Seriously, I don't find 1 thing feasible about it. The downtown baseball park? That makes tons of sense (that is, only after MLB implements a fair structure and only if Glass funds 1/3+ of it)
But the football stadium is fine where it's at. Those are far more expensive to build, no? And Lamar just said, "The time for renovations is past"
Well, duh! We already told you that on Tuesday, Lamar. If renovations don't pass, what makes them think a new stadium would? Impossible.
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
-
Maitre D
- The Quiet Chair
- Posts: 14070
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Sunny Johnson County
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
[img width=472 height=40]http://media.kansascity.com/images/champions_blue.gif[/img]
"For 15 years...KU won every time. There was no rivalry" - Frank Martin
"For 15 years...KU won every time. There was no rivalry" - Frank Martin
-
staubio
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 6958
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:17 am
- Location: River Market
- Contact:
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
I agree. Nothing wrong with Arrowhead, and location doesn't matter. Put in some new pipes and get another 20 years out of it. Lets get baseball downtown.
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
The economic impact of attracting events to a retractable roof stadium replacement for Arrowhead is reason enough. I love Arrowhead but we're missing the boat regarding Final Fours and Super Bowls. Even if we got one of those events every seven years, the $350 million plus positive economic impact should quiet any arguments regarding the feasibility of such a project, IMO.
-
Maitre D
- The Quiet Chair
- Posts: 14070
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Sunny Johnson County
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
1. We'll never get a Super Bowl here.
2. What makes you think we'd get a Final Four?
The fact is, if you're basing your argument on either, that's a defensible position - but we'd be fools to build it w/o a guarantee of either. If it didn't happen, we'd have thrown our money away.
2. What makes you think we'd get a Final Four?
The fact is, if you're basing your argument on either, that's a defensible position - but we'd be fools to build it w/o a guarantee of either. If it didn't happen, we'd have thrown our money away.
[img width=472 height=40]http://media.kansascity.com/images/champions_blue.gif[/img]
"For 15 years...KU won every time. There was no rivalry" - Frank Martin
"For 15 years...KU won every time. There was no rivalry" - Frank Martin
-
CrossroadsKid
- Strip mall
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Crossroads District
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
No one ever has a guarantee of getting these things. If there is a nice facility, you have every chance to get one of these events, especially KC with it's NCAA b-ball history.pittsburghparoyal wrote:1. We'll never get a Super Bowl here.
2. What makes you think we'd get a Final Four?
The fact is, if you're basing your argument on either, that's a defensible position - but we'd be fools to build it w/o a guarantee of either. If it didn't happen, we'd have thrown our money away.
-
trailerkid
- City Center Square
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
KC could easily get a Final Four if it had a 30,000+ seat arena.
KC could probably also get a Super Bowl if we had a stadium with a roof.
KC could probably also get a Super Bowl if we had a stadium with a roof.
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
I thought the same thing. What the hell is wrong with Arrowhead? Well, I have since come around. I think we could have renovated Arrowhead, but the issue with Kauffman killed the deal for Arrowhead. Now it will be even more years of delay as the team and the city work out a deal for renovations or replacement.
Arrowhead is really in a similar situation as Kauffman now. The stadium is 35 years old and needs serious cash for a real renovation, so much cash that it’s starting to not make sense to renovate. Although the NFL is not as bad as MLB when it comes to the economics of the sport, money generated by the stadium is kept by the team, therefore creating a disadvantage for a team with an out of date stadium.
Financing a new football stadium might actually be easier too.
You see, the Chiefs really can’t do naming rights on Arrowhead stadium. They will get near nothing compared to what a new stadium would generate. People will always call Arrowhead, Arrowhead and corporations know that. That name is entrenched in the community and the nation for that matter. Naming rights are a significant amount of money and would go a long way towards construction of a new stadium.
Then you have the ability to build more suites than you would with a renovated stadium, again improving the bottom line of the team.
Then you have the ability to sell seat licenses to season ticket holders. Can’t do that when the fans already have their seats. You might frown on seat licenses, but is a very good way to fund a stadium with revenue from those who use it the most and the NFL has had little problems selling them in other markets.
Concessions and other retail would be more efficient and offer more revenue as well. A renovated stadium would improve that situation, but not nearly as much as a new modern stadium.
The NFL offers special financing for new stadiums, not offered when renovating, up to I believe 30 percent.
All of this will allow the Hunts to offer a much higher percentage of private money to build the stadium than they wanted to offer for renovations. Sure it will cost the taxpayer more, but like Kauffman, they will get so much more in return than throwing 200 million at a 35 year old stadium.
