Downtown Baseball Stadium

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Plenty of surface parking lots already exist and I have no doubt the Royals will build some parking garages nearby,

If that parking doesn't fulfill the gameday demand (which it won't) then that argument is irrelevant. And where are the parking garages going to go BTW? Only on surface lots or are we tearing down buildings to build more parking in a downtown already filled with parking?

The area directly adjacent to the stadium will be more valuable to the Royals for residential and mixed use.

So, the Royals are going to buy up all the land around the stadium?

If the city is going to help pay for these parking garages, they already own some property where a garage makes sense.

Cool, so a city that already has a debt obligation for downtown parking garages in the tens of millions per year is going to expand that.

[DColeKC]

The anti-Crossroads people are acting no different than suburban NIMBY's. Not my area! Go elsewhere!

Even though it's ultimately the *best* option for the city downtown.

I'm not an art person and it would actually be much easier with current transit for me to get to the CR site but I still prefer the EV. You can cry out NIMBY all you want but it's the real NIMBY answer compared to the please god build something here anything site that the EV has been. A blank canvas full of potential, you'd think you'd want to fill in that area of the map that people in other towns have mocked us over.

I'm so disappointed too that only one side of the argument keeps jumping in and being negative towards people that have other opinions that might differ than your own. Supporting the East Village site is my belief and I'm allowed to have it.

This is comical. Go back about 200 pages when I first mention east crossroads and see the negativity I received. Scroll through the next several dozen pages and watch as I continue to be treated negatively, even called a liar as I was advocating for EC and trying to offer any insight I had.

I understand the concerns about East Village but frankly, I could care less about the exceptionally tiny amount of people in other cities who might find the lack of development in that area as an opportunity to poke fun at us. I'm not in favor of building something just to fill up a big hole if it's going to have a negative impact on the long term results of what is being built. If this were the premium option and there were no disadvantages, the east crossroads site wouldn't have ever been considered.

I want what's best for downtown and I want fan experience that makes coming to KC to watch your team play the Royals a bucket list item. We won't get that with East Village.

I respect people's opinions and love a good polite debate. I can get negative when the negatively comes my way though.

I keep trying to remind everyone in here to be positive because it's awesome we get to even seriously talk about this. It's great we get to witness such a huge development happen in our lifetimes. We've been on a roll and I don't take that for granted. Not everyone gets to live through a positive downtown/city revitalization.

[bspecht]

The anti-Crossroads people are acting no different than suburban NIMBY's. Not my area! Go elsewhere!

Even though it's ultimately the *best* option for the city downtown.

[TheSmokinPun]

The anti-Crossroads people are acting no different than suburban NIMBY's. Not my area! Go elsewhere!

Even though it's ultimately the *best* option for the city downtown.

I'm not an art person and it would actually be much easier with current transit for me to get to the CR site but I still prefer the EV. You can cry out NIMBY all you want but it's the real NIMBY answer compared to the please god build something here anything site that the EV has been. A blank canvas full of potential, you'd think you'd want to fill in that area of the map that people in other towns have mocked us over.

I'm so disappointed too that only one side of the argument keeps jumping in and being negative towards people that have other opinions that might differ than your own. Supporting the East Village site is my belief and I'm allowed to have it.

This is comical. Go back about 200 pages when I first mention east crossroads and see the negativity I received. Scroll through the next several dozen pages and watch as I continue to be treated negatively, even called a liar as I was advocating for EC and trying to offer any insight I had.

I understand the concerns about East Village but frankly, I could care less about the exceptionally tiny amount of people in other cities who might find the lack of development in that area as an opportunity to poke fun at us. I'm not in favor of building something just to fill up a big hole if it's going to have a negative impact on the long term results of what is being built. If this were the premium option and there were no disadvantages, the east crossroads site wouldn't have ever been considered.

I want what's best for downtown and I want fan experience that makes coming to KC to watch your team play the Royals a bucket list item. We won't get that with East Village.

I respect people's opinions and love a good polite debate. I can get negative when the negatively comes my way though.

