other stuff there is here and return to the city again possibly even to live.

KC is already one of the lowest taxed major cities in the country. Because of this and the fact the nearly half the city is in another state we are having problems. Kemper is a joke, our transit system would be rejected by Tulsa, our stadiums need a ton or work or replacement, our zoo is right there with Topeka’s etc. Sure there are good things going on too, but I’m am getting tired of why KC shouldn’t invest in itself.

Tax money or not, you are putting a lot of people to work and spurring a lot of development. KC boomed during the depression, because KC taxed itself and built tons of major public buildings like City Hall, JaCo Court House and Muni, and the city was still able to build all the other big towers too. Do you ever think P&L and Fidelity and Bryant went up because developers thought KC was on a role and was the place to be, regardless of the economy?

I’m kind of rambling here, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

If the 2 million people in this town contributed 20 bucks a year through a metro wide tax, we could do all the stuff that other cities are doing and yea, it would be an emotional thing because it would be sweet to be proud of KC again and have the rest of the country take notice.

The plaza and BBQ are nice, but it’s getting old. And a 500 million dollar tornado is the answer? Sometimes I really really don’t understand this town and wish I could personally fly every single one of it’s residents to Denver for a weekend.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:42 pm

thats KCK with the stupid tornado. KCMO is a different story. maybe someday we'll be known for doughnuts also

We need some kind of a monument though. Anything to help us get more publisized than STL or any other town our size or less.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:29 pm

KC wrote:KC0KEK....it's pretty easy to sit back and ask for proof of how companies decide where to move when it's such a subjective matter....what should I do, phone the Top 500 CEO's and ask them what they factor in when they want to move?

Gosh, if we're going to spend several hundred million to build or upgrade sports facilities, I sure hope that someone would survey CEOs about the top factors that they consider when relocating. In fact, that's exactly what analyst firms do.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:53 pm

you are asking the users of this forum for proof....it's obviously not our "speciality"

and in no way am I asking for upgraded and new facilities just for new companies...2Millions people are asking for it for their everyday quality of life.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:38 pm

I WANT KANSAS CITY TO BE THE ABSOLUTE BEST!!! Jobs, housing, schools and roads alone won't do it. KC would just be another Overland Park. It's the sports teams, performing arts and museums/attractions which make KC stand above the rest! Use some damn common sense people! What the hell do you want for this city?!?!
Actually, don't fund these things. JOCO will get them and it will be more convenient for me.

Royals Fan · Post by **Royals Fan** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:56 pm

Yuch!

eliphar17 · Post by **eliphar17** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:27 pm

KCDevin wrote:We need some kind of a monument though. Anything to help us get more publisized than STL or any other town our size or less.

You can't be serious...the Liberty Memorial isn't enough?

"In 2000, the US Congress passed a law introduced by Missouri Senator Kit Bond (Rep.) officially naming the Liberty Memorial the only World War I memorial and museum authorized by the USA." -skyscrapers.com

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:35 pm

heck yes, Liberty Memorial is only 300 and some feet tall! The arch is 2 times that then some, we need something OVER 630ft that is a monument. Just not making it important enough to put a height limit on it.

eliphar17 · Post by **eliphar17** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:21 pm

Then slap a nice brass plaque on the KCTV tower, because there's not much out there in the way of monuments-to-be (especially those of the 630+ feet variety).

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:25 pm

I thought of that, but then itd be a huge target, and not for tourists.

baystateroad · Post by **baystateroad** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:01 pm

â€œI'm not getting any further into this....you rant about unresearched opinions but I have yet to see any research on either side."

"Then you haven't looked. I asked for facts from others and have seen noneâ€

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:30 am

baystateroad wrote:The most glaring omission--IT STOPS AT 1995. Why? Why is 1995 such a magic number? Why that specific random time period--80-95? I would take it to mean that it's at that point when the numbers and trends started to work against their "research". It looks like they (whoever the hell "they" is) began with a premise, rather than a hypothesis, and simply worked to prove it. The time period 1980-1995 just happened to be the time period that fit and supported the basic premise they were looking to prove. Hardly the way credible "research" is conducted and represented.

I agree. The trend for downtowns in America that seen a major population decline from 1980 to 1995 is everywhere...with or without stadiums (look at downtown KC). Maybe it was crime or safety? Or maybe the suburban trend? Anyhow, now these planners of sports venues are re-inventing themselves by adding more retail, restaurants and housing to their total plan (i.e. entertainment districts). I'm positive you would see an up-swing in most downtown areas after 1995.

baystateroad · Post by **baystateroad** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 3:55 pm

More requested evidence/facts:

http://www.meredithmanagement.com/news.htm

The above links to a developer's site and project description for a 1,135,000 square foot mixed use development project to rise directly behind the left field wall (the "green monster") of fenway park. The project will be placed directly across the small narrow street that runs behind fenway now (landsdowne st.), will sit on a to-be-constructed platform over the massachusetts turnpike (freeway--I-90) and will include:

"a 29-story residential tower that will become an architectural icon and anchor for Kenmore Square, as well as 3 smaller residential buildings, a 700 car parking garage and approximately 120,000 square feet of neighborhood retail uses, most likely including restaurants, grocer, health club, community center and day care facility. The development will also create 61 affordable housing units, or 10%, on-site plus an additional 30 units, or 5%, off-site. The development will improve the sidewalks and streetscapes bordering the development, and create year-round (vs. seasonal), economic activity for Kenmore Square and the surrounding neighborhoods. In keeping with the goals of the Civic Vision, as well as the Commonwealthâ€™s criteria for â€œsmart-growth developmentâ€

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:15 pm

how many people here are anti arena? (it best be no one)

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:44 pm

There's also plenty of research that argues that an arena's or stadium's effect is negligible:

http://www.planning.unc.edu/courses/261 ... 61revu.htm

http://hellskitchen.net/develop/FWS/Con ... ipoff.html

http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/equal ... ment_ID%5C