Downtown Baseball Stadium
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I can see a case for the fire station eve though it’s been gutted and is a private residence. Being old isn’t enough to be historic regarding uhaul building.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
At this point in time, I don’t think there are any voters left, who plan to vote in this election, who don’t have their minds made up. Any further community outreach events, door knocking, hating on each other on social media and in the media, displaying yard signs, etc are all wasted time. Whether you’re for or against, just get out and vote early or on April 2nd.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I think this event was more to get supporters together who are excited about the moment. It wasn’t really to change minds or influence votes.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:09 pm At this point in time, I don’t think there are any voters left, who plan to vote in this election, who don’t have their minds made up. Any further community outreach events, door knocking, hating on each other on social media and in the media, displaying yard signs, etc are all wasted time. Whether you’re for or against, just get out and vote early or on April 2nd.
I completely agree with you Chris.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34054
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
You yourself quoted 100 years as a reason in San diego..there is no reason the uhaul building can't be incorporated into this design. That's not even happening right away according to the royals themselves.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
You’re failing to mention the most important part of my comment about the building in SD. It was declared a historical building years before a stadium was planned. In the 1970’s as a matter of fact. The Padres didn’t have a choice but to work around or with it.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:45 pmYou yourself quoted 100 years as a reason in San diego..there is no reason the uhaul building can't be incorporated into this design. That's not even happening right away according to the royals themselves.
Also, it wasn’t declared historical because it was old. It was declared historical because of the business that occupied it for all those years.
I don’t see any reason to work around the Uhaul building. If they can make it work cool, but if it’s more expensive or the land can be used for more revenue generation which will help the product on the field, I’m in favor of that. It’s a fine looking building but it’s not particularly unique or a standout in my opinion.
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I would've attended the meeting if I had the afternoon off from work, but unfortunately I couldn't go. I would want to have 1-on-1 discussions with those opposed just so I can hear their rationale for voting no. When you're face-to-face with people, they tend to explain things much better than from behind a keyboard.DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:22 pmI think this event was more to get supporters together who are excited about the moment. It wasn’t really to change minds or influence votes.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:09 pm At this point in time, I don’t think there are any voters left, who plan to vote in this election, who don’t have their minds made up. Any further community outreach events, door knocking, hating on each other on social media and in the media, displaying yard signs, etc are all wasted time. Whether you’re for or against, just get out and vote early or on April 2nd.
I completely agree with you Chris.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34054
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Ok.DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 3:53 pmYou’re failing to mention the most important part of my comment about the building in SD. It was declared a historical building years before a stadium was planned. In the 1970’s as a matter of fact. The Padres didn’t have a choice but to work around or with it.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:45 pmYou yourself quoted 100 years as a reason in San diego..there is no reason the uhaul building can't be incorporated into this design. That's not even happening right away according to the royals themselves.
Also, it wasn’t declared historical because it was old. It was declared historical because of the business that occupied it for all those years.
I don’t see any reason to work around the Uhaul building. If they can make it work cool, but if it’s more expensive or the land can be used for more revenue generation which will help the product on the field, I’m in favor of that. It’s a fine looking building but it’s not particularly unique or a standout in my opinion.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I disagree with this. I've given my list of requirements to vote yes. Some have been mostly/partially met, others have not. I will wait til the last minute.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:09 pm At this point in time, I don’t think there are any voters left, who plan to vote in this election, who don’t have their minds made up. Any further community outreach events, door knocking, hating on each other on social media and in the media, displaying yard signs, etc are all wasted time. Whether you’re for or against, just get out and vote early or on April 2nd.
- wahoowa
- Ambassador
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 pm
- Location: CBD
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
studio kansas city posted on instagram that people affiliated with the yes vote booked their space and lied about who they were and what they were doing lol
- TheLastGentleman
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2937
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34054
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I mean did they "lie" or did they not ask? Seems they are supporting a crossroads business is good?
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Exactly. They didn’t “lie”, they rented space to film some content and the studio owner overheard what was being recorded and felt compelled to tell her 850 IG followers she didn’t know or else she wouldn’t have allowed them to rent.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:20 pm I mean did they "lie" or did they not ask? Seems they are supporting a crossroads business is good?
Probably to prevent Jill from torching her business.
-
- Strip mall
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2023 1:35 pm
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Im too young to remember the whole Sprint Center/PNL process. Was it as bad as this one?
