Pro-Renovation?

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
Locked
User avatar
Burton
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 am

Pro-Renovation?

Post by Burton »

Here's how it's done the RIGHT way...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_3652670

Old is new again at Dodger Stadium
Home improvements
By Vincent Bonsignore, Staff Writer

Frank McCourt didn't get the VIP treatment the first time he came to Dodger Stadium. About a year before he purchased the team, he visited Chavez Ravine unannounced, entering the stadium at its highest level behind parking lot two.
What he saw that day he'll never forget.

"It was one of those gorgeous, clear Los Angeles days and as I stepped foot in the stadium it seemed like I could see forever," McCourt recalled Wednesday. "In front of me were mountains and a clear sky for miles and miles and miles. Then I turned to look behind me, and I had a clear, beautiful view of downtown L.A. The word that comes to mind is awestruck."

That image has stuck with McCourt during the two years he's owned the Dodgers, serving as a mental blueprint as he goes about improving the franchise, on and off the field.

We'll find out Monday the type of strides the team on the field has made when the Dodgers open the 2006 season against the Atlanta Braves. But it was obvious Wednesday, McCourt cares just as much about his stadium.

McCourt hosted a group of reporters on a guided tour of Dodger Stadium to highlight improvements made during a multi-million dollar offseason construction project. Like a proud homeowner who invited all the neighbors over for a tour of his new digs, McCourt beamed as he explained all the new improvements.

Among the highlights:

Replacing all of the seats within the primary seating bowl.

Returning the stadium's original color palette, repairing and conducting maintenance in the concrete and structure within the seating bowl area.

A traditional yet modern box seat area adjacent to each dugout.

The addition of a new terrace outside the Loge Level seating entrance.

The Dodgers invested more than $20 million in the most recent renovation, the second phase of a six-phase project McCourt has planned. His ultimate goal: To modernize Chavez Ravine without compromising its historical uniqueness.

"This is the fourth oldest stadium in baseball," McCourt said. "And when the new Yankee Stadium goes up we'll be third along with Wrigley Field in Chicago and Fenway Park in Boston. Think about that for a second, and you realize the historical significance the great stadium holds. It's a Los Angeles treasure."

Fans who visit the park this year will immediately recognize two major renovations: The box seat areas and the original color scheme. In fact, for anyone who grew up attending Dodgers games in the 1960s, it might seem like they traveled back in time as soon as they see the new seats.

Ironically, McCourt and his work crew didn't plan on restoring the seat colors to their 1962 palette until someone stumbled upon some seats saved from the last major renovation more than 30 years ago.

When McCourt looked at the uniquely Southern California pastel shades, he immediately knew what he had to do.

"Sometimes you realize how perfect an original concept really is," McCourt said.

Vincent Bonsignore, (818) 713-3612

vincent.bonsignore@dailynews.com
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

But don't forget, he owns the stadium instead of a government.  One of the inducements to the Dodgers to move from Brooklyn to LA was free land.  And I believe the stadium (new) was also thrown in for free.

Should we turn the whole complex over to the teams for free?  Good question.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
User avatar
Burton
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by Burton »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: But don't forget, he owns the stadium instead of a government.  One of the inducements to the Dodgers to move from Brooklyn to LA was free land.  And I believe the stadium (new) was also thrown in for free.

Should we turn the whole complex over to the teams for free?  Good question.
I'm for turning the complex over to anyone that's more compitent than the current landlords who fucked up the original 1990 leases that got us in the situation we're in now. I thought those leases were supposed to guarantee the teams staying in KC for 25 years, not 16 with the option to leave after that.

Here's two more examples for you of better renovation financing deals if the 100% owner financing of Dodger Stadium doesn't do it for you.

1. Anaheim ($118 million)
On April 3, 1996, the city of Anaheim and the Angels (then owned by the Walt Disney Corporation) agreed on a deal that will keep the Angels in Anaheim until at least the year 2018. The Angels committed $88 million and the city $30 million to a three-year renovation of Angel Stadium to a more compact, baseball-only facility.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/anahei.htm

continued...
User avatar
Burton
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by Burton »

This one really makes me  :lol: at what they're wanting to do at Kauffman for $250 million...

White Sox (68 million)

On January 31, 2003 the White Sox announced that they had reached an agreement with wireless service provider U.S. Cellular to rename their ballpark U.S. Cellular Field. The 23-year deal will pay the White Sox $68 million over 20 years.

Those who haven't been to U.S. Cellular field in past few years wouldn't recognize the place. The ballpark was renovated between 2001 and 2005 in five phases:

Phase I (2001 season)

Three rows of seats were added along the field between the dugouts and the foul poles.
Bullpens were moved and replaced with additional bleachers.
Distances to the outfield wall were changed, most noticeably down the foul lines, where the bullpens and the Bullpen Sports Bar are now located.
Batter's eye in center field was redesigned.
Restaurant was added in the outfield.

