KCRag Forum

It would be like Knuckleheads when they train passes (under). Perhaps the organ player would jive with the rhythms that the driver made.

"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."

How do you propose the teams gets out of its lease with the county? Then you have the matter of how to pay for it. Given the cost of new stadiums now just think of what the cost and features it will have to have a decade from now.

Lease ends 2030

That's 13 years. So planning for 10 years is about right because there will be some kind of delay.

https://twitter.com/KCLibrary/status/85 ... 68/photo/1

Library posted a photo of one of the older stadiums in KC (didn't check which one). Notice all the parking around it and how all the cars are parked crazy tight

The photo says Opening Day '55 - A's/Tigers. So, would have to be Municipal Stadium at 22nd and Brooklyn, I would think.

That is some crazy parking. Some of those cars are not going to be able to leave early to beat traffic.

WSPanic wrote:The photo says Opening Day '55 - A's/Tigers. So, would have to be Municipal Stadium at 22nd and Brooklyn, I would think.

That is some crazy parking. Some of those cars are not going to be able to leave early to beat traffic.

I'm sure people weren't in a hurry back in those days and most didn't probably live 20-30 miles away from the Stadium.

Parking back then was a service not just a lot. You'd drop your car and the attendant would park it. When you came back, he'd get it and bring it to you. Shuffling cars to do this was a skill and an art form.

.

TheLastGentleman wrote:http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 58541.html

Site one and two both are horrible. Why would either of those spots work? I could see site three or four working, but neither site seems like a homerun.

I'm with chingon, the site bound by Truman and 18th, Paseo and 71 is great (I thought I was a genius pitching this exact site to friends. Great minds I tell ya). You'd be supporting your investment in the Vine district and creating an actual baseball district in the process. Just because this site isn't in the "middle of it all" doesn't mean it won't be successful. And accessibility would be great from the loop, crossroads, east side while supporting parking and transit could easily be tied in. Makes too much sense!

Here's my two cents. I think Kauffman should be maintained for as long as possible. Not only is it in excellent shape, but it, along with arrowhead, are pieces of sports history and beautiful examples of space-age Googie architecture. I think moving out of it, or, God forbid, tearing it down, would be seen in retrospect as a huge mistake.
Also, just today the Star posted this:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/ka ... 38861.html
If they do have to move into a new stadium, just keep it out of the loop. Downtown is just recovering from the disaster of postwar urban planning, and a stadium plopped in the middle of it is the last thing the area needs.
So, basically, yeah, all the proposed locations are abysmal. The Flashcube building and the interstate building are being renovated, so how would that even work? And site two overlaps with the college basketball area of the sprint center.....what?

I'm good with a downtown baseball stadium but not sure if the selected sites make all that much sense. Not sure it's feasible but I like the area presently occupied by the hospital hill parking lots north of Pershing. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon - the recent renovation was just too ... recent. Give it another 10 years before there is serious discussion.

It's fun to read the comments in the article. Most complain about traffic and parking associated with a downtown stadium. Frankly, from a traffic perspective, it's hard to be worse than the stadium complex with its limited exit points. Downtown would be a huge improvement. Even in deplorable Houston traffic, downtown baseball traffic isn't that difficult. Parking problems are in the eye of the beholder - literally. Visitors would not have line of sight parking to stadium if it were downtown, but all would be OK.

I don't get the need for the stadium to be within the downtown loop. I would think you would reserve parcels within the loop for 5-to-7 days-a-week uses year-round instead of a few days each month for just a few months out of the year. A stadium seems to be a downtown-adjacent thing.

FangKC wrote:I don't get the need for the stadium to be within the downtown loop. I would think you would reserve parcels within the loop for 5-to-7 days-a-week uses year-round instead of a few days each month for just a few months out of the year. A stadium seems to be a downtown-adjacent thing.

Good point, but a baseball stadium is actually used at least 81 out of ~180 days during the peak good weather months. It isn't totally fair to say that it is just used a few days each month for a few months a year. It is used for at least half the year and for almost half the days during that time. If we were talking about a football stadium, I'd totally agree. Also, we've been reserving space for year-round buildings for a long long time, and there are still giant swaths of surface parking. There is a middle ground between taking up valuable future business/residential real estate and putting a stadium far enough away from downtown that people inside the loop don't feel like they can walk there after work or from their condo.

The more downtown stadiums I've visited the more I have cooled on this idea. And Highlander, what are you talking about with traffic? It is not even remotely difficult to get out of the TSC after a Royals game. Chiefs, yes, I don't know what the Chiefs did to F that up after 45 years but somehow they seem to be making it worse, but I would never say Royals games have been a problem.

But most importantly, no downtown baseball stadium without serious rail connections.

I could get behind a multi-use stadium (baseball + convention space). Build it over the I-35/I-670 interchange and connect it to Bartle Hall. Otherwise, for single use, it's a classic, keep it where it's at. No need to spend 750 million when we have what is still considered a top 5 stadium.

If the stadium is really some development inducing location it should be put in a blighted area to drive new development.

So "downtown adjacent" seems to be the smartest idea.

I would think the best spot would be right along one of the studied streetcar corridors and also lines up with the bus backbone.
It also needs to be somewhere that breaking the grid can't have a huge impact

Troost to Tracy, 12th to 14th seems like a good candidate.

The Paseo gives good access to the north and south with direct line ups to I-35 and I-70 and 670
Troost is near ramps to/from the south for 71
There's lots of good access from the loop
It's on a future streetcar corridor and current bus cooridor
And it's an area that if they really want a large parking garage, it can also serve future efforts to revitalize Paseo Industrial

not mentioned in the star article, but i'm told it might take the form of a P3 to reduce or eliminate the need for a massive public subsidy (a major reason why i would oppose any new stadium for any sportsball team).

also, it cannot be in the crossroads. oil and water, people.

twitter poll: https://twitter.com/AbigaelKCTV5/status ... 3623397376

To me, the most transformational and appropriate spot, if you want another stadium downtown, is the current KCATA facility area at roughly 18 & Troost. Take the area from Troost to Lydia, Truman to 18th, and you've got a great contender. It'd accomplish a lot of needs:

- Easily aquired from other public entities
- Less destruction to the street grid than the four sites studied
- Activates a huge swath of urban area, adding another catalyst to an area that needs a jumpstart
- Strengthens the connection from east Crossroads to 18th & Vine area
- Easy highway access and near major transit corridors

It's a shame they're not considering it.