Downtown Baseball Stadium

[GRID]

support MLB the way it needs to be supported.

What does this mean? The Royals seem to be doing fine financially? With a small amount of their income stream coming from gate sales not sure what "needs to be supported" means?

Maybe KC has lost its regional tourism appeal (same problems effecting Worlds of Fun).

I've seen no evidence of less smaller surrounding cities coming into KC, I'd say the opposite.

Oh, I think the Royals are fine, so long as revenue sharing is a thing. As you have mentioned, tickets sales are not a huge deal in MLB compared to other revenue streams. I was just saying that the Royals have not drawn well, even when they are good compared to the rest of MLB except maybe Tampa.

A new downtown stadium will open up new corporate sponsorships, it will be easier to sell suites, and the Royals would sell more concessions which teams make more from than ticket sales. The owners would also be able to make money by developing surrounding areas of the stadium, something not possible at the TSC. All this could translate into more individual ticket sales, but I don't know that KC will ever average what 25-35k consistently every year no matter what like many teams do and that is likely due to market size and the size of the KC corporate community willing to buy season tickets. And that's fine, KC probably doesn't have to average 30k, I was just making a point that a downtown park probably won't change attendance that much. But it would be a better fit financially for the team if the team can get public help to build the stadium.

As far as being a regional draw, I think KC still is for events at Union Station etc, but two of the biggest regional draws for KC are not the draw they used to be. The Royals and Worlds of Fun. The Royals simply because the stadium is dated and the team sucks and WoF because it has not kept up with other theme parks or built many new big rides. They still draw, but not like they used to. KC's Zoo has gotten a lot better though and there are some other attractions, but the Royals and WoF were in tandem a huge summer draw for KC.

[FlippantCitizen]

Trust me, if you are from a sizable city, Downtown KC is not going to impress anybody much more than the TSC. Downtown KC has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go. Please don't take that as an insult, I love KC. Despite it being 1000 times better than it was 20 yeas ago, Downtown KC is just smallish and not very active compared to other cities.

A downtown ballpark might be the one thing that takes downtown to another level, you never know. I still think decades of KC's corporate migration to JoCo killed downtown and it still has not recovered from that. That has impacted not just office construction, but hotels, and high end residential.

That's pretty harsh. Since moving here in late 2020 my in-laws, FIL plus step-MIL and MIL plus step-FIL have come to visit and been pretty impressed. Certainly low expectations played a role but these folks live in Chicago and Portland OR and in the past have lived in NYC, Philly, London, and Johannesburg South Africa. They were quite skeptical when we decided to move here but were definitely won over after visiting.

The River Market, dining options, Crossroads brewery scene, murals and street art, cultural amenities like the Nelson, WW1 museum, etc. etc. combined with the affordability of the real estate really made an impression. To the extent that my wife's step dad has been bugging her step sister to consider moving to KC from Chicago because she and her boyfriend are struggling to save money for a home and one is working remote and the other works in ag-tech and would probably find even more job opportunities here. In my experience of having other friends visit, all of whom have lived in NYC and are from places as varied as Atlanta to Paris, I've received generally quite positive reviews. Again, low expectations were probably playing a role but KCs reputation and ability to win people over has been rising and as far as I can tell will only continue to do so.

[GRID]

I feel embarassed when people come into town for games and their main view if the city is the TSC and the dogshit that surrounds it. Just so cringe.

Trust me, if you are from a sizable city, Downtown KC is not going to impress anybody much more than the TSC. Downtown KC has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go. Please don't take that as an insult, I love KC. Despite it being 1000 times better than it was 20 yeas ago, Downtown KC is just smallish and not very active compared to other cities.

A downtown ballpark might be the one thing that takes downtown to another level, you never know. I still think decades of KC's corporate migration to JoCo killed downtown and it still has not recovered from that. That has impacted not just office construction, but hotels, and high end residential.

Dude that's not true at all. Even if you're from a sizable city, KC has a charm that is appealing.

I literally haven't talked to one person that has visited downtown KC in the past 5 years (most are from large cities in CA or TX and have gone for Chiefs games or the Big 12 tournament) and had a negative experience. Minus the cold which is usually a shock.

City-wise they're always pleasently surprised by it. Maybe they go in with very low expectations or during big events where the city is more lively, but I don't think downtown KC is as bad as you say it is.

I love KC's charm and architecture etc. I think KCMO is a great city, but no, its just not on the same level as most other major cities as far as being an active "city". Also, there is a difference when you are in KC for a major event vs just passing through town on a random day. Most of the time KC really does feel like a ghost town compared to other large cities. That's just a fact. It has some amazing attractions like the WWI Museum and Union Station, but downtown in general is still void of traffic, people etc most of the time compared to just about any mid to large city out there. I know saying that always pisses people off, but it's just the way KC is.

That does not mean it's a bad thing. I can always show off KC in a way that blows people away. But KC is a not really a city that will not show itself off to out of towners very well outside the Union Station area.

[KCPowercat]

And that's fine, KC probably doesn't have to average 30k,

Then why are we going round and round talking about attendance and not being supported the level they need to be supported?