Phase II (2002 season)

Old backstop was replaced with a new one that allows foul balls to drop.
Improvements were made to the main and club level concourses.
Scoreboard and video boards were upgraded.
Party deck was added.


Phase III (2003 season)

New center field video board and LED "ribbon" boards were added.
Outfield/Upper Deck Concourse upgrades were made.
Fan Deck in center field was added.

Ballpark was painted and stained.
Phase III renovations cost approximately $20 million.
Phase IV (2004 season)

Upper Deck Seating Area - Eight rows and 6,600 seats were removed from the top of ballpark's upper deck.
A flat roof, elevated 20 feet above the seating area, has replaced the old roof.
Upper Deck Concourse was enclosed from the weather by a translucent wall.
Fan Deck in center field upgraded to feature tiered seating and standing room.
Lower Terrace balcony added to provide an additional party area and outdoor seating.
Phase IV renovations cost approximately $28 million.

Phase V (2005 season)

314-seat "Scout" seating area directly behind home plate added.
FUNdamentals, an area for kids, was added above the left field concourse.
Green seats replaced the old blue seats in phases during the 2005 season.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/comis2.htm

So U.S. Cellular got everything except the amphitheatre, plus more for about a fourth of the cost of the Kauffman renovations, and most importantly it was all privately financed.
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by kcdcchef »

these are all things i guess we will have to look at come wednesday morning if this fails, which, i think there is a good chance it will. hard to say, but if i were a betting man, i would feel safer betting on no.

if the argument comes down to SOLELY that mr. glass and mr. hunt are not putting enough in and should be putting in say 25% or something, or 30 or 35, i would tend to agree, that they should put more in, i think in an ideal situation, glass would put in 25% and hunt 35-40%, and if this fails on tuesday, i will be real suprised if the next vote, in 2007 or so, does not adress those two putting in more money. i think if we have learned anything about this from watching the past 6 months, there is no way to talk city, county, and state leaders, along with the teams, out of wanting to stay at the truman sports complex, but, putting that aside, i think the campaign if it fails, would be best served to spend a lot of money, hundreds of thousands, on finding out why. poll and question the no voters, and find out what we already know, that most of them are voting no based on how much the owners are putting in.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Burton
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by Burton »

kcdcchef wrote: these are all things i guess we will have to look at come wednesday morning if this fails, which, i think there is a good chance it will. hard to say, but if i were a betting man, i would feel safer betting on no.

if the argument comes down to SOLELY that mr. glass and mr. hunt are not putting enough in and should be putting in say 25% or something, or 30 or 35, i would tend to agree, that they should put more in, i think in an ideal situation, glass would put in 25% and hunt 35-40%, and if this fails on tuesday, i will be real suprised if the next vote, in 2007 or so, does not adress those two putting in more money. i think if we have learned anything about this from watching the past 6 months, there is no way to talk city, county, and state leaders, along with the teams, out of wanting to stay at the truman sports complex, but, putting that aside, i think the campaign if it fails, would be best served to spend a lot of money, hundreds of thousands, on finding out why. poll and question the no voters, and find out what we already know, that most of them are voting no based on how much the owners are putting in.
=D>
Good Chef, I'm glad to see you do have some sense in you. Now can you read that US Cellular list and pick out anything other than the amphitheatre that Kauffman is wanting, that Chicago got for only 68 million?
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by kcdcchef »

Burton wrote: =D>
Good Chef, I'm glad to see you do have some sense in you. Now can you read that US Cellular list and pick out anything other than the amphitheatre that Kauffman is wanting, that Chicago got for only 68 million?
aside from loving the tsc, i agree, the owners should put more in, however, would not be willing to support a no campaign on that, especially since there are 20 freebies out there, not counting us, wrigley, fenway, shea, and dodger. so, it is hard to say, they do not put enough in, since, there are so many owners within the last 10 that have not paid a dime, soldier, in chicago, just got finished, free to the ownership. so, it is hard to really support that shit. you look at recent trends, some owners have put more in then ours would, and some have got it free. kind of a double edged sword at best. and then you also have to compare our situation, particularly in baseball, glass is not mega ultra wealthy, ya know?? hunt, is nfl, and much richer, he can afford to foot damn near the whole 1b tag on his own if you think about it.

i really love the tsc, and want to keep our teams there, and if this fails, i would be real suprised if we do not see the next proposal, which, we all know, will be at the tsc again, the owners putting in more dough.

