NOOOO, stop the madness! KC does not need a suburban arena!

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:48 pm

Well, "right" across the river might be ok, but we really need this thing Downtown within walking distance of everything and the metro needs to get it done first. Than if a suburb wants to waste it's money on a little arena, fine.

Posted on Wed, Mar. 17, 2004

With their loads of cash, two suburbs could hold answers on arena

Kansas City might do well to swallow some pride and play some ball with a couple of cash-happy Northland suburbs.

The big city's proposed downtown arena is an idea languishing. Mayor Kay Barnes insists the arena will move forward. But officials admit there are obstacles in putting together the financing for a project with a ballpark price tag of $200 million.

Meanwhile, officials for Olathe and Overland Park are both studying the possibility of their cities building and operating an arena.

Whether those arenas would be big-time venues such as the one Kansas City envisions remains to be seen.

But for certain, they'd pull some business away and they would do little to help Kansas City's goal of boosting downtown nightlife and property values.

An alternative is a small or medium-size Northland arena that could complement whatever comes downtown.

In fact, I'd say a new major park overlooking downtown and an arena almost within eyesight is possible if Kansas City is willing to play ball with the neighbors.

Let's start at Harlem, the historic neighborhood directly across the Missouri River from Kansas City's vaunted river port founding point. It's in Kansas City but tucked away between the Broadway extension beside the Wheeler Downtown Airport, North Kansas City's industrial and railroad yards.

Harlem is an old residential area somewhat isolated from the hubbub. Many of the houses are torn down and open lots remain with level ground, tall trees and green grass. Levees and rail lines shield the area.

Years ago, a group of University of Kansas architect students suggested housing and a park for Harlem.

They had the right vision.

You have the view of the river and downtown skyscrapers to the south. Modern condos and apartments could replace an old hotel and an iron business. It's an honest blighted candidate tax-break redevelopment.

In the bulk of Harlem you could put a park with river access, trails, picnic areas and a recreational vehicle campground. The historic Harlem church could be left undisturbed. A marina would fit outside the river levee.

The park could be linked to the metro area's trail system now under development, especially those in Riverside and on the Missouri River's south shore.

Of course with perpetually cash-strapped Kansas City, financing is always the challenge.

So the logical step is for Kansas City to de-annex Harlem, let North Kansas City annex it, and let that city develop and manage the park.

North Kansas City Mayor Gene Bruns said last week that he thinks it's a reasonable suggestion. North Kansas City could build some overpasses to connect that city's trails, shopping district and residential area with Harlem. Floyd Jones, the major property owner in Harlem, said Monday that he's open to the idea.

Both North Kansas City and Riverside are small cities with millions pouring in each year from riverboat gambling. They can do things behemoth that Kansas City cannot.

A Harlem park, with Missouri River access for the public (and I mean get your toes wet in the water, not a view limited to 30 to 50 feet away from a concrete sidewalk), would be valuable to the whole metro area.

As for arenas: Ed Rule, former Riverside mayor, suggested years ago that his city should consider building a medium-size arena similar to one already offered by St. Joseph that's used for both local and regional events.

Riverside has a large riverfront park and a gambling boat to complement an arena. The city will someday, when its industrial park progresses, have the seed money to make arena financing feasible. That's a luxury Olathe and Overland Park do not have.

Such an arena would be close enough to benefit downtown. Some cooperation from Kansas City, such as with financing and special bus shuttles, could help both parties.

Much is possible relatively cheaply for Kansas City, if the city is willing to respect the neighbors and work closely with them.

To reach Bill Graham, Northland reporter and columnist, call

(816) 234-5906 or send e-mail to bgraham@kcstar.com.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:36 am

Can someone name me one metro area in the midwest/southwest who have a nicer/newer arena in there suburbs than the core city. Only sh*t like this happens in KC.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:10 am

Detroit

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:07 am

Outside the Midwest, NYC, which in a few years will still have MSG, while Brooklyn and Newark will have new arenas. (I'm counting Newark as a suburb even though technically it's not.) Nassau Coliseum also might be replaced by then, but that's a longer shot.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:31 am

I'll have to do some research on Detroit. They've been very aggressive at moving sports entertainment back downtown. I realize the Piston's play in Auburn Hills but I'll bet they have something on the drawing board about building a new downtown arena. Besides for big indoor events like the 2009 Final 4 which Detroit will host will be played at Ford Field so you're kinda comparing apples and oranges.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:36 am

I just answered the question

Can someone name me one metro area in the midwest/southwest who have a nicer/newer arena in there suburbs than the core city

Detoit's nicest arena is not downtown.

Who says if one of these suburban arenas are going to be nicer than something built downtown? I think you are jumping ship a little soon.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:50 am

Sacramento's arena isn't in the city core it doesn't look like either.

Very rare though.....no way our new arena should be anywhere but between city market and crown center.

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:02 am

If all else fails, though, the Harlem idea isn't a bad one. I'd still prefer it in the south loop but if that cannot happen Harlem is far better than letting it go to JoCo. It'd at least have downtown visibility. And is within the current area defined as downtown. KC and NKC working together would have no problem financing it.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:06 pm

KC I'll accept your answer as semi-correct. Never thought Kansas City would have something in common with Detroit. That should prove the point even further how bad things are.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:09 pm

Oh yea I also wrote my City Councilwoman Deb Hermann a long email regarding this issue on Monday and I still have no response. What a shock! Seriously how hard is it to respond to a freaking email.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:11 pm

showme...why is this article making you give up hope? Nobody has officially said this is the plan....it's just a columnist......chill out. Things are hardly bad in our urban core.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:47 pm

I don't even have to read the article to lose hope. You just have to talk to the average voter in our metro area. Face it we're not going to get a new arena unless the private sector damn near funds the entire thing. Kemper Arena is a black eye for Kansas City period! In September when the Big 12 conference announces basketball sites after 2005 I'd be completely shocked if KC even got one year. It's a freaking embarrassment that it comes to this. I honestly am starting to think that the average Joe won't even notice that the tourney is gone along with it's $30 million economic impact. And whose to say that this lack of doing anything will stop with a new arena. The Truman Sports Complex will probably follow the same path. I go through phases like this. The last one I remember was the failure of the Odessey capital improvements package in the 90's and of course the statewide failure of Proposition B for road improvements. This matter is another no brainer. Unless your just an average Kansas City Missourian.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:21 pm

ShowME wrote:I don't even have to read the article to lose hope. You just have to talk to the average voter in our metro area. Face it we're not going to get a new arena unless the private sector damn near funds the entire thing. Kemper Arena is a black eye for Kansas City period! In September when the Big 12 conference announces basketball sites after 2005 I'd be completely shocked if KC even got one year. It's a freaking embarrassment that it comes to this. I honestly am starting to think that the average Joe won't even notice that the tourney is gone along with it's $30 million economic impact. And whose to say that this lack of doing anything will stop with a new arena. The Truman Sports Complex will probably follow the same path. I go through phases like this. The last one I remember was the failure of the Odessey capital improvements package in the 90's and of course the statewide failure of Proposition B for road improvements. This matter is another no brainer. Unless your just an average Kansas City Missourian.

Look on the bright side: The metro still is rated as one of the best places to raise a family, start a business, etc.

ShowME · Post by **ShowME** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:29 pm

Thanks KCOKEK. I know it's a great place to raise a family. I just want the best for the city/metro as a whole and a new arena is a key component to help us compete with others in the region.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:35 pm

even w/o an arena (which we do need) I'm excited about what's going on...much more positives than negatives.