Downtown Baseball Stadium

[dnweava]

Looking at the star site, I don't like the idea of demolishing the storefronts along grand or the buildings along the east side of oak so I'd like to see as much of that saved as possible. But the more I look at it, the more I like the star site. It's closer to the streetcar, more walkable from p&l and the convention hotels where many fans will be staying, and will connect with the highway park deck.

You can easily fit a stadium in the block between the street and Grand with room for a plaza, and then build parking garages 1-2 blocks east around 17th/cherry where there are empty lots and stuff like construction equipment rental that doesn't need to be downtown.

[DColeKC]

Keep in mind as well that Van Trust, owners of most of EV are also developers. So if the desire for a stadium going there is simply to fill up space, that seems shortsighted to me when the land owners who are developers could simply develop it on their own. I mean they slowed this process down already by wanting to be partners with the royals opposed to simply selling them the land.

[dnweava]

I put together my own vision of the star site, trying to save as many buildings as I'd want to see saved. Sorry new BOK drive through, you are in the way of my ballpark plaza.

I used San Diego's stadium as a starting point. I liked the way it faces north and fits in the lot better than most other modern stadiums that I tried. It doesn't mess up the N/S street grid and 17th would be perfect street to pedestrianize. I think the big concern would be traffic flow with 5-10k cars going to the east crossroads to park. But I don't think that much parking would really be needed, the T-mobile center literally across the street handles 16-18k crowds regularly with it's parking, so I don't think the new garages would even need to be that big honestly. This location would be able to better use existing parking and the streetcar better than the EV site.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The royals wanted to build a big ballpark district but this shrinks the size of the development needed as it sits in or near a pre-existing entertainment district.

Wasn't the proposed entertainment district to be used to support the team? So if the team develops a smaller area wouldn't that affect the potential revenue to the team?

[UMKCroo]

Ive never been particularly excited about EV, ultimately seems like a much heavier lift to make it interesting, but of course miles ahead of TSC. If the crossroads location is doable, way more exciting and synergistic IMHO. How that land gets assembled I have no idea, and I have yet to see a serious proposed footprint or autopsy of which businesses will be lost. Ill personally head the relocation committee for any business that wants to relocate into any of the countless open retail spaces in the neighborhood. Im not advocating for eminent domain, but if they can do this and take care of the few businesses who are long term members of the community, seems like a major win. And as dcole said, could finally free up the EV location for non-baseball development.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Are us urban focused people on this site actually in favor of ripping out another swath of the few areas we actually have active and built up organically? All while another big empty swath sits there ready to go? It just seems to go against every bit of logic of this site so I assume I'm missing something.

I wouldn't necessarily say "ready to go," or else it would be going. There are a lot of logistical issues with EV, not limited to but including the physical location. Again, I would like to see an actual foot print because I am sure I am forgetting someone, but that section of the crossroads is pretty bleak. I know there are some solid neighborhood favorites, but there are also some major neighborhood problems nestled in there, including the epicenter of regular shootings. As much as I love the crossroads, and generally oppose removing buildings, we have a long way to go. Injecting $1billion plus investment to me would be totally worth losing 20 buildings. Maybe I lose my urbanist card for saying that, but I just don't see a lot of the problems we see down here being fixed without some kind of major catalyst like this. For every building lost I think you see 2 surface lots developed. Ill reserve final judgment until there is an actual plan proposed, but I think I am basically YIMBY on this.

This plan would address a major problem. The massive star press building that will never sell and be utilized in its current form. Sure, there are some businesses that would need to relocate but how do we know any of them are doing well? I’m not willing to agree that this particular section of the crossroads is “thriving”.

The royals wanted to build a big ballpark district but this shrinks the size of the development needed as it sits in or near a pre-existing entertainment district.

EV would have been developed by now if they weren’t holding out for the stadium. It’s not like it will never develop if a stadium doesn’t go there. The star press building will only ever go away for something huge like this. So pick your poison.

And this isn’t a monkey wrench tossed into the process. The process wasn’t processing. This could be a more viable option and certainly has more power backing it.

Agree on all points.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I put together my own vision of the star site, trying to save as many buildings as I'd want to see saved. Sorry new BOK drive through, you are in the way of my ballpark plaza.

I used San Diego's stadium as a starting point. I liked the way it faces north and fits in the lot better than most other modern stadiums that I tried. It doesn't mess up the N/S street grid and 17th would be perfect street to pedestrianize. I think the big concern would be traffic flow with 5-10k cars going to the east crossroads to park. But I don't think that much parking would really be needed, the T-mobile center literally across the street handles 16-18k crowds regularly with it's parking, so I don't think the new garages would even need to be that big honestly. This location would be able to better use existing parking and the streetcar better than the EV site.

