Downtown Baseball Stadium

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18132
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by FangKC »

We should also be reminded of the politics of stadium placement. The stadiums were located where they are because they needed support from eastern Jackson County to finance and build them. Since that time, the number of residents in eastern and southern Jackson County (Independence, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Lee's Summit, Grandview) has increased, while the population of KCMO in Jackson County has remained the same, or dropped some. Thus, if the county is involved in financing any future stadiums, or deciding where they go, then Jackson County residents outside of KCMO probably have more influence now than when the sports complex site was originally selected and built.

So, any downtown stadium would have to be supported by the Jackson County legislature and voters. If they don't support it, the only way it could happen is for KCMO to finance the stadium alone, and to do that, there would also have to be support from residents in the Northland.

The other political force would be the State of Kansas, who might attempt to lure both teams across the state line using STAR bonds.

Certainly it would come down to what the team owners wanted. They might not care about a downtown stadium. And yes, they might be given a better deal in Kansas.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12609
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Fang, I would agree with the above. And I would add one reason why the stadiums were placed there is because two stadiums were built. Don't forget the in-thing at the time was "multi-purpose stadiums". And to help minimize the cost for two stadiums they were built on land that was already publicly-owned. So for those who are trying to place a downtown stadium try to factor in what the potential land costs would be decades from now. And if the downtown area continues to redevelop as it has those land costs are sure to escalate.
And don't forget the politics of just moving the team, especially if the team, and Jackson County, doesn't want to move. What would bethe cost of buying out the current lease if the team attempts to move before it expires?
A third item to consider is what kind of revenue source will a downtown stadium offer to take the place of the teams current parking revenues. For a small market team while not a major part of the overall team revenues parking does bring in much needed funds to help with the bottom line.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

Wow, it's a bigger source of cash than I expected.

It's $10 parking per car per game for baseball. 82 home games that's $820. A row of 122 spots that's 100k earned in one season.
$1.50 per square foot seems to be a reasonable cost estimate for repaving. I'm sure they get a bulk discount so that's a fair number.

A row of 122 spots is 33810 square feet with aisles. That's $50,000 to repave it, maybe double or triple that with painting. The lifespan of concrete is in decades when you only have cars on it 25% of the year.

Over ten years the facility earned $1 million from those 122 spots and spent maybe 10% of that on maintenance.

Parking clearly pays for the maintenance and labor to take the money with a lot of profit on top.

So obviously this shows there needs to be a replacement for this revenue. One idea is shared parking passes. The royals give out passes that can be used in a bunch of lots and garages, you're assigned one based on ticket location. The team doesn't have to pay for the maintenance or labor and they share the revenue with the owner of the parking. If you show up with a single game you pay nothing to the team for parking but your ticket is a little higher. You may have to pay to use a garage out of pocket or you can try and park on street. Just like going to the Sprint Center today where they can provide VIP parking however they want but there's no dedicated garage.
User avatar
WSPanic
Supporter
Posts: 3817
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by WSPanic »

Not to endorse or argue with what anyone says here - because I honestly can't muster the will to care about this again - but $10 is way too low. May as well up that to $20 per spot by the time this is built.
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by im2kull »

