Downtown Baseball Stadium
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
We don't really need the stadiums to be in Downtown itself. We could just have them somewhere like near the riverfront or the West Bottoms, however they need to be much closer to downtown than they are now.
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
Its funny to me that west bottoms gets brought up around the same time people are complaining about Kemper. I hear so many people complaining that Kemper shouldn't have been built down there, how would building a ballpark down there be any better?ShowMeKC wrote: We don't really need the stadiums to be in Downtown itself. We could just have them somewhere like near the riverfront or the West Bottoms, however they need to be much closer to downtown than they are now.
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
Wait no more.PumpkinStalker wrote: I can't wait for that saying to grow old.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10216
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
Putting a baseball stadium in the West Bottoms would be no different from a practical standpoint of having it in eastern Jackson County. People would drive there, attend a game, and drive home. No different than Kemper. If a baseball stadium moves into the urban core (and we can forget about that for another 25 years now), it needs to be within walking distance of whatever existing entertainment districts there are at the time. Football is a no go downtown or anywhere near a working pedestrian district. Football stadiums are essentially black holes 358 days out of every year. Of course, being 25 years away, things could change but I suggest we wait until it becomes even a possibility before getting too attached to any one location.ShowMeKC wrote: We don't really need the stadiums to be in Downtown itself. We could just have them somewhere like near the riverfront or the West Bottoms, however they need to be much closer to downtown than they are now.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
Better yet - Imagine how much worse Kemper would be if it was located out at TSC or someother equally remote and hopeless locale. Its not that the Bottoms are ideal - just better than 435/70. Golden Ox > Dennys.Mhudson wrote: Its funny to me that west bottoms gets brought up around the same time people are complaining about Kemper. I hear so many people complaining that Kemper shouldn't have been built down there, how would building a ballpark down there be any better?
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12656
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
And that is why, in the past, I have said that if people want a downtown stadium they should plan for it NOW. Identify a location, secure the land in some manner, and be ready for funding, contracting, and construction so that it can be ready when the TSC lease expires.Highlander wrote: If a baseball stadium moves into the urban core (and we can forget about that for another 25 years now), it needs to be within walking distance of whatever existing entertainment districts there are at the time.
It not that everything has to be completed ASAP. Take a few years to identify where the best, or two or three best, locations would be. So instead of trying to do everything in a span of one year, for once, the city can plan ahead and do it right.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10216
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
I think if you were talking about a 5 year time frame, that would be fine. If you are talking about 25 years, especially when the existing facility is still undergoing renovations, it would be a very tough sell to say the least. First of all, you really do not want to tie up that kind of land for that period time in an area that looks to be some of the top real estate in the city. Second, twenty-five years from now, the real estate scene could change dramatically. I realize what you are getting at with the ever-increasing cost of land but, unfortunately, it's a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. At best, the city could donate land as a park with the intention of using it later as a stadium but 20 years later, you'd get those who would say it's a travesty to destroy the park.aknowledgeableperson wrote: And that is why, in the past, I have said that if people want a downtown stadium they should plan for it NOW. Identify a location, secure the land in some manner, and be ready for funding, contracting, and construction so that it can be ready when the TSC lease expires.
It not that everything has to be completed ASAP. Take a few years to identify where the best, or two or three best, locations would be. So instead of trying to do everything in a span of one year, for once, the city can plan ahead and do it right.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
Not to mention that it is going to be a bit difficult to fund/finance land acquisition for a project that might happen in 25 years. First the politicians would have to be willing to invest in something that won't see any payout until long past their retirment - yeah right. Second, how are you going to finance it?
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12656
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
No. The point is not that the process has to start today but that those interested in the project should keep the item in the public mind and discuss where the likely location should be. I don't forsee the actual location identified and purchased for at least 10 to 15 years. The latest discusssion of a downtown stadium started way too late in the process. The talk should have started at least 5 years before it did.
And who says the stadium has to be a stand alone project or that it is initially a government investment. Make it part of a larger redevelopment package and build most of that package before the stadium. There are many ways to do it and do it correctly. Kansas City learned the way not to do it.