As far as being a regional draw, I think KC still is for events at Union Station etc, but two of the biggest regional draws for KC are not the draw they used to be. The Royals and Worlds of Fun. The Royals simply because the stadium is dated and the team sucks and WoF because it has not kept up with other theme parks or built many new big rides. They still draw, but not like they used to. KC's Zoo has gotten a lot better though and there are some other attractions, but the Royals and WoF were in tandem a huge summer draw for KC.

and as we discussed that's on MLB and WoF, not the city to keep competitive to be that draw? Not sure I get the point.

[GRID]

And that's fine, KC probably doesn't have to average 30k,

Then why are we going round and round talking about attendance and not being supported the level they need to be supported?

Because ultimately there are other cities that will average 30k on top of having other more profitable revenue streams. This may not be a problem. as teams like Oakland and Tampa have been threatening to move forever, but as other metro continue to grow, it may become a problem.

[GRID]

Also, I kind of like how KC feels dead, but it's really not dead. It's an EXTREMELY easy city to navigate, park in etc. No other urban area in the country is easier to park in than Kansas City, I mean Wichita maybe lol. Which is why it blows my mind to read comments about parking downtown on social media. I mean good lord, try parking in Greenville SC, let alone Philly. In most of urban KCMO it's freaking not only plenty available but free.

KC is very laid back and not very busy at all. But to an outsider wondering into the city, much of the city would appear or feel totally dead or even blightened. Especially if you enter downtown from the east which most first time travelers do.

You have to know where to go in KC to find people and activity and even what times or days to do it. Most cities are not so hard to figure out. That's all I'm saying.

[FlippantCitizen]

Also, I kind of like how KC feels dead, but it's really not dead. It's an EXTREMELY easy city to navigate, park in etc. No other urban area in the country is easier to park in than Kansas City, I mean Wichita maybe lol. Which is why it blows my mind to read comments about parking downtown on social media.

KC is very laid back and not very busy at all. But to an outsider wondering into the city, much of the city would appear or feel totally dead or even blightened. Especially if you enter downtown from the east which most first time travelers do.

You have to know where to go in KC to find people and activity and even what times or days to do it. Most cities are not so hard to figure out. That's all I'm saying.

That's fair. Finding the secrets here would be tough without a guide.

[TheLastGentleman]

That's fair. Finding the secrets here would be tough without a guide.

I feel like this is the case with a lot of middle American cities. Even Chicago has this feeling that half the interesting stuff is flung like 20 miles out into Chicagoland and not in downtown

[KCPowercat]

That's fair. Finding the secrets here would be tough without a guide.

I feel like this is the case with a lot of middle American cities. Even Chicago has this feeling that half the interesting stuff is flung like 20 miles out into Chicagoland and not in downtown

Yeah I've been in some desolate midwest downtowns wandering around looking for life. We are definitely spread out downtown though, no doubt.

[GRID]

That's fair. Finding the secrets here would be tough without a guide.

I feel like this is the case with a lot of middle American cities. Even Chicago has this feeling that half the interesting stuff is flung like 20 miles out into Chicagoland and not in downtown

But Michigan Ave and Grant Park etc are always packed with people as is the entire city in general. Just driving down LSD and seeing all the cyclists etc on the trails etc. I mean its a city that draws you in. There is no place in Chicago where you will walk for blocks without seeing other pedestrians, cyclist etc. Although I actually think Chicago's active nodes and attractions are super easy to find even for a newbie. Actually, I never spend much time in Chicago any further out than a couple miles from the loop other than Wrigglyville, so I'm not even sure what you mean.

I mean DC is a lot harder to find where the actual locals are for tourists. They are nowhere near the mall area where the tourists go. But the city doesn't feel dead. There are people everywhere all the time. Even smaller cities like Milwaukee and Richmond and Cincinnati have much busier downtowns than KC does.

KC is just a different place when it comes to having urban bustle which is bizarre because there really is a lot to do there. Maybe it has to do with the fact that you can drive up to and park right in front of wherever you are going there right in the city. And that seems to be demanded there. That is just not very common in urban areas.

[KCPowercat]

it's all too separated with bad ped connections between sometimes due to topography. that's just downtown, then factor in how far away the plaza is.

[GRID]

it's all too separated with bad ped connections between sometimes due to topography. that's just downtown, then factor in how far away the plaza is.

Not sure I buy the topography thing. I mean Richmond, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Portland, Seattle etc have more aggressive topography.

I think what makes downtown feel so dead is that it's an island. Most cities have very dense thriving residential neighborhoods directly attached to their downtowns. KC does not. It didn't use to have anything till the past 15 years with the Crossroads coming to life, which is still not a fully functioning neighborhood just yet (hopefully in another 10-15 years it will be).

Downtown KC is choked off by rivers and highways. There are no through streets, no surrounding neighborhoods etc. If you are driving "through" downtown KC from NE to KCK or from NKC to Plaza or From KCK to hospital hill, you are likely on a freeway.