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34054
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Hanna Rubber Co was the only / squeakiest if memory serves. threw a fit that they were going to leave the city. They now are by BLVD lol
there wasn't really anybody there to complain so not nearly the same situation. It would have been more like if the stadium went to EV. Everybody had been expecting it (P&L) for decades
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I remember there was some noise about certain buildings. For example, the President Hotel wasn't originally part of the district and there was some threat that it would be torn down. Cordish stepped up to include it into the project and it's better because of it. Opposition can make for a better end product.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:18 amHanna Rubber Co was the only / squeakiest if memory serves. threw a fit that they were going to leave the city. They now are by BLVD lol
there wasn't really anybody there to complain so not nearly the same situation. It would have been more like if the stadium went to EV. Everybody had been expecting it (P&L) for decades
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10217
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Not if the product doesn't happen. The majority of the opposition isn't trying to make this project work; they want to kill it for ideological reasons (with disparate ideologies represented in the opposition) or a belief that Kaufman should remain the Royal's home or a complete rejection of any stadium in the greater crossroads area. Very few are holding out for improvements.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:32 amI remember there was some noise about certain buildings. For example, the President Hotel wasn't originally part of the district and there was some threat that it would be torn down. Cordish stepped up to include it into the project and it's better because of it. Opposition can make for a better end product.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:18 amHanna Rubber Co was the only / squeakiest if memory serves. threw a fit that they were going to leave the city. They now are by BLVD lol
there wasn't really anybody there to complain so not nearly the same situation. It would have been more like if the stadium went to EV. Everybody had been expecting it (P&L) for decades
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34054
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
For sure. I think that's what is being missed here by many. Bringing the stuff we're bringing up now (not the crazy people stuff) like the 1916 building, like oak, etc. makes a better product. It's been met instead with "listen to the experts and they know best" which is crazy. We're all trying to make the best version of this.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:32 amI remember there was some noise about certain buildings. For example, the President Hotel wasn't originally part of the district and there was some threat that it would be torn down. Cordish stepped up to include it into the project and it's better because of it. Opposition can make for a better end product.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:18 amHanna Rubber Co was the only / squeakiest if memory serves. threw a fit that they were going to leave the city. They now are by BLVD lol
there wasn't really anybody there to complain so not nearly the same situation. It would have been more like if the stadium went to EV. Everybody had been expecting it (P&L) for decades
I had forgotten about the president. great example. I wish we would have pushed harder on saving a couple more buildings which I think now we'd look back at similarly to the President.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34054
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
That's an overgeneralization of the viewpoints being stated honestly. yes a couple loud people are overall trying to kill it but that's not the majorityHighlander wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:36 amNot if the product doesn't happen. The majority of the opposition isn't trying to make this project work; they want to kill it for ideological reasons (with disparate ideologies represented in the opposition) or a belief that Kaufman should remain the Royal's home or a complete rejection of any stadium in the greater crossroads area. Very few are holding out for improvements.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:32 amI remember there was some noise about certain buildings. For example, the President Hotel wasn't originally part of the district and there was some threat that it would be torn down. Cordish stepped up to include it into the project and it's better because of it. Opposition can make for a better end product.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:18 am
Hanna Rubber Co was the only / squeakiest if memory serves. threw a fit that they were going to leave the city. They now are by BLVD lol
there wasn't really anybody there to complain so not nearly the same situation. It would have been more like if the stadium went to EV. Everybody had been expecting it (P&L) for decades
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10217
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
It may be an overgeneralization of people on this forum but I wasn't referring to that population. I don't think it's an overgeneralization of Kansas City voters. The organized opposition is a coalition of the groups I described and very few of them are trying to make the project a better project (the exceptions are a few people downtown and in the crossroads that have come out against the project but have kept an open mind). KC Tenants, Save Kaufman Stadium and the Show-Me Institute all oppose the project in any form at all.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:48 amThat's an overgeneralization of the viewpoints being stated honestly. yes a couple loud people are overall trying to kill it but that's not the majorityHighlander wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:36 amNot if the product doesn't happen. The majority of the opposition isn't trying to make this project work; they want to kill it for ideological reasons (with disparate ideologies represented in the opposition) or a belief that Kaufman should remain the Royal's home or a complete rejection of any stadium in the greater crossroads area. Very few are holding out for improvements.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:32 am
I remember there was some noise about certain buildings. For example, the President Hotel wasn't originally part of the district and there was some threat that it would be torn down. Cordish stepped up to include it into the project and it's better because of it. Opposition can make for a better end product.