i remember, municipal stadium, and going there to games, and i really wish when the voters did this in 1967, they would have took the west bottoms angle, the sites, were leeds, and riverfront, and it ended up out there. can you imagine these two stadiums, as is, on the riverfront the last 34 years? how many no voters do you think, would be bitching about 34 year old stadiums, like they do now, if it were on the riverfront in the first place, where, it belonged? older posters on here, can tell you, the tsc ended up where it was, because of how this region was DECIMATED by white flight in the 60's. and then some. i really wish that had not happened, because, like i have said, how many of you guys would support tearing these stadiums down, if they were already downtown, where they belong? shit, i agree on that, i never have said i didn't, but, it is a hard spot, for me, and a lot of kauffman / arrowhead supporters, do we really want to lose 2 stadiums this nice, ( come on, we all have to admit they are nice stadiums ) just because of where they sit??

if this fails tuesday, which, it is 50-50, i would not be suprised if it passed, i would not be suprised if it failed, but, be real, it is 50-50. anywho, if it fails, and the owners of the teams, the mayor, dtc, city council, county goverment, all media, everyone gets behind a downtown stadium, do you honestly think i would not get behind it? of course i would. i would hate to lose the tsc, but, you go with the best thing for the city. is this proposal the best? of course not. but, the hard line no voters, are bitching about the owners so much, and talking so much shit on glass and hunt, you would think they are asking for 4b and not putting in one penny. that is a crock. i am not worried, even if it fails, we now know, the downtown thing is not going to happen. but, be honest no voters, if the proposal was the same, dollar wise, but, glass was putting in 150m and hunt 200m, there would still be some of you on here raising hell about how horrible it is and our owners suck bla bla bla bla. at some point, you have to say, ok, this is what is going to happen, and this is a good deal, lets support it. if the owners were putting in 350m, be honest, because it is tsc, some of you would STILL be carrying on in this juvenile way.

take a cue from me, if it fails, and the next plan is dt stadiums, which, i doubt, and the owners, goverment, and media get behind it, you think i would not? and remember, this is coming from an ex ihl hockey player that loves kemper and would have loved to have seen it expanded again!! seriously, though, yes, or no voters, you have to use common sense here. if the ownership money was doubled, or even tripled, some of you are so damn hellbent on wanting to lose nice stadiums, you would still fight it. and if the ownership money was doubled, you think the vote would be this close??
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Burton
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by Burton »

I guess I can see what you're saying Chef. I'm not a NO vote that is hellbent on building downtown. Would I rather baseball be downtown? Yes. In my perfect world, the Royals would move downtown, and the Chiefs would renovate Arrowhead, with a retractable (not rolling) roof. However, I realize that there aren't 2 million people in the metro that agree with me, so I'm flexible. It wouldnt bother me at all if there was a complete TSC renovation with both teams staying there. The thing is though, this particular plan is AWFUL. They're using 4 and 5 year old renderings to try to sell this shit, that alone is just one of the many examples that shows how mismanaged and unorganized this thing has been. If it fails, and they offer another TSC plan, one which has better funding principles, and gives better details of what we're actually getting, not this last minute shit, and the Royals are still refusing to go downtown, then you might have a YES vote from me. The point I think we can all MAYBE agree on though, is that if there is a next plan, it needs to be alot more clear on everything from funding to amenities and all that shit, and shouldn't have to rely on scare tactics and fear mongering to get something pushed through last minute.
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by kcdcchef »

Burton wrote: I guess I can see what you're saying Chef. I'm not a NO vote that is hellbent on building downtown. Would I rather baseball be downtown? Yes. In my perfect world, the Royals would move downtown, and the Chiefs would renovate Arrowhead, with a retractable (not rolling) roof. However, I realize that there aren't 2 million people in the metro that agree with me, so I'm flexible. It wouldnt bother me at all if there was a complete TSC renovation with both teams staying there. The thing is though, this particular plan is AWFUL. They're using 4 and 5 year old renderings to try to sell this shit, that alone is just one of the many examples that shows how mismanaged and unorganized this thing has been. If it fails, and they offer another TSC plan, one which has better funding principles, and gives better details of what we're actually getting, not this last minute shit, and the Royals are still refusing to go downtown, then you might have a YES vote from me. The point I think we can all MAYBE agree on though, is that if there is a next plan, it needs to be alot more clear on everything from funding to amenities and all that shit, and shouldn't have to rely on scare tactics and fear mongering to get something pushed through last minute.
i have said very frequently, that, the yes campaign, if it fails, CAN ONLY BLAME THEMSELVES. they waited until 6 weeks out to unveil their plans, did indeed rehash old plans ( although, i do not think they are that old, maybe 3 years ) and were so vague. i think, an ampitheater, at kauffman, for example, is a grand idea, and think a lot of people would also agree, had they not put it in at the 11th hour, fought with the chiefs about it, and oh yeah, failed to properly explain it. listening to an unbiased point of view on 980 recently, i got to hear a real good assesmnet of it, using it to have HUGE groups at kauffman, groups in the thousands, and giving them a place to congregate, eat, watch pre game entertainment in the form of concerts, speakers, etc, i think it is great, but, come on, how many people understand this concept? fucking noone, because the campaign dropped the ball.