I keep trying to remind everyone in here to be positive because it's awesome we get to even seriously talk about this. It's great we get to witness such a huge development happen in our lifetimes. We've been on a roll and I don't take that for granted. Not everyone gets to live through a positive downtown/city revitalization.

I wasn't speaking with you or talking about you at all. Almost every single post, you're jumping on people when they never even tag you. Stop taking it all so personally, you weren't even tagged in that post!

I get your connections & everything but just don't take it personally when people disagree with you in posts that you're not being mentioned in!

[DColeKC]

Plenty of surface parking lots already exist and I have no doubt the Royals will build some parking garages nearby,

If that parking doesn't fulfill the gameday demand (which it won't) then that argument is irrelevant. And where are the parking garages going to go BTW? Only on surface lots or are we tearing down buildings to build more parking in a downtown already filled with parking?

The area directly adjacent to the stadium will be more valuable to the Royals for residential and mixed use.

So, the Royals are going to buy up all the land around the stadium?

If the city is going to help pay for these parking garages, they already own some property where a garage makes sense.

Cool, so a city that already has a debt obligation for downtown parking garages in the tens of millions per year is going to expand that.

I've never said the Royals won't build parking, it's a massive revenue stream for them. There are plenty of existing surface lots that could be built upon. The area between At&t and the Holiday Inn is partly owned by Jackson County. The parking garage to the east of the At&t building is tiny and owned by jackson County as well.

I've always said in my estimation, the site that the Royals will want is Grand to Locust, but the block between oak and locust is too valuable for other uses vs parking structures.

And yes, I'm sure the Royals will buy up any property to the east that the current owners want to sell. I think I dropped a image last week showing that there's a massive amount of underutilized property in that area currently.

I don't know if the city would help build the garages, but it's something they tossed into the last bond agreement so I tossed it in here.

[DColeKC]

I'm not an art person and it would actually be much easier with current transit for me to get to the CR site but I still prefer the EV. You can cry out NIMBY all you want but it's the real NIMBY answer compared to the please god build something here anything site that the EV has been. A blank canvas full of potential, you'd think you'd want to fill in that area of the map that people in other towns have mocked us over.

I'm so disappointed too that only one side of the argument keeps jumping in and being negative towards people that have other opinions that might differ than your own. Supporting the East Village site is my belief and I'm allowed to have it.

This is comical. Go back about 200 pages when I first mention east crossroads and see the negativity I received. Scroll through the next several dozen pages and watch as I continue to be treated negatively, even called a liar as I was advocating for EC and trying to offer any insight I had.

I understand the concerns about East Village but frankly, I could care less about the exceptionally tiny amount of people in other cities who might find the lack of development in that area as an opportunity to poke fun at us. I'm not in favor of building something just to fill up a big hole if it's going to have a negative impact on the long term results of what is being built. If this were the premium option and there were no disadvantages, the east crossroads site wouldn't have ever been considered.

I want what's best for downtown and I want fan experience that makes coming to KC to watch your team play the Royals a bucket list item. We won't get that with East Village.

I respect people's opinions and love a good polite debate. I can get negative when the negatively comes my way though.

I keep trying to remind everyone in here to be positive because it's awesome we get to even seriously talk about this. It's great we get to witness such a huge development happen in our lifetimes. We've been on a roll and I don't take that for granted. Not everyone gets to live through a positive downtown/city revitalization.

I wasn't speaking with you or talking about you at all. Almost every single post, you're jumping on people when they never even tag you. Stop taking it all so personally, you weren't even tagged in that post!

I get your connections & everything but just don't take it personally when people disagree with you in posts that you're not being mentioned in!

I only take it personally when it's directed at me. I also wasn't assuming your comment was directed at me but you said "'I'm so disappointed too that only one side of the argument keeps jumping in and being negative towards people". That's bullshit, so I said what I said.

People would have to be blind to not see that I'm obviously passionate about this topic, especially now that we're so close.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I've always said in my estimation, the site that the Royals will want is Grand to Locust, but the block between oak and locust is too valuable for other uses vs parking structures.

