KCRag Forum

I'd only be for it if it was very, very well designed. My working theory is that the royals would want tons of parking they could charge for just like at Kauffman. I have little time for that.

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:37 pm

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:15 am ^i see pros and cons but come on, 81 home games per season is more than just a 'few nights of the year'

That's less than a quarter of the year. I was obviously exaggerating, but the point still stands that the facility will not be in use for the vast majority of its existence, while also occupying an enormous amount of space that'd be better served by more conventional development

For comparison, how many days of the year is Municipal Auditorium in use? Or Sprint Center, The Midland, Bartle Hall? Nearly a quarter of the year (average) seems decent to me. The usage is concentrated during April to October when the weather is nicest and people are out and about. The entire downtown is relatively devoid of street life November to March, so an inactive ball-park shouldn't be a huge concern during that time.
Regardless, it's street-level could be designed well to have active uses outside of ball-game hours. Additionally, the ballpark would most likely host other functions like charity events, concerts, etc.
The biggest concern for creating a dead-zone would be from the impact of additional parking garages.

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:53 pmFor comparison, how many days of the year is Municipal Auditorium in use? Or Sprint Center, The Midland, Bartle Hall?

Excatly! Most of those buildings are severely underused for how massive they are. All the more reason to keep another example out of downtown.

Also, at least Municipal and the Sprint Center are multi-use, and the Midland isn't particularly large in comparison, features street level retail, and even has the Midland Building incorporated into it. Bartle Hall, like most convention centers in the US, is just totally unforgivable.

I agree though, that the worst impact will come from the required parking. A defender may say that we can run a streetcar from parking far away down to the stadium, but lets be realistic, they'll want the parking to be immediately adjacent to the stadium. That is the last thing we need right now.

Who’s to say we don’t have a retractable roof stadium that could be used for other purposes out of season? There are other large stadiums that have gotten Final Four or large concerts. We haven’t seen a baseball/ MLS combined stadium yet. I know those were terrible for MLB/NFL, but the seating numbers are more comparable for an MLS game.

We already have loads of different venues downtown for concerts. What advantage would performing in a baseball stadium provide over any if those?

Soccer doesn't work in a baseball stadium either. Arrowhead makes far more sense for any game that needs that capacity.

The most obvious place now for a stadium is Washington Square Park. There are parking garages all around it. If the IRS garage could be used; it's huge. I don't know what the parking stall count is around there, but there are several big garages at Union Station, Crown Center, and Hospital Hill. The streetcar lines runs to it, and could carry passengers to other garages along the line.

I used to say the best place for it would have been the Childrens Mercy parking lots at 19th, 20th Oak and Cherry. That possibility is gone now that Milhaus is building a project there, and using up a parcel that would have been needed for a stadium.

MLB stadiums are much larger than arenas. City leaders have done a terrible job of communicating this to the public by nominating all sorts of locations where a stadium doesn't even fit. It's debatable whether putting a stadium downtown would be a good idea even if it were free.

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:15 am ^i see pros and cons but come on, 81 home games per season is more than just a 'few nights of the year'

I’d rather spend a billion on the convention center, which would add more hotel room nights and spin off revenue than a ballpark subsidy.

But, hey, I hate the sportsballs.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:45 am

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:15 am ^i see pros and cons but come on, 81 home games per season is more than just a 'few nights of the year'

I’d rather spend a billion on the convention center, which would add more hotel room nights and spin off revenue than a ballpark subsidy.

But, hey, I hate the sportsballs.

I agree. About the convention center, not sportball. I dont think a DT stadium would be good for DT or the team. It would hurt attendance and ecrease parking revenue.

Only stadium i would support DT would be something that could be used for conventions also.

I'm as big a sports guy (not saying that word) as I know, and I vote for the convention center too.

If the ballpark would be 75+% private funding (LOL), I'll have less of an objection.

A ballpark downtown would bring 2 million people a year to the area (and not just people from the KC). IMO, It would be a huge missed opportunity if it went elsewhere.

KCDowntown

Its amazing that ATT park and the new Warriors Arena are privately financed stadiums/arenas in one of the most expensive cities in the world. I'm sure SF paid for infrastructure improvements and gave them some of the land but any kind of privately financed stadium/arena in the Midwest will most definitely go in a suburban location so they can make money on the parking

I love Kauffman. It is one of the best ballparks in the MLB, and I have visited many others. Love Pittsburgh's stadium, it's the best downtown ballpark I think.

https://www.tripsavvy.com/photo-tour-of ... rk-4123554

Walkable to downtown across the ped friendly Clemente bridge (that is completely closed off to car traffic on game days I think), stunning views of dt Pittsburgh, unique overall design and execution as well as modern amenities. Seems to be a lot of parking from a quick google maps view that it shares with Heinz Field (NFL) in addition to a lot of bars and restaurants in the immediate vicinity. It also has good highway access.