A retractable roof stadium also makes sense. KC could land final fours and more sporting events with a retractable dome. KC could even land other events that pass the city up due to unpredictable weather. KC never gets things like major motor cross events and rarely gets major concerts, especially in the more extreme weather months. Even the Billy Gram deal was pretty much a wash that could have been avoided. Super Bowl? Sure, that’s a long shot, but I believe the NFL will start a cold city rotation and if that does happen, KC could easily host a Super Bowl. Not something to build a stadium for, but it would sure be an added benefit. But still, with the weather in this town, a retractable dome would be nice to have. The state of Missouri could actually alternate the High School football championships again, KC has missed out on those since StL got the dome. There are plenty of reasons to do this. I love to have cool stuff though and don’t mind spending money to get it. I know I’m in the minority, but come on KC live a little and think bigger.
Like I have said in a hundred posts before. KC needs to do this right. We can’t do another Kemper. I’m just saying that I can see both cases of this issue, new vs renovation.
Everybody already knows the benefits of a downtown ballpark, so I won’t type a book on that.
We are going to have to replace both stadiums within ten years and it will cost nearly as much to renovate both stadiums and they still wouldn't be state of the art. Why not do it now?
Arrowhead is really in a similar situation as Kauffman now. The stadium is 35 years old and needs serious cash for a real renovation, so much cash that it’s starting to not make sense to renovate. Although the NFL is not as bad as MLB when it comes to the economics of the sport, money generated by the stadium is kept by the team, therefore creating a disadvantage for a team with an out of date stadium.
Financing a new football stadium might actually be easier too.
You see, the Chiefs really can’t do naming rights on Arrowhead stadium. They will get near nothing compared to what a new stadium would generate. People will always call Arrowhead, Arrowhead and corporations know that. That name is entrenched in the community and the nation for that matter. Naming rights are a significant amount of money and would go a long way towards construction of a new stadium.
Then you have the ability to build more suites than you would with a renovated stadium, again improving the bottom line of the team.
Then you have the ability to sell seat licenses to season ticket holders. Can’t do that when the fans already have their seats. You might frown on seat licenses, but is a very good way to fund a stadium with revenue from those who use it the most and the NFL has had little problems selling them in other markets.
Concessions and other retail would be more efficient and offer more revenue as well. A renovated stadium would improve that situation, but not nearly as much as a new modern stadium.
The NFL offers special financing for new stadiums, not offered when renovating, up to I believe 30 percent.
All of this will allow the Hunts to offer a much higher percentage of private money to build the stadium than they wanted to offer for renovations. Sure it will cost the taxpayer more, but like Kauffman, they will get so much more in return than throwing 200 million at a 35 year old stadium.
A retractable roof stadium also makes sense. KC could land final fours and more sporting events with a retractable dome. KC could even land other events that pass the city up due to unpredictable weather. KC never gets things like major motor cross events and rarely gets major concerts, especially in the more extreme weather months. Even the Billy Gram deal was pretty much a wash that could have been avoided. Super Bowl? Sure, that’s a long shot, but I believe the NFL will start a cold city rotation and if that does happen, KC could easily host a Super Bowl. Not something to build a stadium for, but it would sure be an added benefit. But still, with the weather in this town, a retractable dome would be nice to have. The state of Missouri could actually alternate the High School football championships again, KC has missed out on those since StL got the dome. There are plenty of reasons to do this. I love to have cool stuff though and don’t mind spending money to get it. I know I’m in the minority, but come on KC live a little and think bigger.
Like I have said in a hundred posts before. KC needs to do this right. We can’t do another Kemper. I’m just saying that I can see both cases of this issue, new vs renovation.
Everybody already knows the benefits of a downtown ballpark, so I won’t type a book on that.
We are going to have to replace both stadiums within ten years and it will cost nearly as much to renovate both stadiums and they still wouldn't be state of the art. Why not do it now?
-
KCDevin
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
nothing is wrong with Arrowhead other than the fact that it doesn't help downtown.
We could build an 85,000+ seat stadium w/ a retractable roof in the West Bottoms with surface parking and be able to get the Super Bowl easily.
We could build an 85,000+ seat stadium w/ a retractable roof in the West Bottoms with surface parking and be able to get the Super Bowl easily.
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
devin, NO.
The west bottoms would not be good. come on
The west bottoms would not be good. come on
-
KCDevin
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
it would, imagine 85,000 people downtown... Plus additional people from hotels, plus 30,000+ residents roaming the streets and people attending things other than games at Arrowhead...
Also imagine what it'd do to the West Bottoms...
My only thing is, it's the only other good option besides the Truman Sports Complex
Downtown is our priority and is much more important than the TSC...
Also imagine what it'd do to the West Bottoms...
My only thing is, it's the only other good option besides the Truman Sports Complex
Downtown is our priority and is much more important than the TSC...