What's there now is too valuable to be parking or parking is more valuable than what's there?

[TheSmokinPun]

I only take it personally when it's directed at me. I also wasn't assuming your comment was directed at me but you said "'I'm so disappointed too that only one side of the argument keeps jumping in and being negative towards people". That's bullshit, so I said what I said.

People would have to be blind to not see that I'm obviously passionate about this topic, especially now that we're so close.

Dude, reread it. You do exactly that there, I'm allowed to have other discussions about it than just here & have had debates with others that favor that site.

And we're not allowed to be passionate about our beliefs either? Or passionate for a site that differs from the one that you favor?

[DColeKC]

I only take it personally when it's directed at me. I also wasn't assuming your comment was directed at me but you said "'I'm so disappointed too that only one side of the argument keeps jumping in and being negative towards people". That's bullshit, so I said what I said.

People would have to be blind to not see that I'm obviously passionate about this topic, especially now that we're so close.

Dude, reread it. You do exactly that there, I'm allowed to have other discussions about it than just here & have had debates with others that favor that site.

And we're not allowed to be passionate about our beliefs either? Or passionate for a site that differs from the one that you favor?

Of course people should be passionate about whatever they're in support of. I mentioned my passion in response to your comment directed at me about how I jump in without being tagged. I'm not going to wait to be tagged before offering up my (unwelcome by many) opinion.

You said only one side of the argument is being negative towards people. Can't help but assume you mean the pro-EC side, which if the case, is ignoring the past several pages and instances where there's been a plethora of negativity from the pro-ev side of the argument. I'm not suggesting people can't have different opinions, I'm only calling attention to a comment you made that's factually inaccurate.

Anyway, I'll be sure to avoid commenting on anything you say unless you "tag' me.

Moving on.

[DColeKC]

I've clearly reached annoying status on here for many and I can't blame you. This is my only outlet where I can freely discuss the topic as I can't do it on social media.

I'll be back when there's more news to discuss. In the meantime, I'll be at Totally Nude taking in all the sights while they last.

[GRID]

Grid I don't know why you're doing this bs. You know as much as anyone that the concern is about what happens to the surrounding area.

What good is a stadium if you level everything for parking surrounding it?

It's so sad to see people that know better fall into this.

I don't see why the ECR location would need any additional parking around it. Maybe one garage to the east on one of the big empty or industrial lots?

Any new large garage(s) can also go up directly east of the arena on top of the surface lots there or on the jackson county jail site. There would be zero need to tear down active structures for parking. There is plenty of parking downtown already. But you would see a lot of new construction in the area as the area changes from a scattering of small buildings to being an actual urban neighbored. But again, any parking they do build should be in locations that would not hurt the crossroads.

You guys sound like the suburbanites complaining there is no parking right now. There won't be a ton of new parking needed and what might be built can easily be put in locations that are hidden and out of the way and those new garages could replace parking lots with mixed use garages that could even include apartments towers, hotels etc.

Look at those before and after San Diego pics. That part of SD was far more built up and active bars, restaurants etc than east crossroads is with the Gas Lamp district nearby etc. Now most of the little businesses and parking lots have been replaced with midrise and high-rise development. And again, that area of SD was much more activated than East crossroads is. ECR is half parking lots today. It will densify not be cleared out for parking that is not needed.

If you need a large garage, it can go here:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kansa ... ?entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kansa ... ?entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kansa ... ?entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kansa ... ?entry=ttu

And if a large garage goes to those locations, I would hope it would bring with it a residential development on top the garages.

[KCPowercat]

The anti-Crossroads people are acting no different than suburban NIMBY's. Not my area! Go elsewhere!

Even though it's ultimately the *best* option for the city downtown.

I live closer to EV than crossroads but walkable to both. This is not a nimby convo let's give those with a different opinion on here a little more respect than that. I'm quite sure we have earned that .

