Downtown Aquarium

[LenexatoKCMO]

Regardless of timing or planning though Lenexa, why on earth would an aquarium NOT fit at Union Station, with the Science Museum?   Field trips and day trips for parents & kids, seems almost retarded not to put it there. 

Mission?  Seriously?

You think the Science city folks could pull anything off that would really boost interest?  Arguably - being tied to Science City could be a liability just from having that name associated with it.  Would anyone even notice if Science city added a small-time, commercially run aquarium somewhere down there in the basement?  

lenexa..so shouldn't we at least investigate the kcmo proposal?  if they are similar, I agree, mission is a better place for this small time attraction....from the comments here just seems a lot of ks residents are getting really defensive.

Well they seem to be pursuing the same sort of contractor-run, commercial operation.  The only difference is that there is no money to fund it over here.  Are we going to get the Mo Legislature to give us a fat check?  Maybe we can use some of that $600k we just sucked out of the zoo . . . It would have to be a TIF project of somesort - do you think our city administration is going to be willing to approve a TIF for enough money to outclass this?

[chrizow]

any aquarium will be of no use to me if it does not harbor at least one archelon.

[KCPowercat]

I agree with you...just think its worth investigating to try and get our attractions more tourist friendly.

[Maitre D]

You think the Science city folks could pull anything off that would really boost interest?  Arguably - being tied to Science City could be a liability just from having that name associated with it.  Would anyone even notice if Science city added a small-time, commercially run aquarium somewhere down there in the basement?  

(puffs my peace pipe)  "There is some truth there Kemosabe....."

[KCMax]

any aquarium will be of no use to me if it does not harbor at least one archelon.

Does "archelon" refer to the turtle or the old lady?

[chrizow]

yes.

[LenexatoKCMO]

There are already plenty of old ladies just like that in Mission - no need for an aquarium. 

[IraGlacialis]

I have been to the Monterey Acquarium. First, the physcial plant isn't impressive there. I loved the acqurium but what sells it is the charm of Monterey.

Again, don't get me wrong, I loved the place. But it is no San Diego Zoo in turns of attendance. That is actually why an acqurium is a good idea for Kansas City. The scale is managable.

It's because it's primarily a research facility. The aquarium is there just to educate, nothing fancy. And even then it primarily focuses on the region.

And like I stated before, I think that's the route KCMO should take with a aquarium. Let Mission have their tourist-type aquarium, but have Downtown work with the Department of Conservation to create a legitimate educational hall (a supped-up nature center if you will). And considering that freshwater ecosystems are something that most aquariums tend to overlook or shunt ot a small corner, this may create a extremely unique attraction. And even if it doesn't attract tourists, its primary function will be for the universities and conservation purposes (if you put it in a area with enough land, you may even be able to put in a mini-hatchery for the Missouri).

[KC-wildcat]

Where KC really needs to place its focus is on unique attractions- 18th and Vine, the NLPB museum, the Jazz museum, Liberty Memorial and the WWI museum (which should be a national, if not world class attraction based on the lack of WWI museums in the United States), The Arabia is small, but it is an organic museum that exists solely because of the history and geography of the area.  These, with the Plaza and the Town of Kansas (as well as the potential of doing something cool with the westward migration trails) are things that are unique to Kansas City and could become huge drawing points, much bigger than an aquarium, if we really do them right.

In general, I agree that any given city needs to have a handful of unique tourist attractions.  However, I don't think the aquarium is a bad idea just because everybody else has one.  The fact that other cities have aquariums does not mean that tourists won't be interested in coming to the Kansas City aquarium.  And, really, I think this is true regardless of whether the aquarium is "world class."  

I mean P&L and SC are perfect examples in and of themselves.  The city marketed SC and Cordish marketed P&L as huge regional tourism draws.  And, thus far, they have been.  Are they really any more unique than any other Cordish entertainment district?  

[phxcat]

I don't mean that they shouldn't pursue it, it would be good for the city- it would be another amenity to bring people to KC, and, in a perfect world, into the core, and it would be a regional draw, since the regional cities don't have anything like it.  However, it would not be a national draw, whereas the others have that potential, being unique.  And as for my comment about Mission, the only thing that strikes me as statism is the timing.  It just seams like KCMO was content to not even think about an aquarium, but then when Mission started to seriously get onto it, out of the blue they say "No, we're going to build the aquarium".  If they had previously been developing aquarium plans, that would be one thing.  If Mission builds a good one, that will help the metro, regardless of location.  Core locations would be better, but so be it.

Now, if KCMO did a unique type of thing that has been discussed- the freshwater aquarium, hatcheries, educational- we can have two- a serious one in KCMO and a campy one in Mission.

[phxcat]

And while we are at it, why not slap a Seaworld down out at Village West?  /

[LenexatoKCMO]

And while we are at it, why not slap a Seaworld down out at Village West?  /

"we took the kids down to Kansas so we could see some of them killer whales . . ."