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
Destroying the West Bottoms to throw a stadium in there would be horrible. Football stadiums and surface parking lots don't belong in the Urban Core. Just keept Arrowhead where it is.
-
KCDevin
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
WD, it's not destroying the west bottoms... Take a look at the buildings in that area...
The area we really know as the West Bottoms is mostly north of the highway, this area consists of Kemper, the American Royal, the Livestock Exchange Building, plus maybe a warehouse and several smaller buildings.
Most of the area is open land and tiny small 3-4 floor buildings...
The area we really know as the West Bottoms is mostly north of the highway, this area consists of Kemper, the American Royal, the Livestock Exchange Building, plus maybe a warehouse and several smaller buildings.
Most of the area is open land and tiny small 3-4 floor buildings...
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
Ohhh, tiny buildings. It's ok to destroy them then.
There is no reason to have a football stadium surrounded by 75 bajillion surface lots in the Urban Core. The infrastructure can't hold it, the people wouldn't like it, and it looks like shit. The TSC works fine and there is no reason to move it.
There is no reason to have a football stadium surrounded by 75 bajillion surface lots in the Urban Core. The infrastructure can't hold it, the people wouldn't like it, and it looks like shit. The TSC works fine and there is no reason to move it.
-
KCDevin
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
TSC works fine, but it doesn't help downtown... Besides, how many of them do you think are in bad shape or even irreparable shape?
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
Arrowhead is fine where it is at. a Chiefs game is a self-contained day of entertainment, with the tailgating, etc.
royals games, since there are way more of them (making them less "special") should have an array of entertainment options around the stadium so people can make a night out of it. thus, the K should be downtown.
even if Arrowhead were downtown, it would be the same: people in the parking lot drinking and bbq-ing. not a help to downtown. the K is a different story.
royals games, since there are way more of them (making them less "special") should have an array of entertainment options around the stadium so people can make a night out of it. thus, the K should be downtown.
even if Arrowhead were downtown, it would be the same: people in the parking lot drinking and bbq-ing. not a help to downtown. the K is a different story.
-
KCDevin
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
Where do you think the people will go after the game? Sure some will go home but i betcha half of the local fans will go downtown and all the visitors will go downtown...
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
i dunno. it's not like there is a strong pedestrian link b/w the Bottoms and downtown. people arent going to get into their cars, drive up the hill, park, then eat somewhere.
the K should be somewhere near the South Loop. that would have strong pedestrian synergy with P+L, Xroads, Main st bars, maybe that new "Truman Blvd" etc.
the bottoms are so isolated already. after all, Kemper is down there. do the 15K Cher fans stick around downtown? hell no. from a practical standpoint, the Bottoms just dont have that link to DT.
plus, we here like density. you can shoehorn a baseball stadium into an urban hood, but football really requires giant surface lots. i dont want those lots anywhere NEAR downtown.
the K should be somewhere near the South Loop. that would have strong pedestrian synergy with P+L, Xroads, Main st bars, maybe that new "Truman Blvd" etc.
the bottoms are so isolated already. after all, Kemper is down there. do the 15K Cher fans stick around downtown? hell no. from a practical standpoint, the Bottoms just dont have that link to DT.
plus, we here like density. you can shoehorn a baseball stadium into an urban hood, but football really requires giant surface lots. i dont want those lots anywhere NEAR downtown.
-
KCDevin
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
there doesn't have to be a pedestrian link, they can take buses and taxis (yes taxis) there...
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
i dunno. a baseball stadium can be like a great neighborhood ameneity (e.g. wrigley field). a football stadium is a destination all its own.
and again, i dont want a sea of parking lots in the Bottoms or anywhere else within 5 miles of downtown.
the Bottoms would be better as another residential option. rehab those bldgs or put new ones down there. it can be like the Flats in cleveland or DUMBO in brooklyn. we need more NEIGHBORHOODS in the core. stick the Sprint Center and the K and the PAC in the South Loop. Arrowhead can stay in the burbs. other cities have football stadiums downtown and they dont do much for the surrounding areas.
and again, i dont want a sea of parking lots in the Bottoms or anywhere else within 5 miles of downtown.
the Bottoms would be better as another residential option. rehab those bldgs or put new ones down there. it can be like the Flats in cleveland or DUMBO in brooklyn. we need more NEIGHBORHOODS in the core. stick the Sprint Center and the K and the PAC in the South Loop. Arrowhead can stay in the burbs. other cities have football stadiums downtown and they dont do much for the surrounding areas.
-
ComandanteCero
- One Park Place
- Posts: 6222
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:40 am
- Location: OP
Why is there ANY discussion of a new football stadium?
^ i'm totally with Chrizow on this one.
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
Think on the Regional scale.