i think they have completely came out with totally new ideas on how to renovate kauffman and arrowhead from bi state II, i think at first, with NO drawings, they decided to be retarded, and just use the old ones, which, makes NO sense. i think they completely have a great idea, but, rolling it out 3 weeks prior, not giving everyone enough time to fully digest it, the royals, in dan glass, and the chiefs, in jack steadman, have 2 men who are eloquent speakers, and very good at motivating ( have you ever heard dan glass, wow!! ) who could convince a lot of kansas citians, they could be more visible on talk radio talking to the radio personalities ( although, i do agree with not wanting to go on 810 with kietzman, he has been an ass ) there is so much they could have done different.

they could have slam dunked a yes, with this plan, and this financing, by being willing to be out in the community, visible, willing to explain fully, this plan. and, spending $100k to get some up to date, DETAILED sketches, would have been the other part. instead, they chose to do it half ass like this, and i do not get that.

oh well, you and i agree, there is no way to know how this will turn out tuesday. i hope it passes, but, if not, back to the drawing board. if it fails, i really hope they spend some money to learn why, although, you and i can agree we both know that already, lack of their own money, and half assing the way they are deleviring it to the public.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
User avatar
Burton
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by Burton »

kcdcchef wrote: i think, an ampitheater, at kauffman, for example, is a grand idea, and think a lot of people would also agree, had they not put it in at the 11th hour, fought with the chiefs about it, and oh yeah, failed to properly explain it. listening to an unbiased point of view on 980 recently, i got to hear a real good assesmnet of it, using it to have HUGE groups at kauffman, groups in the thousands, and giving them a place to congregate, eat, watch pre game entertainment in the form of concerts, speakers, etc, i think it is great, but, come on, how many people understand this concept? fucking noone, because the campaign dropped the ball.
I don't know man, I keep trying to envision plunking Starlight Theatre out there behind the crown. I don't see how logistically people are going to eat the buffet style stuff they do in these things in a stadium style seating amphitheatre configuration. If they cut the amphitheatre down to 5,000 seats, and add a flat area behind it for the buffets and normal table seating, then I could maybe see this thing working.  But I don't see what the point of eating and holding these group functions in a 9,500 seat theatre is. Starlight holds about 8,000 and that seems pretty good sized. This thing at the K is going to be even bigger than that, can you imagine sitting in the seats at starlight trying to eat a bbq dinner?
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Pro-Renovation?

Post by kcdcchef »

Burton wrote: I don't know man, I keep trying to envision plunking Starlight Theatre out there behind the crown. I don't see how logistically people are going to eat the buffet style stuff they do in these things in a stadium style seating amphitheatre configuration. If they cut the amphitheatre down to 5,000 seats, and add a flat area behind it for the buffets and normal table seating, then I could maybe see this thing working.  But I don't see what the point of eating and holding these group functions in a 9,500 seat theatre is. Starlight holds about 8,000 and that seems pretty good sized. This thing at the K is going to be even bigger than that, can you imagine sitting in the seats at starlight trying to eat a bbq dinner?
i guess just because of my mass catering experience with hyatt, i can, and, that being said, how many people have done large scale catering? with hyatt, i got sent to new orleans, atlanta, san diego, miami, on and on, helping catering teams on super bowls, world series, 1996 olympics, pga events, and, on large events, they do it, and make a shitload of money. super bowl for example, on media day, we would always feed 10-15,000 media, some of them reporters and analysts, some people who just help with the media, and they would eat in the stadium style seating, and, me personally, i always get cheese fries or gates at kauffman, so, we all know it is possible. the segment that they are going after, LARGE HUGE GROUPS, is a big segment they miss by not having this, and i know some stadiums have similar things, not outdoor amphitheaters, but, they have something similar, rogers centre has an area below that holds 5k for groups, oriole park has the warehouses for groups, so, i see what they are getting at here, but, here is the thing...........

people like yourself COULD get talked into supporting this, maybe not easily, but you could, if you fully got to see how it works, detailed sketches, demographic studies by catering / event coordinators, but, no, the royals waited til a few weeks out to do it. which, like most of the campaign i support, IS DUMB.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
Locked