Downtown Baseball Stadium

[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.

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.

It's was a poorly cropped paint drawing not meant for accuracy, just generally showing the field in that location and facing north-ish lol.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

"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…

Huh? The East Crossroads is already developed and making progress. It's not anything special but its retail spaces are full of active uses. It doesn't need a baseball stadium to develop or any big project to see solid incremental growth. Green Dirt Farm is opening a restaurant. 190 units are planned for 15th & Holmes. What's currently happening in East Village?

[beautyfromashes]

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.

First, it is it's use. You can't say there isn't a use when it's actually being used. Second, in Missouri, you can't eminent domain a factory. The owner could very well say that a printing facility is a factory. It's impossible to say it's blighted. If he doesn't want to sell, he doesn't have to. I guarantee you that property will take more to purchase than all of the East Village and that's just one of the many, many different properties that they will have to buy.

[GRID]

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!"

Really? It's not that hard. The stadium will open. It will not open with anything but maybe one smallish retail building. Think STL ballpark village only probably smaller since the P&L District already exist. And I doubt even that opens with the ballpark.

It will take YEARS to get ONE residential tower up, if it's even a "tower". And that will be it. At least for the first ten years within the stadium opening. I fucking guarantee it. The rest of the EV will still sit empty and isolated waiting for more towers and the high price they will someday get for the lots. Till then, it makes more sense to keep them parking lots for the stadium. Stop believing these renderings with a stadium surrounded by six new towers.

The east loop highway will still look like shit and nobody will want to walk anywhere near it. Modot will never properly fix the east loop. The paseo west area will just be a hodgepodge of parking lots and industrial buildings and empty lots, because again, there will be little interest to develop the area or live in the area. It's just too isolated, and yet another part of downtown landlocked by highways except to the east where you have low density ghetto basically that is probably decades away from gentrifying. There are way too many better places to live in KC's urban core. And there is only so much that can be gentrified in a decent time period (beacon hill, troost etc).

That's why stadiums need to be placed near already developing areas. A stadium in Crossroads will not have to have a self sustaining district and fantasy high-rises build along side it (that will take decades to build if it ever builds out). The stadium will be near already developing areas that already have plans in place to build south of the 670 park and the rest of the massive Crossroads district. The stadium would have a direct connection to the P&L District, the Convention Center as well via the new 670 park. It would be right on Grand, a busier street near the arena so you could actually have ground level retail at the stadium that would be able to survive during non games.

There will likely be towers added around the stadium at the same pace as the EV, but it won't matter because the area will be active before they go in as well as after.

The owners of the EV lots can either figure out that their land is not worth as much as they think it is and let it develop into less expensive 5 over ones or sit on it. Won't matter. KC will have a much more thriving downtown even with the EV area not developed. But I personally think it will start to develop. Just like when the south crossraods was no longer an option for a ballpark near the RR tracks and it's starting to develop now. (20th and Oak etc).

[phuqueue]

I'm starting to find it shocking that a few of you on here, a development forum, are pushing for suburban type, decentralized development simply because you want a hole filled.

Spreading out the development does a few things.
1. Lowers density which can result in lower population density and maybe create less congestion. We don't have a congestion issue as is.
2. Creates a car-friendly, if not car-centric environment.
3. Increases infrastructure costs as it needs more of everything. Roads, utilities and services.

By placing things more closely together and taking advantage of existing momentum, you have so many advantages. Most of which I've already mentioned but a few more.
1.Infrastructure efficiencies.
2. Better access to public transpiration.
3. Economic benefits by concentrating development a central area, stimulating economic activity and helping create a vibrant urban core with diverse businesses.

There is a reason the city is willing to financially back only one site at this time.

bro didn't really just give us an urbanism 101

Impressively false narrative. There are benefits to both sites (Q just said so himself) and EV wouldn't be anything near suburban. Come on.

Yeah "bro"... Felt a few on here could maybe get back to the basics.

I've never said there's no benefits to East Village, there's just not as many as East Crossroads.