This is the only logical way to make this concept work, and on a side note, fuck that new bank and their damned drive thru

[WoodDraw]

I think if this happens everyone tears down the remaining buildings and it becomes a parking lot

The remaining parking lots make more parking money

[DColeKC]

I think if this happens everyone tears down the remaining buildings and it becomes a parking lot

The remaining parking lots make more parking money

That’s a legitimate concern. I’d hope the city would deny any demolition permits if there isn’t a plan to build something back in its place.

Ironically enough, the East Village would make a great surface parking lot and is already setup to do so. I think that gets developed soon if the stadium doesn’t go there though. Van Trust wins either way.

[Chris Stritzel]

I put together my own vision of the star site, trying to save as many buildings as I'd want to see saved. Sorry new BOK drive through, you are in the way of my ballpark plaza.

I used San Diego's stadium as a starting point. I liked the way it faces north and fits in the lot better than most other modern stadiums that I tried. It doesn't mess up the N/S street grid and 17th would be perfect street to pedestrianize. I think the big concern would be traffic flow with 5-10k cars going to the east crossroads to park. But I don't think that much parking would really be needed, the T-mobile center literally across the street handles 16-18k crowds regularly with it's parking, so I don't think the new garages would even need to be that big honestly. This location would be able to better use existing parking and the streetcar better than the EV site.

This is the only logical way to make this concept work, and on a side note, fuck that new bank and their damned drive thru

I’d still have a ton of reservations about this if the Royal’s vision resembled this. I wouldn’t want BOK to go away despite their drive through. It’s a solid building as-is minus that problem.

[taxi]

Well, once a decision is made and if that decision isn't EV, you'd think the land bankers would have no reason to sit on it anymore and could get started on development. It's only never been developed because they've been planning for a baseball stadium for the last decade.

This would allow them to be move on.

Wrong. Two decades, at least.

Aren’t they committing to a 40 year lease?

What I meant to say was that DColeKC is wrong again in saying it's only never been developed because they've been planning the stadium for the last decade. I have been closely following the failed developments of the EV for over 2 decades, long before it was considered for a ballpark.

[taxi]

Taxing citizens for a stadium is largely unpopular and it shouldn't be hard for even the fans of a downtown stadium to understand. But taking someone's property and forcibly relocating legitimate businesses is humungously unpopular and downright unAmerican. Fuck you if you want to demolish my perfectly good, renovated, historic building that already employs people and provides taxes to the city, county and state – all for your allegedly urbanist dream of a downtown baseball park when a monstrous site has already been cleared and is mostly read to go, just a par 3 away. And if you think the EV will get developed if the team chooses another site, you are living in an alternate reality, but I hope I'm wrong.

[DColeKC]

Wrong. Two decades, at least.

Aren’t they committing to a 40 year lease?

What I meant to say was that DColeKC is wrong again in saying it's only never been developed because they've been planning the stadium for the last decade. I have been closely following the failed developments of the EV for over 2 decades, long before it was considered for a ballpark.

Wrong again? Please elaborate.

It's never been developed because the owners have held out for a baseball stadium. While other options may have been considered, they always had this big pay day in the back of their heads making any non-stadium development unlikely.

A stadium at the star sight not only eliminates that obstacle but also makes EV even more desirable for some other kind of development. Mid-rise residential for example.

[DColeKC]

Taxing citizens for a stadium is largely unpopular and it shouldn't be hard for even the fans of a downtown stadium to understand. But taking someone's property and forcibly relocating legitimate businesses is humungously unpopular and downright unAmerican. Fuck you if you want to demolish my perfectly good, renovated, historic building that already employs people and provides taxes to the city, county and state – all for your allegedly urbanist dream of a downtown baseball park when a monstrous site has already been cleared and is mostly read to go, just a par 3 away. And if you think the EV will get developed if the team chooses another site, you are living in an alternate reality, but I hope I'm wrong.

No need to hope, you're wrong.

What "historic" building are you referring to? I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about the greater good of the city. You're pretending that any current land owners won't fairly compensated for their property.

[chrizow]

the Xroads site--if done well, which is a big "if"--seems ideal to me. i have little to no faith that the $1B entertainment/residential development in the EV would ever happen at all, or be done well if it was completed. net result is either (1) a new stadium without a surrounding district which is an island; or at best (2) a stadium with district which as noted would be a competitor to P&L (which is still subsidized by the city) and spread KC even more thinly than it already is.

Xroads site builds upon existing amenities and vibrancy. obviously would want to be strategic about placing the stadium and not create a blasted-out zone of parking around it. If the stadium could be surgically placed and avoid too much demolition, this would seem to make a lot of sense.

