KCRag Forum

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:06 am So stadium related developments east of Oak are dead for now? Would be a mistake to still not buy up a large amount of the property over there and plan some things. There are sites for two big buildings and a series of smaller gaps for smaller buildings.

Still awaiting more details here, my assumption is they will still do things east of oak. They need the garage, the team offices, and possibly the hotel.

Keeping Oak open is good news. Could make for an interesting, compact stadium and obviously keep an important access route (somewhat) open.

I worry about the change to the immediate/adjacent development potential however. If that is gone, this may not be great move, IMO. Completely changes the makeup of the plan and will make it harder to development larger scale connected development like team offices and hotel.

Hard to know what to expect at all with things evolving so quickly.

I think it will make Oak even better. It will road diet it for sure and make it a fun ped space during games. Exciting possibilities

The Royals current location sucks. The crossroads site is on the streetcar route and will pick up 10,000 attendees per game just because it’s an enjoyable place to be. They don’t need any new buildings to add revenue because attendance will be higher even after the new car smell wears off at the crossroads site.

The Colorado Rockies are terrible and people go just because it’s pleasant to be there. Downtown baseball stadiums are great. Now if they can work to integrate this with P&L (pregame and postgame festivities there) and use the added revenue to pay off those bonds while also paying into the streetcar system this really will be a win on multiple levels.

The news that they are keeping Oak open is huge and now there will need to be negotiations with neighboring landowners to see what towers can be built nearby to look into the stadium. This is a vast improvement.

Now just orient the stadium more to the north build up the area east of the arena with hotels and high rise residential.

If the city is going to give money for the stadium and development it needs to be structured to incentivize more development. If they give more upfront money, the later pieces have a likelihood of being cut. It has to be a carrot to entice more.

mourban wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:17 am The Colorado Rockies are terrible and people go just because it’s pleasant to be there. Downtown baseball stadiums are great. Now if they can work to integrate this with P&L (pregame and postgame festivities there) and use the added revenue to pay off those bonds while also paying into the streetcar system this really will be a win on multiple levels.

Such a great point. With the Royals in their current state, there's nothing compelling to get me to go to the game. Kaufman Stadium is a pleasant enough place but I absolutely hate the trek out to the Truman Sports Complex. I would absolutely go to more games if the stadium went to the proposed Crossroads location. I went to Coors Field last time I was in Denver and went to watch a Twins game last summer specifically because the stadiums were downtown.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:49 am If the city is going to give money for the stadium and development it needs to be structured to incentivize more development. If they give more upfront money, the later pieces have a likelihood of being cut. It has to be a carrot to entice more.

I disagree. The development will come regardless of the incentives the city provides. There are already projects slated nearby that were proposed before the stadium moved.

mourban wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:56 am

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:49 am If the city is going to give money for the stadium and development it needs to be structured to incentivize more development. If they give more upfront money, the later pieces have a likelihood of being cut. It has to be a carrot to entice more.

I disagree. The development will come regardless of the incentives the city provides. There are already projects slated nearby that were proposed before the stadium moved.

Are any without incentives?

mourban wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:56 am

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:49 am If the city is going to give money for the stadium and development it needs to be structured to incentivize more development. If they give more upfront money, the later pieces have a likelihood of being cut. It has to be a carrot to entice more.

I disagree. The development will come regardless of the incentives the city provides. There are already projects slated nearby that were proposed before the stadium moved.

It’s pretty clear in this town that developers won’t do anything without an incentive. If the incentive is on the front end, the building stops there.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:06 am So stadium related developments east of Oak are dead for now? Would be a mistake to still not buy up a large amount of the property over there and plan some things. There are sites for two big buildings and a series of smaller gaps for smaller buildings.

I will be with John Sherman later tonight and will ask for updates.

I think they need to do something across Oak like hotel and retail. I suspect they will just in a scaled back capacity. The renderings we saw are complete trash now.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:28 pm

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:06 am So stadium related developments east of Oak are dead for now? Would be a mistake to still not buy up a large amount of the property over there and plan some things. There are sites for two big buildings and a series of smaller gaps for smaller buildings.

I will be with John Sherman later tonight and will ask for updates.

I think they need to do something across Oak like hotel and retail. I suspect they will just in a scaled back capacity. The renderings we saw are complete trash now.

