Downtown Baseball Stadium

[grovester]

Will this be some of that quality P&L level retail?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

The depths you guys are going to to make this argument are genuinely hilarious.

"Developing the East Village will lead to it not getting developed! Not developing the East Village will lead to it getting developed immediately!"

"Building a stadium INSIDE THE DOWNTOWN LOOP is spreading out. So suburban-minded!"

"The site with one owner that can be purchased tomorrow will take forever to build out, we should definitely go with the site with dozens of owners and businesses where some won't sell and others will make a big stink in the media. That process will be done in no time!"

[DColeKC]

I try to stay out of this, but I guess I can't help myself. Let's look at the most likely scenario, if "they" choose EC...

The public (county voters) is already on the fence about a new stadium and extension of sales tax;
There will be the use of eminent domain or, at the very least, the threat of it. That is incredibly unpopular and it could tie things up for a very long time. Despite what DCole and Trump think, it is not all about the money. These are people's lives and they may not be motivated by so-called just compensation. Maybe a property owner wants to sell, maybe they don't – that is their right, one that is protected by law and the constitution. Maybe a business wants to relocate, maybe they don't. If the ones that don't raise a stink, and that stink will be legitimate no matter what their reasons are, it will sour the public sentiment even more. The press will love their story, as they should, and it will kill this deal.

Eminent domain has been used so nefariously in the past that it rightly has a serious stigma. It should only be used for the public good and a baseball stadium, no matter how you slice it, does not fit that bill. DCole, do not argue this one. Your definition of public good is a perfect example of corporate greed and capitalism run amok, under the guise of "what's best for downtown."

Are you kidding me? Mentioning my name and Trump is the same phrase. Only confirms what you've been dancing around in prior posts.

What makes you think that voters are on the fence? Haven't you learned that the opposition to anything is always the loudest group on social media but often not accurately representative of the publics views?

I know your personal political thoughts will disagree with this, but Capitalism is how we became the richest country, with the richest citizens per person.* (And don't come back with the wealth gap blah blah blah, I'm not saying it's perfect and we don't have tons of issues) We don't hold up major progress that will create thousands of jobs, stimulate thousands of businesses and contribute in a positive way to our cities reputation on the national scale because one furniture maker doesn't want to move a few blocks and take the money.

Eminent domain is much more likely to be used with a property owner who has an empty building that's worth 1.2m but is demanding 5m. It's far less likely that it will be used on business owners who happen to own their buildings and demand to stay put. I don't honestly see the need to use it at all. I continue to reach and chat with business owners in this area and I've not come across one yet who is strongly opposed. They've all had very open-minded responses.

*Or 2nd if you can't Switzerland. But simply based on GDP per capita and household income. Not to get into this very complex argument.

[DColeKC]

Will this be some of that quality P&L level retail?

Here it comes! You were almost contributing to the conversation but glad to see you slide back into your more preferred role.

[DColeKC]

The depths you guys are going to to make this argument are genuinely hilarious.

"Developing the East Village will lead to it not getting developed! Not developing the East Village will lead to it getting developed immediately!"

"Building a stadium INSIDE THE DOWNTOWN LOOP is spreading out. So suburban-minded!"

"The site with one owner that can be purchased tomorrow will take forever to build out, we should definitely go with the site with dozens of owners and businesses where some won't sell and others will make a big stink in the media. That process will be done in no time!"

Wow, I feel bad that these things have to be spelled out for you.

If the stadium goes in East Village, the Royals will solely control it's fate. They can take all the time they want to build the area and the master development agreement would likely give them that latitude.

If the stadium goes in East Crossroads, the current owners of East Village will be forced to sell or build. The sole reason it hasn't been developed for 20 years is because of this thought that a stadium would come along, they'd have one nice clean, big transaction and laugh all the way to the bank. I mean that's capitalism which I support, but it's a bet that doesn't appear to have paid off.

[mourban]

The depths you guys are going to to make this argument are genuinely hilarious.

"Developing the East Village will lead to it not getting developed! Not developing the East Village will lead to it getting developed immediately!"

"Building a stadium INSIDE THE DOWNTOWN LOOP is spreading out. So suburban-minded!"

"The site with one owner that can be purchased tomorrow will take forever to build out, we should definitely go with the site with dozens of owners and businesses where some won't sell and others will make a big stink in the media. That process will be done in no time!"

The KC Star building has “one owner” and is currently dead space. Lots of dead space. And somehow the Crossroads is growing in spite of it. I think a baseball stadium is a better use for that space than the status quo, and of the businesses that would get displaced, most of them could find new homes nearby.

Shoot, you could even keep the facades of some of those buildings (except for resurrection) and integrate the streetscape at the north end of grand into the design… I don’t think it would happen but there are ways if the footprint ends up being Grand to Oak.

If the Star building stays I hope it gets significantly revamped to actually be a welcoming street space along McGee and Oak. Right now it is just an obstruction.

I guess I’m hoping people start advocating for what they would like to see at the Crossroads site to make it palatable for the urban minded people here more than arguing over EV v EC. I think people could influence those design decisions, but I doubt anyone on this forum can sway the choice between either site. That decision is going to be made regardless of KCRag’s sentiment on the issue

[grovester]

Will this be some of that quality P&L level retail?

Here it comes! You were almost contributing to the conversation but glad to see you slide back into your more preferred role.

Honest question.