harbinger911 wrote:
im2kull wrote: Wait, isn't THAT exactly what a stadium is? There's a density of ZERO for almost 8/10ths of the year at a downtown stadium. It's a huge waste of space.
No, that's not what new urban stadiums are.
While baseball stadiums are empty most of the year, they have become centerpieces for newly developed trendy neighborhoods from scratch.
So they look pretty..and are visual"Centerpieces"...and that's it. Yep, a total actual economic waste. Zero density for nearly 300 days a year. I want real development, not fluff that looks good in drawings but sucks when the actual facts pour in. Pretty things don't sustain redevelopment and future development. They might spur a moment of adoration, but that's it.
harbinger911 wrote: East Village/San Diego
Image
You're really over generalizing by posting this picture and claiming that Petco Park is responsible for the development that occurred in the East Village. Petco Park is a well documented example of how building new ballparks downtown doesn't actually create a positive economic impact on their own, and are even slightly negative at best. Petco Park has been around for nearly TWO DECADES now, and 95% of the development in that picture is from just the last couple of years. San Diego has many things that attract people to live downtown and in the East Village, and Petco isn't one of them. There's been a huge amount of monies poured into redeveloping that area, outside of the ballpark, and that's what's just recently spurred the new developments. Here's a few good articles and quotes on the subject.
Downtown San Diego: on the rise
http://sandiegodowntownnews.com/downtow ... -the-rise/
The simple fact is that San Diego County no longer has the large land tracts available for development, as was the case in the past. We can no longer grow out —we must grow up. The fact of the matter is that Downtown is one neighborhood that is happy to accept the needed density to accommodate that growth. But population growth is only part of the story when it comes to Downtown’s new boom. Downtown San Diego is also seeing this influx of investment because America and, in fact, the world, is in the midst of an urban renaissance and renewal that is remaking our economy and our neighborhoods. Increasingly, people of all ages — from millennials to baby boomers — are flocking to urban centers like Downtown San Diego in search of a quality place that offers the ability to live, work and play in a vibrant and diverse community.
Petco Park's broken promise
http://ourcitysd.com/business-economics ... 8coTf.dpbs
No, the ballpark has not created a wealth of new jobs. Only 29 more workers were employed in downtown in 2011 compared to 2004 — Yes, 29.
“There is strong evidence that the bulk of the benefits from East Village revitalization have been captured by private developers, whereas many of the costs have been borne by San Diego residents,” the book states.
Critics also point out that the revitalization started with the expansion of the convention center, and may have continued without the ballpark. “Very few of the condos were built because of the ballpark,” Mike Aguirre, the former city attorney, told the San Diego Reader in 2010.
Critics also say the ballpark has failed to transform the East Village into a vibrant community. A number of storefronts remain empty. Last year, Our City San Diego profiled one business — Wine Steals — that left the ballpark village because there wasn't enough business.
City Promised New Money Would Pay for Ballpark; It Can’t Prove It Does
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/l ... e-it-does/
When voters OK’d the construction of Petco Park in 1998, boosters of the project promised that new condos, hotels and shops nearby would drum up enough new cash to cover the cost of the ballpark. But a decade after the Padres’ first game there, the city’s spending millions to pay off the stadium. The other pitch for Petco Park, beyond revitalizing East Village, was that the developments around the ballpark would cover the city’s costs. And it’s not clear that’s actually happening.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.
longviewmo
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by longviewmo »

flyingember wrote:A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.
You do realize they just built the stadium in the parking lot of the old one?
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

longviewmo wrote:
flyingember wrote:A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.
You do realize they just built the stadium in the parking lot of the old one?
I didn't check. But it does show that a stadium being new doesn't make a difference with development in an area. Good test case for this.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2820
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by phuqueue »

flyingember wrote:
longviewmo wrote:
flyingember wrote:A really great example of this is the Mets stadium. It was built in 2009.
It's near the airport so would be a good place for hotels.
Mets fans are committed, no question.
NYC has tons of developers with money.

So if a stadium drives development we would see new projects across the street in NYC. No other city has as strong an argument for this.

As of last July across google street view looks like an industrial park. The older 2007 imagery shows some of the same businesses.
You do realize they just built the stadium in the parking lot of the old one?
I didn't check. But it does show that a stadium being new doesn't make a difference with development in an area. Good test case for this.
This is a ridiculous point. Nobody is arguing that development follows a stadium wherever it goes (why go all the way to New York to discredit that argument when you can just look at the TSC?), just that a stadium can be a valuable anchor to bring vibrancy to a neighborhood that has other things going for it too. Willets Point doesn't "look" like an industrial park, it basically is an industrial park, and it has been for decades. It's a dump, figuratively and in some places literally. Nobody is going to live next to a stadium just because there's a stadium there, when their other neighbors are junkyards and waste disposal plants and auto repair shops. This idea that just because it's NYC there should be development all over the place reveals a total lack of familiarity with the city. Willets Point is prone to flooding, its only transit link to the rest of the city is the overcrowded and unreliable 7 train, and it literally doesn't have sewers. The guys who own those junkyards and waste disposal plants and auto repair shops also don't want to sell. Despite all this, actually, the city is pushing to redevelop the area, so you might yet see development spring up around the stadium. I'm not sure whether the Mets deserve any credit for it though.