And who says the stadium has to be a stand alone project or that it is initially a government investment. Make it part of a larger redevelopment package and build most of that package before the stadium. There are many ways to do it and do it correctly. Kansas City learned the way not to do it.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
Re: Downtown ballpark and condos
kinda glad , now , no DT stadiums with the two teams perfomances, it would be a constant visual reminder of them. With SportsComplex location, its outta sight, outta mind, at least for me anyway!
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:02 am
- Location: East Loop
- Contact:
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
The poll should have began: "If you trust the Royals not to go back into the tank and if you trust the city not to screw themselves on the financing..."
I could absolutely see the Royals saying that if they're forced to pay more than some nominal amount for a new stadium, it would mean they would have to cut payroll drastically. And then the city would be on the hook for somewhere around $500m.
I could absolutely see the Royals saying that if they're forced to pay more than some nominal amount for a new stadium, it would mean they would have to cut payroll drastically. And then the city would be on the hook for somewhere around $500m.
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
No, at least not until it is time to renovate again. Unless Glass is paying for it, which, lol.
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
why? we have a like new stdium. Plus stadiums do very little for development. lets get downtown built. That said, west bottoms would be a great place for the stadium.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3890
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
I would start building today if there were a plan in place. Kauffman is a nice stadium, but most of the recent upgrades were designed for little kids who do not care about baseball. Other than a few late season tailgates, there is absolutely no reason to have the stadium exist inside a massive suckhole of parking. I could care less if it is more convenient for someone who lives in South OP. They chose to live there because they are fine driving 45 minutes to get almost anywhere. In my opinion, a downtown stadium with a team that plays 81 games a year would be a gigantic puzzle piece inserted into an area trying to differentiate itself from a Sprint campus or a Corporate Woods. Getaway games downtown would really elevate the entire city in my eyes. I can only imagine the number of younger people who would be interested in living near the baseball stadium downtown.
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
put the stadium INSIDE a new airport terminal connected to downtown only via trolleys. BOOM!
- KCMax
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 24051
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
- Contact:
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
Heh.DaveKCMO wrote:put the stadium INSIDE a new airport terminal connected to downtown only via trolleys. BOOM!
Yea, I can't see any appetite for this any time soon. Also, people were raving about how great the K looked on TV and in person for the World Series. Its becoming one of the oldest stadiums in the league and still looks good. Before you know it, people will be citing "historic preservation" status for it.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12656
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
Let's see. Some want to basically do away with Royals Stadium but want to save Kemper. Kinda confusing.Before you know it, people will be citing "historic preservation" status for it.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3890
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
1. Kemper is already downtown (yes, I consider the WB to be downtown).aknowledgeableperson wrote:Let's see. Some want to basically do away with Royals Stadium but want to save Kemper. Kinda confusing.Before you know it, people will be citing "historic preservation" status for it.
2. All of the Kemper plans currently call for building/renovations in the same location.
3. I bet most of the dowtown baseball stadium supporters (like me) would not support a demo of Kauffman if the two options were to rebuild in the same location or to renovate.
In that sense, there is no difference. I would not support a demo of Kauffman so that the Glass family could rebuild (with taxpayer funding) even more of a non-connected circus. The basic interior of Kauffman is beautiful, but I do find incredible fault in its detachment from the city. That, to me, is one of the best things about the best stadiums in baseball.
I feel like people generally enjoy the location of Kemper but aren't enthusiastic about a plan put together by millionaires who want to (seemingly) ride roughshod over everyone else. We (the city) actually own Kemper.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stad
Your mind will be blown with this idea
Build a stadium and cap the loop at the same time. No, not 670, the north side
7th to Indep, Delaware to Wyandotte
Then you build the parking next to it, also over i70.
Build a stadium and cap the loop at the same time. No, not 670, the north side
7th to Indep, Delaware to Wyandotte
Then you build the parking next to it, also over i70.