The concept of spreading out development simply to fill up empty space is in fact, a very suburban frame of mind.

The two sites are like five blocks apart. There are parking lots at TSC that are farther from the stadium than the EV site is from the Live block. The idea that putting the stadium (a facility that, itself, sits on a superblock and represents zero population) in EV vs. Crossroads appreciably reduces downtown density or represents "suburban-type, decentralized development" is a joke. And when you say Crossroads has "better access to public transit," let's just be clear that you're talking specifically about the streetcar (a single line of limited capacity and limited range, and therefore, limited utility for filling up or emptying out a stadium) and not the transit center that is on the EV site's doorstep.

I think the "economic benefits" argument, when considered in light of other posts you've made in this thread, is also a little bit of trying to have your cake and eat it too. The stadium either will or won't produce spinoff economic development. If it doesn't, then your point about economic benefits is false. If it does, then your arguments in some of your other posts that this won't meaningfully change the character or makeup of the neighborhood don't hold. You can't have it both ways. If economic development is one of your goals, then changing the neighborhood is in fact the whole point. And personally, I don't care whether the neighborhood changes, at least not as a general thing. Dynamic cities see their neighborhoods in a constant state of change. And I realize that the neighborhood we're talking about here isn't exactly Times Square. But I'm wary of ripping out what is, after all, still a neighborhood, and one that is already growing and developing at its own pace, to drop in a big master planned development, which could just as easily go on vacant land a few blocks away. I'm sure that difference of a few blocks does matter a lot to various parties' bottom lines, but that's not my concern. My concern is to see the city not continue to cannibalize itself in pursuit of shiny new things.

[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.

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.

Yeah, surely there's no way to get some great views.

[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.

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.

Well, first, land bankers aren't "forced" to do anything. Enlighten us exactly on how they'll be "forced" to sell or build.

Second, the history of East Village is expontentially more complicated than what you're saying. https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... -land.html. And simple logic should tell you that when Kauffman renovations were completed in 2009, there would be no hope of a baseball stadium in the East Village for well over a decade at the earliest. And, even then, what guarantee would the EV have of even being a consideration? It makes no sense to believe they sat on this thing for 20 years with the sole plan of waiting for a Royals stadium to be built there. Sure, recently, that's been their direction but the entire 20 years? Nonsense.

[GRID]

Just wondering those of you that are agsint the CR site. Would you support it if it were selected and the plan looked like it could be implemented? The stadium renderings looked good etc?

I mean I would totally support the EV if that is what they end up going with even though I think the CR is the better location if it can be done there.

[DColeKC]

bro didn't really just give us an urbanism 101

Impressively false narrative. There are benefits to both sites (Q just said so himself) and EV wouldn't be anything near suburban. Come on.

Yeah "bro"... Felt a few on here could maybe get back to the basics.

I've never said there's no benefits to East Village, there's just not as many as East Crossroads.

The concept of spreading out development simply to fill up empty space is in fact, a very suburban frame of mind.

The two sites are like five blocks apart. There are parking lots at TSC that are farther from the stadium than the EV site is from the Live block. The idea that putting the stadium (a facility that, itself, sits on a superblock and represents zero population) in EV vs. Crossroads appreciably reduces downtown density or represents "suburban-type, decentralized development" is a joke. And when you say Crossroads has "better access to public transit," let's just be clear that you're talking specifically about the streetcar (a single line of limited capacity and limited range, and therefore, limited utility for filling up or emptying out a stadium) and not the transit center that is on the EV site's doorstep.

