KCRag Forum

aknowledgeableperson wrote:There are a lot of projects tied to both the stadium and the adjoining mixed use development that have either been added or made bigger or estimated costs were too low. But the stadium itself and infrastructure related to it has not changed.

Read the articles I posted. Critical access bridges so people can get to the stadium have been going up in cost. It has been changing.

That's going to be part of the cost problem KC has. What is part of the project and what isn't? Its really easy to redirect "not stadium" costs onto the general budget. There's already a lot of work needed in any area we could put a stadium that we could do anyways.

Such as:

"Lee said the type of development originally zoned for the Braves site would have required similar, if not more, investments in infrastructure. But that assumes the entire site would have been sold and developed all at once.

“Infrastructure improvements associated with this development would have been required for any development on this site,” Lee wrote in an email."

"J.C. Bradbury, a sports economist at Kennesaw State University, said related stadium costs are difficult to count accurately because it involves projects that sometimes have been planned for years, but which take on greater priority when a stadium is built.

“But there’s no doubt that SunTrust Park is influencing the timing,” he said.

An example of that is the plan to build a $4.3 million firehouse in Cumberland. That project had been stalled since the Great Recession, but will now be constructed with 2016 special sales tax revenue.

“The station was planned since 2004 when we anticipated growth in the area, but due to the economic slowdown we held on to those plans,” Cobb Public Safety Director Sam Heaton said. “Now that we are seeing that growth, which does include the mixed-use around the stadium and additional offices and hotels, we need to add that station.”

Here's something to consider...

WHAT IF:

Building a downtown stadium STALLED downtown development by occupying vital space that is currently available for other, higher density uses? I'm serious. Why throw money at something that could hamper future development when current developments are already spinning momentum into future developments? Especially when that money could go towards other uses to further private development much more than a stadium could.

im2kull wrote:Here's something to consider...

WHAT IF:

Building a downtown stadium STALLED downtown development by occupying vital space that is currently available for other, higher density uses? I'm serious. Why throw money at something that could hamper future development when current developments are already spinning momentum into future developments? Especially when that money could go towards other uses to further private development much more than a stadium could.

There is still way too much empty or destroyable property in and around downtown for this to be a legit concern, in my opinion.

Do you hold that property back from development, and how many locations, on the hope that a stadium happens? Much like a certain area of downtown that is quite popular now that didn't see the development for over two decades.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Do you hold that property back from development, and how many locations, on the hope that a stadium happens? Much like a certain area of downtown that is quite popular now that didn't see the development for over two decades.

More like a decade. The lease ends in 2030 so stadium planning will begin 3-5 years before. Early discussions in 2025, studies starting in 2026-27, picking a location and buying land/eminent domain in 2028, a tax to build in 2029 and construction in 2030-32

harbinger911 wrote: THAT happened - you FAIL.

dude. cool the fuck down. now.

harbinger911 wrote:

im2kull wrote:Here's something to consider...
WHAT IF:
Building a downtown stadium STALLED downtown development by occupying vital space that is currently available for other, higher density uses? I'm serious. Why throw money at something that could hamper future development when current developments are already spinning momentum into future developments?

WHAT and WHERE?
The 10 Square block area around/near 19th & Oak has so much surface parking it could take $2-4 billion in development to densely fill just that area alone. Downtown KCMO has large swaths of surface parking lots that would take $10s of billions to develop them all densely.
I can't think of any large area (other than perhaps the north loop) that a stadium could stall any "possible" future development.

Yes, I'm talking about directly in and south of the loop. Anything south of 17th I don't care about. But everything else is prime land for developments with actual density. Like the Hyatt being proposed. Future residental towers, etc. That's an extremely important part of KC that HAS to have high density in it's future if there's any hope of crossing out the freeway loop as a barrier.

harbinger911 wrote: Petco and East Village were designed to spur residential development.
THAT happened - you FAIL.

Yawn. THAT happened IN SPITE of the stadiums development. And it happened nearly two decades AFTER the stadium was built. So no, you cannot attribute the East Village development to the stadium itself. You can attribute it to private developers seizing opportunity to develop an otherwise derelict area regardless of stadium construction that happened twenty years earlier.

and 95% of the development in that picture is from just the last couple of years.

You don't know squat. San Diego is my second home.

Then please explain how all those buildings that were built in the past few years, weren't actually built in the past few years.

im2kull wrote:

harbinger911 wrote: Petco and East Village were designed to spur residential development.
THAT happened - you FAIL.

Yawn. THAT happened IN SPITE of the stadiums development. And it happened nearly two decades AFTER the stadium was built. So no, you cannot attribute the East Village development to the stadium itself. You can attribute it to private developers seizing opportunity to develop an otherwise derelict area.

and 95% of the development in that picture is from just the last couple of years.

You don't know squat. San Diego is my second home.

Then please explain how all those buildings that were built in the past few years, weren't actually built in the past few years. [/quote]
You two should get a room.

Happy New Year!

I adore his sick perv fantasies!...............sincerely, Hillary (I'm on top)

Will Bill start wearing a dress?

Please don't ruin my pipe-dream downtown baseball fantasy thread by introducing the thought of either Clinton.

Make downtown great again!

the city manager mentioned that "land banking discussions have started" for downtown baseball at this month's Downtowners luncheon (he was the speaker). "2033 will be here before you know it."

just a hunch, but i think the north loop removal spot is probably their top choice since the adjacent vacant parcels are mostly under single ownership (tower/commerce) and they're big royals boosters.

DaveKCMO wrote:the city manager mentioned that "land banking discussions have started" for downtown baseball at this month's Downtowners luncheon (he was the speaker). "2033 will be here before you know it."

just a hunch, but i think the north loop removal spot is probably their top choice since the adjacent vacant parcels are mostly under single ownership (tower/commerce) and they're big royals boosters.

I also perked up when I heard the city manager say that. I agree on the north loop, but also think East Village is in play (or that area).

Also, I had talked to a downtown baseball booster a while back and I got the idea that the Royals would likely get cut in on a downtown development (whether it's retail/office/condos/etc) to help make downtown baseball even more profitable because no doubt Glass will have to kick in more money.

I'm really interested to see what types of plans/locations they come up with because I really think they try to make some decisions in the next 5 years and then you're looking at probably 3 years after that to get it built. Whatever they do, I bet we have something built in the next 10 years.

The correct answer remains between Truman and 18th, from Paseo to 71.

Shut this thread down now.

So you're ok with a giant freeway project in that area? Access to that spot isn't very good today. It's why in the car era it's not redeveloping.

flyingember wrote:So you're ok with a giant freeway project in that area? Access to that spot isn't very good today. It's why in the car era it's not redeveloping.

Access to that spot is excellent and nearly identical to Kauffman.

chingon wrote:The correct answer remains between Truman and 18th, from Paseo to 71.

Shut this thread down now.

That is a great spot.

I'd explore building it over the rail trench north of 22nd as well.