I'm actually agnostic myself as to the development benefits of a downtown stadium, but it's a little bit ludicrous to use Citifield as an example of how a downtown stadium won't spur development. There's nothing about Willets Point that is "downtown."
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

phuqueue wrote:Nobody is arguing that development follows a stadium wherever it goes
harbinger911 wrote: While baseball stadiums are empty most of the year, they have become centerpieces for newly developed trendy neighborhoods from scratch.
that sounds a lot like a claim of development following stadiums wherever they go, or really close to that

I disagree with it but clearly the current location hasn't driven any development. Next time the city builds new, maybe it's time to try a new location?
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2820
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by phuqueue »

Fair point, I don't usually read harbinger's posts, but nobody else is trying to make that argument
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2820
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by phuqueue »

As someone who, again, is agnostic on the development benefits of a stadium anyway, I think it's at least clear that if you plop down a stadium in the middle of nowhere it's not going to cause an amazing new neighborhood to sprout up around it. We already see this at every baseball stadium that isn't surrounded by a vibrant neighborhood. Nobody is champing at the bit to live next door to a stadium just because sometimes baseball games are played there. Notably this thread is about whether the Royals should move to a downtown stadium, not whether a new stadium for the Royals could be used to build a new neighborhood from scratch in some other down and out corner of the city (even if harbinger did actually use the phrase "from scratch"), which is more what you're talking about when you suggest that there should be development all around Citifield. I think it's fair to entertain arguments that a stadium that is placed into a neighborhood where people already live or that could be made into a place where people would want to live (this goes for many of America's old downtowns, which are centrally located, typically have existing beautiful building stock, etc, but not for a site like the TSC or Willets Point) could help give that neighborhood an additional shot in the arm, although I don't know whether I fully buy it myself. That's a chicken and egg thing and I'm not sure how much credit stadiums deserve for developing neighborhoods vs how much credit neighborhood development deserves for getting a stadium built there. But I don't think Citifield is the smoking gun you're looking for here.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

It's clear that a stadium doesn't directly lead to development.
Obviously the stadiums are fine where they are.
But would they benefit downtown more than the drawback of being a giant stadium downtown?

I just don't know. I would really have to see the numbers of building new next to the existing stadium vs building new downtown and what business owners near other downtown stadiums say. for example, if all the places next to the Cardinals stadium are bullish for the stadium that would help sell one in KC.

Say we can prove one would be a good idea

There's two locations that are clearly reasonable places to put one, each with their own drawback.
The large park site on Indep Ave has clear location issues but it's a dead zone today and has good access. it's also a great place to put parking garages in without annoying a lot of people.
The 18th/Vine location is a better neighborhood, overall better site, but requires forcing two entities to move, destroys a historical building and is much more likely to develop the location anyways.

To me the 18th/Vine location makes the most sense if a downtown stadium is a done deal, if hypothetically the city just is looking for where to put one. the claims for this site sold me on it over my idea for a good location. I like the idea of bundling into the project a brand new bus service center and yard for the KCATA

If people were iffy about supporting one and we needed an easy location I think the Indep Ave site is an easier sell, despite the drawbacks. There's no historic building or major facility to move to build.

The other possible locations seem like they're better locations for residential or office towers. I really dislike the idea of putting one along the north loop.
User avatar
WSPanic
Supporter
Posts: 3817
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by WSPanic »

So... who's paying for this thing?
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20024
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by DaveKCMO »

WSPanic wrote:So... who's paying for this thing?
more direct taxpayer support is a non-starter for me.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12609
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Let's see. The proposed football stadium in St. Louis is pegged at $1.1B. Now I don't know how that cost compares to a new baseball stadium at current prices, of course Yankee Stadium was $1.5B in 2009, but I can see that a cost would be maybe $672M (cost of Atlanta's new suburban stadium including parking, land, and infrastructure) for new. Now figure 20 years from now.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

Atlanta's total stadium cost we'll be well above that. Count on that one being more like $800 million

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-go ... cos/npNGt/

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/11/1 ... sit-costs/
$350 million in road costs alone
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12609
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Looks like the $672M is just for the stadium alone. It's the other projects and costs associated with or related to the stadium that are fueling the higher costs. The team is plowing in a huge (450M) mixed use development that is also affecting these other costs and projects.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
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 stadium?

Post by flyingember »

$672 million is quoted as the stadium and roads cost in articles from March 2015. You had it right the first time.
I can't find it again but that price was deemed a joke, they keep expanding it and the price stays the same.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12609
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Would you like to see the Royals move to a downtown stadium?

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

There are a lot of projects tied to both the stadium and the adjoining mixed use development that have either been added or made bigger or estimated costs were too low. But the stadium itself and infrastructure related to it has not changed.
Post Reply