I think the "economic benefits" argument, when considered in light of other posts you've made in this thread, is also a little bit of trying to have your cake and eat it too. The stadium either will or won't produce spinoff economic development. If it doesn't, then your point about economic benefits is false. If it does, then your arguments in some of your other posts that this won't meaningfully change the character or makeup of the neighborhood don't hold. You can't have it both ways. If economic development is one of your goals, then changing the neighborhood is in fact the whole point. And personally, I don't care whether the neighborhood changes, at least not as a general thing. Dynamic cities see their neighborhoods in a constant state of change. And I realize that the neighborhood we're talking about here isn't exactly Times Square. But I'm wary of ripping out what is, after all, still a neighborhood, and one that is already growing and developing at its own pace, to drop in a big master planned development, which could just as easily go on vacant land a few blocks away. I'm sure that difference of a few blocks does matter a lot to various parties' bottom lines, but that's not my concern. My concern is to see the city not continue to cannibalize itself in pursuit of shiny new things.

My argument is very clear and has been for months... scratch that, years. A stadium in East Crossroads no doubt has immediate economic benefits. A stadium in East Village is better than Truman Sports Complex but will not deliver the same impact as one located in East Crossroads.

The Crossroads neighborhood is over 350 acres and we're talking about directly changing 15 acres. So yes, I'm sure there would be some changes in the immediate vicinity that is currently, mostly under utilized but in totality, the neighborhood as a whole will not dramatically change and will still need much of that organic growth that is so often promoted in here.

If your concern is not seeing the city cannibalize itself, East Crossroads makes much more sense.

[DColeKC]

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.

Well, first, land bankers aren't "forced" to do anything. Enlighten us exactly on how they'll be "forced" to sell or build.

Second, the history of East Village is expontentially more complicated than what you're saying. https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... -land.html. And simple logic should tell you that when Kauffman renovations were completed in 2009, there would be no hope of a baseball stadium in the East Village for well over a decade at the earliest. And, even then, what guarantee would the EV have of even being a consideration? It makes no sense to believe they sat on this thing for 20 years with the sole plan of waiting for a Royals stadium to be built there. Sure, recently, that's been their direction but the entire 20 years? Nonsense.

Investors at some point will be "forced" to make moves as their investment costs them more and more money. The people who own the majority are also developers and it seems like they have expertise in mid-rise multi-family, something we could use more of in downtown kansas city and what better reason than a billion dollar development project to get started. As someone mentioned, the government buildings right there have most of the downtown in office workers.

Many of us have had to do P&L's as part of our careers. I'm sure the people who own the land have done there's and they decided long ago that waiting for the Royals was the best bet. Keep in mind they didn't simply want to sell, they wanted to be active participants in the development and make residual income.

[DColeKC]

Just wondering those of you that are agsint the CR site. Would you support it if it were selected and the plan looked like it could be implemented? The stadium renderings looked good etc?

I mean I would totally support the EV if that is what they end up going with even though I think the CR is the better location if it can be done there.

I'm with you. I will support EV if that's where it has to go but I can't agree more that CR means a far superior outcome for our city and downtown.

[beautyfromashes]

The two sites are like five blocks apart. There are parking lots at TSC that are farther from the stadium than the EV site is from the Live block. The idea that putting the stadium (a facility that, itself, sits on a superblock and represents zero population) in EV vs. Crossroads appreciably reduces downtown density or represents "suburban-type, decentralized development" is a joke. And when you say Crossroads has "better access to public transit," let's just be clear that you're talking specifically about the streetcar (a single line of limited capacity and limited range, and therefore, limited utility for filling up or emptying out a stadium) and not the transit center that is on the EV site's doorstep.

Not to mention that there has been talk about a second streetcar line going E-W into the Historic Northeast for years. Having a stadium in EV would be a means to help bring this to fruition. It wouldn't just be the means to totally transform the east side of the loop, but all of that area to the east.

[alejandro46]

So many pages of back and forth. Here is a starting pro/con list. Feel free to quote and add or comment.