They were pie in the sky concepts anyways which was made clear when anybody made any kind of negative comment about them

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:42 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:28 pm

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:06 am So stadium related developments east of Oak are dead for now? Would be a mistake to still not buy up a large amount of the property over there and plan some things. There are sites for two big buildings and a series of smaller gaps for smaller buildings.

I will be with John Sherman later tonight and will ask for updates.

I think they need to do something across Oak like hotel and retail. I suspect they will just in a scaled back capacity. The renderings we saw are complete trash now.

They were pie in the sky concepts anyways which was made clear when anybody made any kind of negative comment about them

Sure. That’s your opinion which is not reality.

Everything was conceptual but the foundational ideas like the pedestrian bridge, hotel and office with large viewing decks, connected outfield concourse were real design goals that all get harder when having a air gap between the stadium and development.

Once again, I’m not too concerned about this being scaled back but do think additional revenue year round is a critical factor for more successful, consistent baseball. They should buy up everything they can and get into the landlord business.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:50 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:42 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:28 pm

I will be with John Sherman later tonight and will ask for updates.

I think they need to do something across Oak like hotel and retail. I suspect they will just in a scaled back capacity. The renderings we saw are complete trash now.

They were pie in the sky concepts anyways which was made clear when anybody made any kind of negative comment about them

Sure. That’s your opinion which is not reality.

Everything was conceptual but the foundational ideas like the pedestrian bridge, hotel and office with large viewing decks, connected outfield concourse were real design goals that all get harder when having a air gap between the stadium and development.

Once again, I’m not too concerned about this being scaled back but do think additional revenue year round is a critical factor for more successful, consistent baseball. They should buy up everything they can and get into the landlord business.

That's not my opinion. That is what was told on here, by you, when people pointed out something. We aren't voting for this specific, we're voting on the concept of a downtown park you said. Too early to discuss that, etc etc.

Obviously concepts have foundational ideas. Populous can do "hard" and kept those foundational ideas.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:17 am I think it will make Oak even better. It will road diet it for sure and make it a fun ped space during games. Exciting possibilities

Totally agree!

So the "other" stuff is still coming just updated layout sounds like. Also positive. UHaul hotel sounds great idea to me!

A spokesperson for the team said the Royals will still move forward with the surrounding development but will alter the design to keep Oak Street open. He did not specify whether that still includes demolishing surrounding businesses.

https://www.kcur.org/sports/2024-03-27/ ... -uncertain

DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:28 pm

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:06 am So stadium related developments east of Oak are dead for now? Would be a mistake to still not buy up a large amount of the property over there and plan some things. There are sites for two big buildings and a series of smaller gaps for smaller buildings.

I will be with John Sherman later tonight and will ask for updates.

I think they need to do something across Oak like hotel and retail. I suspect they will just in a scaled back capacity. The renderings we saw are complete trash now.

I would not be supportive of any kind of eminent domain or public financing of anything east of Oak. If the organization can acquire those parcels and wants to build on them, more power to them.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:53 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:50 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:42 pm

They were pie in the sky concepts anyways which was made clear when anybody made any kind of negative comment about them

Sure. That’s your opinion which is not reality.

Everything was conceptual but the foundational ideas like the pedestrian bridge, hotel and office with large viewing decks, connected outfield concourse were real design goals that all get harder when having a air gap between the stadium and development.

Once again, I’m not too concerned about this being scaled back but do think additional revenue year round is a critical factor for more successful, consistent baseball. They should buy up everything they can and get into the landlord business.

That's not my opinion. That is what was told on here, by you, when people pointed out something. We aren't voting for this specific, we're voting on the concept of a downtown park you said. Too early to discuss that, etc etc.

Obviously concepts have foundational ideas. Populous can do "hard" and kept those foundational ideas.

I was responding to you "pie in the sky" comment. They ideas shared in the renderings were realistic concepts, nothing remotely close to pie in the sky.

fair enough. Bad phrasing.

Great day overall for the neighborhood and good will towards yes votes.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:35 pm fair enough. Bad phrasing.

Great day overall for the neighborhood and good will towards yes votes.

It's panderinfg because they are behind. The average voter isn't going to care about keeping Oak open.