Removing to add is never going to be best over only adding when both locations are easily walkable

[KCPowercat]

.

You guys sound like the suburbanites complaining there is no parking right now. There won't be a ton of new parking needed and what might be built can easily be put in locations that are hidden and out of the way and those new garages could replace parking lots with mixed use garages that could even include apartments towers, hotels etc.

Our poster in the know just said they would build parking as it's a huge parking stream so hard to think they won't. You know better than saying we are suburbanites bitching there isn't enough parking. Why does having a different opinion on this site all o a sudden turn I to name calling or telling us it's just a strip club going away? You know why we are concerned. It's because the impact of this will not be 670 to 17th, grand to oak. It will be much larger. Let's just be honest and not diminish the concerns we have with this site.

The biggest concern with EV site on here is that it's isolated. In the downtown loop. That's 1mile wide. Total.

[GRID]

^ it's not name calling. I'm not calling anybody names. I just said people are sounding like suburban people saying there is no parking by saying the crossroads is going to be paved over with parking.

Downtown KC has so much empty (or severely under utilized) land now. So much. More than any other city I can think of and I'm not even talking about the East Village.

I already mentioned all the blocks east of the arena would be fine for a garage. And if that garage is part of a big mixed use project, it would be amazing for those blocks to be developed like that compared to what is there now.

Same with many of the huge empty blocks east of Grand. There is plenty of room to build a few parking structures while having no negative impact on additional crossroads buildings/businesses.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

The problem is that the surrounding neighborhood isn't centrally planned. Even if the stadium is perfectly executed with a garage or garages built as well as you can build a garage, there are still going to be nearby property owners that are going to view parking as a better revenue stream than whatever is currently on their land. The Royals are not going to be building enough parking to fill the stadium and even if downtown has more than enough parking, all that parking isn't within a couple blocks of the stadium. And nobody driving in from the suburbs is going to choose to park in a garage 5 blocks away when there's a surface lot 2 blocks away.

[GRID]

^ I get that idea, but I'm not sure I buy it. I feel like the land will be worth more developed. Sure parking lots that exist now will become more valuable parking lots. But will buildings be torn down to build even more surface parking lots? Do the numbers work for that?

I don't see any evidence of that in other cities. It seems like areas around stadiums either develop or stay the same. You don't see a lot of buildings torn down to add parking.

Think about it. You tear down your building to add 30 parking spaces. You have the cost to tear down the building, build the lot, maintain it, hire people to run it on game days etc. Sure that works for a while, but only if the building you tore down was not being used. And the second a hotel or residential developer comes along, that land is far more valuable.

We moved to DC right when Nationals park was built. A few surface parking lots were built on empty land or blocks that had barely used buildings. Nothing substantial was torn down. Today all those lots are gone and replaced with 12 story buildings. Even west of Capital Street directly across the street from the stadium nothing was torn down for parking and there are some crappy buildings over there. Even after the new MLS stadium went in. The only times buildings were torn down is for new development. Any parking lots were temporary and they were either already parking or basically empty lots.

And that's in DC where you can get $40-50 to park that close. I think a new stadium will simply activate a lot of parking lots in the crossroads that are barely used today. And those lots will eventually develop. I don't see how clearing land for new lots would be a viable investment.

Better off continuing to lease or occupy the buildings on your land and then just make a few extra bucks on parking on game days with the spaces you have since nearly all the buildings in the east crossroads have their own surface parking lots. So people that have little lots associated with their buildings will get a nice little bump in revenue to use their lots during non business hours. And not every business will even do that. Because it's probably a financial wash to mess with having a public parking lot part time.

I don't see many, if any, crossroads property owners tearing down their buildings to add another 30 spots just for ballgame parking. That makes no sense and that's why it rarely happens.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Think about it. You tear down your building to add 30 parking spaces. You have the cost to tear down the building, build the lot, maintain it, hire people to run it on game days etc. Sure that works for a while, but only if the building you tore down was not being used. And the second a hotel or residential developer comes along, that land is far more valuable.