Crossroads
Pro:
- More “integral” part of downtown
- Closer to Power and Light
- Adjacent to 670 park cap + additional blocked capped
- Existing infrastructure
- Closer to Streetcar
- Existing surrounding neighborhood, not hinging on success of surrounding district build out (STL stadium finished in ’06, Ball Park Village still not done)
Cons
- Proposed plot much smaller
- Existing building & streets require vacation/realigning, and acquisition and demolition from multiple property owners
- Less spin off development potential
- High probability for additional tear downs to add parking
- No future re-use of existing KCStar building

East Village
Pros:
- Land largely owned by 1 entity
- Land mostly vacant
- Larger site
- High potential for spin-off development throughout EV and even some in Paseo Gateway provided east loop highway can be crossed/capped.
- Close to EV transit center
Cons
- Cut off from remainder of downtown by low activated fed and gov buildings
- Higher infrastructure costs for utilities and highway access
- NE facing views not of downtown
- Farther from P&L (.4 miles from 12th & Cherry to E. entrance to PNL).
- More spread out style development (more car friendly?)

[FlippantCitizen]

The two sites are like five blocks apart. There are parking lots at TSC that are farther from the stadium than the EV site is from the Live block. The idea that putting the stadium (a facility that, itself, sits on a superblock and represents zero population) in EV vs. Crossroads appreciably reduces downtown density or represents "suburban-type, decentralized development" is a joke. And when you say Crossroads has "better access to public transit," let's just be clear that you're talking specifically about the streetcar (a single line of limited capacity and limited range, and therefore, limited utility for filling up or emptying out a stadium) and not the transit center that is on the EV site's doorstep.

Not to mention that there has been talk about a second streetcar line going E-W into the Historic Northeast for years. Having a stadium in EV would be a means to help bring this to fruition. It wouldn't just be the means to totally transform the east side of the loop, but all of that area to the east.

Big reason right there that I actually think EV is better for the city in the long term. Catalyze energy eastward from DT Loop. Crossroads is going to develop without an immediate catalyst. EV, Paseo, the push for a 12th street or Independence Ave rail corridor may not.

[mourban]

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.

Yeah, surely there's no way to get some great views.

I love the renderings… the AT&T building will be a problem though won’t it

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Investors at some point will be "forced" to make moves as their investment costs them more and more money. The people who own the majority are also developers and it seems like they have expertise in mid-rise multi-family, something we could use more of in downtown kansas city and what better reason than a billion dollar development project to get started. As someone mentioned, the government buildings right there have most of the downtown in office workers.

Many of us have had to do P&L's as part of our careers. I'm sure the people who own the land have done there's and they decided long ago that waiting for the Royals was the best bet. Keep in mind they didn't simply want to sell, they wanted to be active participants in the development and make residual income.

"At some point" doing a lot of work there. I've already seen multiple people talking about how Sporting KC should go to EV. Guess we'll have to wait for that to not happen. Maybe then they'll be "forced" to sell. Oh wait, but we'll probably be talking about building a new arena by then...

[mourban]

So many pages of back and forth. Here is a starting pro/con list. Feel free to quote and add or comment.

…
Cons
- No future re-use of existing KCStar building

I would emphasize the KC Star building is actually a blighting influence in that it has no use (or planned use) and sucks up a ton of the street level activation. Getting rid of the KC Star building or repurposing it should go in the Pro column

[moderne]

I am just concerned about putting another superblock development so close to another and what that does for granularity and walkable urban grid. Imagine if the convention center was built in the same location being considered in crossroads. It has a huge foot print but does not interrupt the street grid. Yet there is a dead zone around it. It is busy constantly and brings huge crowds to DT. How much of that translates into pedestrian traffic walking a mere 3 skinny blocks to P&L?

[mourban]

^agreed… which is why tearing down the Star building makes more sense to me than keeping it. If it’s kept it needs to be meaningfully remodeled to provide a good street level experience

[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…

Huh? The East Crossroads is already developed and making progress. It's not anything special but its retail spaces are full of active uses. It doesn't need a baseball stadium to develop or any big project to see solid incremental growth. Green Dirt Farm is opening a restaurant. 190 units are planned for 15th & Holmes. What's currently happening in East Village?

Yeah, so now imagine all that plus the new baseball stadium and spin-off. You might get an actual area of the city that resembles what the top 5 cities in the country have. Not just two “good/okay” areas with EV & Crossroads.