[DColeKC]

Exact location isn't determined but only a few realistic options.

Along Grand would be fantastic, but not sure if the city is willing to get rid of such a gem and icon like "Totally Nude".


More likely is a slight shift to the east.


The stadiums ultimate orientation is limited by the blinding light in the sky. There's no way we would get a straight north orientation.

[TheSmokinPun]

Plain & simple: the Crossroads doesn't need it. I can believe the one person getting excited over this due to their corporate interests but the rest of the folks? Come on now, this is just silly at this point. We were coming up with grand plans to put the Chiefs on the other side of 35 & now everyone wants to tear down a good chunk of the Crossroads for this? Can hardly call this place about urban planning if we just push everything out of the way rather than building responsibly.

[DColeKC]

The royals wanted to build a big ballpark district but this shrinks the size of the development needed as it sits in or near a pre-existing entertainment district.

Wasn't the proposed entertainment district to be used to support the team? So if the team develops a smaller area wouldn't that affect the potential revenue to the team?

There would still be opportunities to build some commercial and residential as part of this location. Just more compact but still a great chance to build some towers with ballpark views. You're also more likely to have the financial help and expertise of Cordish involved as this is what they do in other markets. If this location makes the stadium cheaper to build and means getting help from an experienced developer in sports anchored development, it's hard to argue against. *Besides the demolition of some existing buildings, which also happened when PNL was built.

[DColeKC]

Plain & simple: the Crossroads doesn't need it. I can believe the one person getting excited over this due to their corporate interests but the rest of the folks? Come on now, this is just silly at this point. We were coming up with grand plans to put the Chiefs on the other side of 35 & now everyone wants to tear down a good chunk of the Crossroads for this? Can hardly call this place about urban planning if we just push everything out of the way rather than building responsibly.

You can assume I'm getting excited due to my "corporate" interest but this isn't about me or anyone I'm affiliated with. This is about the best decision for the city which by the way, Urban Planning is literally optimizing the effectiveness of a communities land use. It's hard to argue that using this land that will draw more people in one game day to the area than the existing businesses draw in an entire year isn't the most optimized use of the land.

I get how some of the crossroads fans think the area doesn't need it. I understand the hesitation and preference to keep all existing viable buildings but what I don't understand is how anyone can argue against the economic facts here. A stadium in the crossroads instantly makes the area a more desirable location, increases property values for all those smaller and bigger investors while heavily increasing the traffic flow, aka potential customers to the area.

And once again, this area will not remain the same forever. As downtown continues it's development, this exact area will see developers come in and transform it one way or another. We are talking about under 20 acres when the crossroads is almost 300 total.

[TheSmokinPun]

Plain & simple: the Crossroads doesn't need it. I can believe the one person getting excited over this due to their corporate interests but the rest of the folks? Come on now, this is just silly at this point. We were coming up with grand plans to put the Chiefs on the other side of 35 & now everyone wants to tear down a good chunk of the Crossroads for this? Can hardly call this place about urban planning if we just push everything out of the way rather than building responsibly.

You can assume I'm getting excited due to my "corporate" interest but this isn't about me or anyone I'm affiliated with. This is about the best decision for the city which by the way, Urban Planning is literally optimizing the effectiveness of a communities land use. It's hard to argue that using this land that will draw more people in one game day to the area than the existing businesses draw in an entire year isn't the most optimized use of the land.

I get how some of the crossroads fans think the area doesn't need it. I understand the hesitation and preference to keep all existing viable buildings but what I don't understand is how anyone can argue against the economic facts here. A stadium in the crossroads instantly makes the area a more desirable location, increases property values for all those smaller and bigger investors while heavily increasing the traffic flow, aka potential customers to the area.

And once again, this area will not remain the same forever. As downtown continues it's development, this exact area will see developers come in and transform it one way or another. We are talking about under 20 acres when the crossroads is almost 300 total.

It's already a desired location. Just go down Google Street View on every street over the past decade with the flashbacks & see how it redeveloped without having a ballpark dropped in the middle. I refuse to lose that & have zero interest in a stadium in that location, & I'm much more a baseball fan than an art fan.

Sorry man, just never going to win me over on this one. I'm all for the EV site & want to see a chunk of downtown that is just sitting there, empty, no real organic growth ever taking off. It just seems extremely greedy at this point & I would never vote for approving tax funds for a site that the corporations liked more than the other site but won't chip in for the bill. I am 100% against this.

[TheUrbanRoo]

I'm really torn on this one. The ambience will be 10x better in that Crossroads spot (and will be one of the best in MLB), but this might be the only chance of this generation to completely fix East Village. Such a tough one.