Something just doesn't sound right. 

[KC-wildcat]

I don't mean that they shouldn't pursue it, it would be good for the city- it would be another amenity to bring people to KC, and, in a perfect world, into the core, and it would be a regional draw, since the regional cities don't have anything like it.  However, it would not be a national draw, whereas the others have that potential, being unique.   

Honestly, I don't consider WWI Museum, NLBM, or anything else in KC a national tourism draw.  I mean, by and large, tourists to KC are regional residents.  Probably not a whole lot of east or west coasters flying to KC to see the WWI memorial.  In terms of pro athletes visiting the NLBM, they typically do that when they are in KC for a road game. 

That said, I'm not sure KC has ever really approached its tourism industry from a national or global scale.  Pretty much, we're focused on the midwest.  We need to compete with STL, Denver, and maybe even Chicago or Dallas for some attractions.  Now that Funk is in office, we are a bit more focused on staying on par with Omaha and possibly even staying ahead of Lawrence and Columbia.  I digress.

I just think that the aquarium doesn't necessarily need to be a huge, tourism magnet in terms of bringing otherwise disinterested people to Kansas City; although I think it would have this effect.  I would be content if it were just a magnet to draw people - who would already be in KC - down to the urban core.  I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of people who visit KC every year for any given reason (holidays, weddings, conferences, sporting events), and once here, begin looking for something to do.  Are we content telling these people to go to Mission to see the aquarium.  Or, should we agressively pursue these $$$ DT.  If the benefit > cost, I say we go for it.     

[Maitre D]

welcome back, Michael.

[phxcat]

Honestly, I don't consider WWI Museum, NLBM, or anything else in KC a national tourism draw.  I mean, by and large, tourists to KC are regional residents.  Probably not a whole lot of east or west coasters flying to KC to see the WWI memorial.  In terms of pro athletes visiting the NLBM, they typically do that when they are in KC for a road game. 

That said, I'm not sure KC has ever really approached its tourism industry from a national or global scale.  Pretty much, we're focused on the midwest.  We need to compete with STL, Denver, and maybe even Chicago or Dallas for some attractions.  Now that Funk is in office, we are a bit more focused on staying on par with Omaha and possibly even staying ahead of Lawrence and Columbia.  I digress.

I just think that the aquarium doesn't necessarily need to be a huge, tourism magnet in terms of bringing otherwise disinterested people to Kansas City; although I think it would have this effect.  I would be content if it were just a magnet to draw people - who would already be in KC - down to the urban core.  I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of people who visit KC every year for any given reason (holidays, weddings, conferences, sporting events), and once here, begin looking for something to do.  Are we content telling these people to go to Mission to see the aquarium.  Or, should we agressively pursue these $$$ DT.  If the benefit > cost, I say we go for it.     

They aren't national attractions, and they are kind of niche attractions in that they will attract certain groups of people, but the jazz museum should be a national draw for music fans, the Negro Leagues museum should be a national draw for baseball fans (not on par with Cooperstown, which probably draws a lot more casual fans than true fans), and the WWI museum should be a national draw for history travelers.  And, these things should be advertised on ESPN, the History Channel, etc. to reach those demographics.  They don't have the mass appeal of the Arch (which is a national draw- the only thing that makes St. Louis a national destination, which KC is not), but in their niches, if marketed correctly, they could be, and as a synthesis of great attractions in the area which, again, would ideally, but not necessarily include an aquarium, could become a national draw.

welcome back, Michael.

[KCPowercat]

I think all of downtown just turned into a new aquarium after that storm.

[AllThingsKC]

I think all of downtown just turned into a new aquarium after that storm.

But people in Kansas should still help fund it.

[KCFan]

The aquarium in Mission was announced publicly 9-12 months ago.  They had to get STAR bonds to make it work.  They now have STAR bond approval.  Their site work is either done or laregely done.  They are pretty close to being ready for vertical construction.  KCMO is the one way behind that's just now doing a RFP.

The other thing is if Mission doesn't get the Aquarium, they won't get the Gateway either because the project won't work financially because the STAR bonds are paying for a lot of infrastructure costs.  My money is certainly on the Gateway getting the aquarium although I would've rather had it downtown.

[QueSi2Opie]

I liked the idea of a natural history museum

Isn't Overland Park already planning a world-class natural history museum? The Prairiefire Cultural & Natural History Museum.

Anyway, Mission is late with an aquarium too...I believe the Schlitterbahn Resort in KCK will have an aquarium.

Let's just build that giant proposed tornado tower at Berkley Riverfront Park...it'll be unique to anywhere on the planet.

[KCFan]

If Schlitterbahn was doing a giant aquarium, Kansas wouldn't be funding it.  There would be no reason for the state to use STAR bonds twice for the same thing.  If Schlitterbahn has one, it's like something smaller like the T-REX restaurant or some of the other outdoor goods stores have.