All of this is true now, and yet, we have a ton of surface parking. A baseball stadium adds a ton of value to a parking lot but has very little value add for residential (if you disagree, I have some lovely units by the sports complex I can sell you). A surface lot doubles as a cleared site ready for development (no tenants to kick out, no building to demo) and an owner can sit on it for as long as they want collecting substantial parking revenue with little cost or pressure to sell and list it for an over-inflated price tag and wait for a big payday that may never come. Buy their neighbor's parcel to consolidate the land and the value goes up even more.

And DC and San Diego have little bearing on KC. They have residential going up all over, I have little doubt they would still have the same number of residential towers even without their baseball stadiums.

[DColeKC]

Once again I get painted as a representative of Cordish or someone who is only looking out for PNL. If you’re going to judge everything I say though that lens than you’ll always find a complaint about my opinions. I don’t benefit from Cordish doing well and my preferred landing spot for the stadium is 100% based on where I think it will be the most successful. We don’t need it to create more development because it will regardless of location. The land bankers can move on once a decision has been made and if downtown continues to grow from within all these vacant parking lots will evaporate.

The over prediction of tax revenue from PNL story is nearing 2 decades old. That wasn’t the fault of Cordish and the regime responsible is long gone from public politics. But to beat a dead horse, while the tax revenue has fallen short the overall impact and stimulus PNL has caused downtown is worth every penny. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation about a downtown baseball stadium had it not been for the Cordish family actually executing what others before them couldn’t. So yeah, I have far more respect for them than most on here who just want to talk about the over prediction of tax revenue by a firm hired by the city 20 years ago. Despite the epic transformation downtown has gone though over the last 15 years, people want to always go back to the one initial failure. They predicted the PNL district would spur development and transform downtown, that long term prediction was accurate.

I’m not always in favor of demolishing older buildings for new development but there’s not a single historical building worth saving on these sites. I’d suspect it would be a big payday for many of the existing building owners as well. These latest locations would be massively beneficial to the crossroads.

The developers who flipped older buildings into lofts did that for two reasons. Major tax incentives tied to income restricted apartments and and the fact they new a major development was coming that would instantly increase their property values. Banks were literally loaning out money based on future factors like PNL. You’ll even get some old school crossroads business owners to admit they got loans because of PNL back in day like Ryan Maybee who has said as much.

Once again this isn’t about PNL. It’s about the best option for downtown. Focusing on a location that will eat up surface lots and create new development in a specific area is a losing strategy. Downtown will always have a great mix of types of buildings and different commercial rental ranges. PNL operators don’t want only national chains paying national chain rent. They work with local owners and almost 90% of new leads are local or regional. Almost all of the newer tenants over the last 5+ years have been locally owned. I don’t know if you know anything about leasing it there’s this beautiful concept of lower monthly rent and profit sharing which incentives the landlord to ensure the business is success while removing a burden of high rent.

And the parking on the cap thing is one person opening their mouth. Not an actual concept that’s out there.

I win personally no matter where the stadium goes. Even if it gets built 500 yards from where it currently sits. So my opinions on location are from a high level perspective, not just what’s best for PNL.

If anything, I'm consistent. I've been saying the same thing for two years.

[KCPowercat]

Been called a nimby and a suburbanite in one page of this thread for fighting to not tear down an urban neighborhood that is functional and growing because a site 5 blocks from our entertainment district is too isolated.

I mean I just don't get how this script has gotten flipped.

[GRID]

Well if you guys seriously think there is no chance that this much better location can be developed properly, then I guess you have little choice then to go with the easy route and plop in a stadium in EV.

I just think you are throwing in the towel on having a truly urban ballpark and not just another cookie cutter park that is "downtown", but not interacting with anything.

I still say either location is fine and better than Kauffman or the Royals leaving KC. And if the Royals choose EV, then they too think the crossroads location has too many challenges.

And if that's the case, I will fully embrace it. But I will always think of what could have been. Especially if that star press is still sitting there in 2035 and little infill has happened in the area around it.