[smh]

Great points. Have you really been lurking here for 14 years?
[/quote]

Ha! Just found my old account info, but actually, yes!
[/quote]

Amazing, welcome!

[beautyfromashes]

Huh? I mean the building has been for sale since the moment he bought it. He has no intentions of operating the place himself, it was an investment. He's saying whatever he can in order to get the most out of it. It's more valuable if someone buys it and flips vs buying it and demolishing it. He may be the only person they need to use ED with if he tries to get some astronomical price. It's worth 11 million, not a penny more.

You're going to eminent domain the Star building!?! Explain the justification, please.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

If the stadium goes in East Crossroads, the current owners of East Village will be forced to sell or build. The sole reason it hasn't been developed for 20 years is because of this thought that a stadium would come along, they'd have one nice clean, big transaction and laugh all the way to the bank.

You're just making up nonsense and saying it's true.

[taxi]

^ Good question and just expand that to any other property that doesn't want to sell. While you're at it, please explain how a baseball stadium is public use.

[dnweava]

I'm 100% in on the Star site now. The view from the outfield will be amazing. Should be able to see P&L, Jackson Co courthouse, and City hall, all more the reason to make sure the stadium incorporate those architectural styles into the façade. Just cover that ugly AF att building with TV boards or something.

And for all the haters, look at this pic or walk around the crossroads on any day that isn't' first friday and tell me the area isn't 50% empty parking lots and 40% buildings with zero streetlife. Our standards are so low in KC that we have the crossroads up on this massive pedestal but this would be considered a car centric ghost town of a neighborhood in any major city in the world outside of the US. This will not harm the neighborhood, it will breath an insane amount of life into it.

[TheUrbanRoo]

"Developing the East Village will lead to it not getting developed! Not developing the East Village will lead to it getting developed immediately!"

This is the exact argument the anti-Crossroads stadium people are making about EC, and it also makes no sense either…

[DColeKC]

Huh? I mean the building has been for sale since the moment he bought it. He has no intentions of operating the place himself, it was an investment. He's saying whatever he can in order to get the most out of it. It's more valuable if someone buys it and flips vs buying it and demolishing it. He may be the only person they need to use ED with if he tries to get some astronomical price. It's worth 11 million, not a penny more.

You're going to eminent domain the Star building!?! Explain the justification, please.

There's no viable use for the building. It's been looked at by several potential buyers but the costs to turn it into most anything useable would be so high, the purchase price would need to be cheap and even then, the land it sits on is more valuable than the building itself.

If he demands an out of this world price that so far above and beyond the market value, even after multiple appraisals, I could see the city stepping in.

That would be a justifiable use of ED.

[DColeKC]

If the stadium goes in East Crossroads, the current owners of East Village will be forced to sell or build. The sole reason it hasn't been developed for 20 years is because of this thought that a stadium would come along, they'd have one nice clean, big transaction and laugh all the way to the bank.

You're just making up nonsense and saying it's true.

Yep, just like I made the fact that the Royals were looking to build in the East Crossroads. Just like I made up the fact that the Mayor and City manager much prefer east crossroads.

If you have any relevant information to counter mine, do tell.

[TheSmokinPun]

I'm 100% in on the Star site now. The view from the outfield will be amazing. Should be able to see P&L, Jackson Co courthouse, and City hall, all more the reason to make sure the stadium incorporate those architectural styles into the façade. Just cover that ugly AF att building with TV boards or something.

And for all the haters, look at this pic or walk around the crossroads on any day that isn't' first friday and tell me the area isn't 50% empty parking lots and 40% buildings with zero streetlife. Our standards are so low in KC that we have the crossroads up on this massive pedestal but this would be considered a car centric ghost town of a neighborhood in any major city in the world outside of the US. This will not harm the neighborhood, it will breath an insane amount of life into it.

It isn't facing that way, come on now.

[dnweava]

It isn't facing that way, come on now.

Baseball fields are supposed to face North to NE (its even a recommendation in the MLB rulebook). If an architect puts his seal on plans with it facing south, they deserve to lose their license.

[DColeKC]

^ Good question and just expand that to any other property that doesn't want to sell. While you're at it, please explain how a baseball stadium is public use.

Complex conversation and one we won't likely agree on as far as our own opinions, but there's plenty of case law out there that says stadiums are considered public use. Beyond that, there's precedent that even says it's legal for governments to take private property via ED and give to different private companies for new development.

What constitutes "public use" is if it serves a legitimate public purpose, such as promoting economic growth and revitalization.* Hard to argue a stadium in East Crossroads Vs what is already there wouldn't do that. No argument from me that it wouldn't be ideal or smooth considering public pushback and some media.

* Kelo v. New London 2005

[DColeKC]

It isn't facing that way, come on now.

Baseball fields are supposed to face North to NE (its even a recommendation in the MLB rulebook). If an architect puts his seal on plans with it facing south, they deserve to lose their license.

This is true. Cleveland faces straight north. Coors Field faces straight north. Citi Field, Petco Park, Citizens Bank Park face either straight north or just slightly to the northeast.

[TheSmokinPun]

It isn't facing that way, come on now.

Baseball fields are supposed to face North to NE (its even a recommendation in the MLB rulebook). If an architect puts his seal on plans with it facing south, they deserve to lose their license.

Correct, and that is facing northwest. There is no way to get the view everyone wants at either site. I'd say that dream is long dead no matter what.

It's either looking at the Fed/Longlines or looking at new build/who knows.