How would the K fulfill any of these (personal) highlights that PNC checks off? Views would just depend on location it is built. However, many new bars and restaurants would need to be built at additional cost. At least some new parking would need to be constructed and the Royals would lose that parking revenue.

Why not building a "ballpark village" type facility in those giant concrete lots next to the stadium? Perhaps some other destination retail to draw crowds in the offtime? Would definitely be a bigger uplift to get that going than have a downtown type additional retail element. That would however, require additional real estate.

Longer term I do think if downtown connectivity is critical for TSC. BRT line eventually upgrading to a streetcar along Linwood/31st alignment would be nice. No real motivation from the Royals on that one bc they lose parking revenue. However, it would provide additional connectivity to a very blighted stretch of KC that has cheap real-estate and room for re-development and growth year around. Seems like a better investment than $600m+ on a new stadium.

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edit ... 24199.html

Finally, an article from KC Star that realistically addresses the stadium situation. At the end of the current leases, TSC will be over 60 years old. Something new will likely need to be built somewhere and needs to be paid for by everyone.

It sounds like the Star expects the Royals to stay in KC/MO while the Chiefs could join Sporting in Kansas. This makes sense as I do not see the Chiefs ever leaving a sea of parking(similar to American Royal).

A few sites downtown are being floated still. However, I think that Harlem needs to be a serious area of study for any new stadiums.

From the Star article:

Already, Schulte noted, one prime site — a location between 12th and 13th streets just east of Grand Boulevard — is off the table, snapped up by developers for other purposes.

I apparently missed some news. Any definitive plans for this lot?

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:54 am https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edit ... 24199.html

Finally, an article from KC Star that realistically addresses the stadium situation. At the end of the current leases, TSC will be over 60 years old. Something new will likely need to be built somewhere and needs to be paid for by everyone.

It sounds like the Star expects the Royals to stay in KC/MO while the Chiefs could join Sporting in Kansas. This makes sense as I do not see the Chiefs ever leaving a sea of parking(similar to American Royal).

A few sites downtown are being floated still. However, I think that Harlem needs to be a serious area of study for any new stadiums.

I'd love to see some development in Harlem, but I don't see how it's a realistic option for a stadium. If I'm the Glass family, I'm thinking I'd better off staying at the complex rather than moving down there.

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:54 am https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edit ... 24199.html

Finally, an article from KC Star that realistically addresses the stadium situation. At the end of the current leases, TSC will be over 60 years old. Something new will likely need to be built somewhere and needs to be paid for by everyone.

It sounds like the Star expects the Royals to stay in KC/MO while the Chiefs could join Sporting in Kansas. This makes sense as I do not see the Chiefs ever leaving a sea of parking(similar to American Royal).

A few sites downtown are being floated still. However, I think that Harlem needs to be a serious area of study for any new stadiums.

I had the exact opposite reaction from you to that article. With proper care, there is no reason those stadiums couldn't last another 50 years.

The only site I would be excited about downtown would be Harlem. If that happened, no reason a new football stadium couldn't be built at TSC. It would be a shame to give up all that infrastructure.

The ludicrous amount of money we give to build these stadiums has to stop. Even if it's metro-wide. But, if a Bi-state tax does happen we will lose one of the two to Kansas.

WSPanic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:47 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:54 am https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edit ... 24199.html

Finally, an article from KC Star that realistically addresses the stadium situation. At the end of the current leases, TSC will be over 60 years old. Something new will likely need to be built somewhere and needs to be paid for by everyone.

It sounds like the Star expects the Royals to stay in KC/MO while the Chiefs could join Sporting in Kansas. This makes sense as I do not see the Chiefs ever leaving a sea of parking(similar to American Royal).

A few sites downtown are being floated still. However, I think that Harlem needs to be a serious area of study for any new stadiums.

I'd love to see some development in Harlem, but I don't see how it's a realistic option for a stadium. If I'm the Glass family, I'm thinking I'd better off staying at the complex rather than moving down there.

Access seems to be the biggest issue. I was worried about flight paths and the height of the light poles. Looks like the light poles wouldn't have to be much higher than the Broadway Bridge.

Sooner than later we are going to have to address the issue of having an airport and rail yard that close to Downtown.

Airplanes go over a water tower all day and it's like 2 miles from the airport.

They just wouldn't put the stadium directly north or south of the airport. SE isn't a problem because only helicopters go that way.