KCRag Forum

Living near stadium-level amounts of traffic would be a real shit-on.

flyingember wrote:Your mind will be blown with this idea

Build a stadium and cap the loop at the same time. No, not 670, the north side

7th to Indep, Delaware to Wyandotte

Then you build the parking next to it, also over i70.

If you want a natural view of the dowtown skyline for a traditionally designed dowtown stadium, I think the stadium needs to be South of the loop or West of the loop. Stadiums tend to face Northeast (home to center field) due to the way the sun moves in North America. The furthest East you could go would be around Broadway or Wyandotte if you wanted to sneak the Bartle towers into the view (totally guessing, though). The perspective up from the West Bottoms would be pretty awesome, but I know there are some downsides to putting a new stadium there. I'd be much more willing to listen to a plan to raze Kemper if it involved a new baseball stadium.

.

flyingember wrote:Your mind will be blown with this idea

Build a stadium and cap the loop at the same time. No, not 670, the north side

7th to Indep, Delaware to Wyandotte

Then you build the parking next to it, also over i70.

Just nuke the north loop and build part of the stadium in its footprint.

WinchesterMysteryHouse wrote:Living near stadium-level amounts of traffic would be a real shit-on.

Eh.

Lots of people would already be downtown for work. Many more could take transit instead of driving. Those driving in for the game would be going against rush-hour traffic. It's not carmageddon in St. Louis by any means; in my experience it's more frustrating to drive to/from a sellout game at the K than a sellout at Busch. Savvy fans will park a few blocks farther from the stadium for a cheaper price and a quicker escape - something that is impossible with the TSC.

Eon Blue wrote:

WinchesterMysteryHouse wrote:Living near stadium-level amounts of traffic would be a real shit-on.

Eh.

Lots of people would already be downtown for work. Many more could take transit instead of driving. Those driving in for the game would be going against rush-hour traffic. It's not carmageddon in St. Louis by any means; in my experience it's more frustrating to drive to/from a sellout game at the K than a sellout at Busch. Savvy fans will park a few blocks farther from the stadium for a cheaper price and a quicker escape - something that is impossible with the TSC.

Now you know why the Glasses don't want a downtown stadium.

shinatoo wrote:

Eon Blue wrote:

WinchesterMysteryHouse wrote:Now you know why the Glasses don't want a downtown stadium.

Yep, nice little implicit subsidy they have there.

Why is this a topic right now?

Surprising poll results for building new Royals downtown stadium

KCMax wrote:Why is this a topic right now?

Surprising poll results for building new Royals downtown stadium

That is a terribly worded question designed to elicit a specific response. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the Glass family was behind the article. Had they asked something like "Would you prefer that Kansas City have a dowtnown baseball stadium?" I think you would get a different response.

I could take almost anything popular and make it unpopular by placing "Should the taxpayers fund..." before it, without any context or details or designs or discussion. What if new ownership was willing to pay $400 million of a $600 million stadium? What if the plan included a brand new convention space, thousands of apartments, and an urban target with a grocery store? People generally default to "no" when they don't understand any of the details on something that requires an increase in taxes.

bobbyhawks wrote:I would start building today if there were a plan in place. Kauffman is a nice stadium, but most of the recent upgrades were designed for little kids who do not care about baseball. Other than a few late season tailgates, there is absolutely no reason to have the stadium exist inside a massive suckhole of parking. I could care less if it is more convenient for someone who lives in South OP. They chose to live there because they are fine driving 45 minutes to get almost anywhere. In my opinion, a downtown stadium with a team that plays 81 games a year would be a gigantic puzzle piece inserted into an area trying to differentiate itself from a Sprint campus or a Corporate Woods. Getaway games downtown would really elevate the entire city in my eyes. I can only imagine the number of younger people who would be interested in living near the baseball stadium downtown.

Yeah, they added the Little K and the Carousel, but most of the renovations were adding seating to the outfield, adding concessions and widening of all the concourses. It's not like they put an amusement park or a mall in the outfield.

bobbyhawks wrote:What if new ownership was willing to pay $400 million of a $600 million stadium? What if the plan included a brand new convention space, thousands of apartments, and an urban target with a grocery store? People generally default to "no" when they don't understand any of the details on something that requires an increase in taxes.

Given the high percentage of the Kauffman renovations that was publicly funded, that question isn't baseless. The closest new stadium project to here was the new Busch Stadium, which IIRC was over 90% publicly funded.

Of course you'd get a different response if you pull a bunch of nice sounding stuff to the project, but people might also understand that they'd probably be paying for that too- and say no anyway.

With KCMO's track record on incentives, I frankly don't trust the City Council not to put themselves on the hook for funding a new stadium if given the chance.

Probably worth noting that the venn diagram of "KC Star Readership" and "Potential Eligible Voters (for such a proposal)" would have very, very little overlap.

.

There are a lot of things I would like to have. But paying for them is a different matter, which in the end is more important.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:There are a lot of things I would like to have. But paying for them is a different matter, which in the end is more important.

I'm just sick of a bunch of people trying to undermine the fact that a lot, if not a majority, of folks would prefer to have a downtown baseball stadium (costs aside). This means that there is a scenario under which most people are willing to accept the stadium as a reality ($0 up to a certain number). There are a lot of different ways to fund a stadium build at around $600 million, and there are a lot of different factors to consider, like how much the Royals will ask for again in 5 or so years, the added impact of fans spending money at nearby businesses in a downtown environment, the prestige associated with a downtown stadium, etc. So, I think it is a bit ridiculous to claim that it is an idea not worthy of any type of consideration. I don't know what sort of percentage the Royals would have to pay to make this something that taxpayers would bite on, but there is clearly a number that would be satisfactory. I can only hope Glass is going to look to sell the team at a high point.

chaglang wrote:Given the high percentage of the Kauffman renovations that was publicly funded, that question isn't baseless. The closest new stadium project to here was the new Busch Stadium, which IIRC was over 90% publicly funded.

The new Busch was 90% privately funded (unless that was a typo.)

In 2006 the Cardinals moved into the new $411 million Busch Stadium in downtown St. Louis on April 10, 2006 (beating the Brewers 6-4). The team covered nearly 90 percent of the cost of the project, including infrastructure.

My mistake, James. I'd read it the other way around - 90% public funding - which is closer to the norm.

It does seem a little silly to debate the merits of a downtown stadium with absolutely no details - or any indication that the team is interested. If someone says no or yes to the question, it's easy to throw enough hypotheticals at them to make them change their mind. Debate, yay.

My opinion on whether a downtown stadium is a net positive or not is almost entirely based on the amount of public funding that goes toward it. There is some actual research that actual economists have done on stadium deals. The stadiums are usually nowhere close to the economic engine they're hyped to be. So if the Royals can foot 90% of the bill like the Cardinals did, that's much easier to support than a deal similar to the 20% they paid for the K renovations. Or if it's 50/50 and they fund the Phase 2 streetcar line, I'm in. Throw in a new KCI or downtown hotel, 70/30 makes sense to me. I want ALL the options.

.

Yeah, this discussion is at least 5 years too soon with another 5 years of haggling to follow.

Look at some of the taxpayer objection to the extension of the streetcar line. I would imagine there would be even more since the KCMO residents in Jackson County are already paying for a stadium that is in very good or better shape.

As I have said before it is OK to consider a downtown stadium as long as it is a long term thing 20 or more years down the line.