So the only people downtown are those that happen to live or work there. It has very little integration with the rest of the city. And that does have to to with topography and of course KC's ridiculous highway system. Before the highway system and white flight, downtown KC was directly attached to neighborhoods to the east and southeast and commercial districts to the south.

It would be nice if a new stadium came with a new buried or decked downtown loop. All of it, not just the convention center area. That's why I think east village will not be successful unless the freeways are dealt with.

[phuqueue]

The Royals have never drawn well. I can't see KC selling out even the first few years of a new downtown stadium like what happened in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, Denver etc.

I don't know what the reason is, but KC just doesn't do well at the gate for the Royals. KC"s best years are average to the rest of MLB.

This is BS. The Royals, like every other team in every other sport, draw well when they're good and poorly when they're bad. The pattern has possibly been obscured by how bad they have been, almost without exception, over the past few decades. In 2015 -- the only season in the past 30+ when they were both a) coming off of a good season and b) still good -- they drew 10th in the league, which might not sound great, but every team that outdrew them was in a much larger city and, with the exception of the Yankees and Red Sox, had made the playoffs in 2014 and/or went on to make the playoffs in 2015. So they were outdrawn by competitive teams in much bigger markets, not a major shock. Attendance gradually fell in the years after 2015, but it didn't immediately plummet off a cliff -- in 2016, it fell by a little less than 2000 per game (12th in MLB overall) even as the team disappointed (14 fewer wins, no playoffs). In 2017, it fell a little more (by a little less than 4000 per game, 17th in MLB overall) as the team finished in a familiar spot, under .500 (but in all three of these seasons, 2015-2017, they were well within that 25-35k range that you bring up in your later post). In 2018, it finally returned to more or less normal (only 20.5k per game, 23rd in MLB) as guys like Hosmer and Cain left in the offseason and the team lost 104 games.

If you want to say they've "never" drawn well, we can take that literally and go much farther back. In 1976, the first year they made the playoffs, they drew 6th in MLB. In 1977, 6th. In 1978? You guessed it -- 6th. In 1979, they fell all the way to...7th. In 1980, when they made their first World Series, 5th. In 1981, a weird strike season in which they finished under .500 overall, 8th. In 1982, back to 5th. Etc etc etc. I mean, the obvious retort here is, that was a really long time ago, but the counterpoint is, that was the last and only time the Royals were consistently good year after year. It's not necessarily apples to apples to compare across different sports, but KC didn't support the Chiefs especially well when they were a bad team either (but you, again, have to go all the way back to the 80s to find a period in Chiefs history when the team was consistently bad year after year) and the city packs Arrowhead when they're good (or at least competitive), which they have been much more often than not over the past 30 years.

KC is not special, and the comparisons to other cities are silly. Denver was a new franchise, not just a new stadium. Cleveland drew 8th in MLB the year Jacobs Field opened, and over the next few years they were consistently near the top in attendance, but they were also a powerhouse of a team. And Pittsburgh? Attendance was 17th in MLB the year PNC Park opened (for a team that lost 100 games and finished in last place, so there's your new stadium bump) and fell in the next few years afterward (per game attendance was already down more than 25% in 2002 compared to 2001), so I'm not sure what alternate universe you came from where they were selling out for years after the stadium opened. In 2003, the fluky competitive Royals outdrew the still-terrible Pirates in their two year old stadium. I guess I'll let you have Baltimore, since their attendance (at or near the top of the league for years) outpaced their on-field performance, but still worth noting that the opening of Camden Yards did coincide with a 22 game improvement, and they remained competitive most seasons after that, even if it took them a few years to finally make the playoffs. The point ultimately is that the usual rules that apply everywhere else apply to KC, too. If the Royals field a good team, people will come and see it. If they consistently field good teams, people will keep coming. And if they don't, people won't go. If the Royals have "never" drawn well, it's because they've "never" been good, and I guess "never" just means whatever you want it to.

[AlkaliAxel]

Yeah I’m sorry I don’t agree with that take about downtown KC at all, lol.

[chrizow]

agreed that KC lacks overall "bustle" most of the time, but i really think that is true of most cities. i've been to most larger cities in the country, and other than the small handful that are truly pedestrian-oriented*, most do not feel all that bustling. GRID's mention of Richmond is laughable--i love that city a lot, it punches way above its weight for quality of urban core, cool little neighborhoods everywhere, beautiful historic housing, etc., but actual "downtown Richmond" feels like KC 25 years ago. and the "up and coming" parts of Richmond (like Barton Heights, Brookland, Manchester, etc.) feel pretty sleepy, like the Troost corridor or "east Waldo"

even Denver, an objective success story, does not feel terribly busy in the core downtown. it's not a city you just walk around in surrounded by "bustle." you can easily walk several blocks in denver and only see a few pedestrians, depending on what time of day it is.

also, while everyone on this board wants to maximize density and bustle, i am not sure the average american does.

* NYC, Chi, SF, Bos, Phl, maybe a few others.

[AlkaliAxel]

I spend alot of time in Denver (family is all from Colorado) and their downtown gets no more activity or “bustle” than KC’s does. And they have a nice downtown. Especially right now, I actually think KC’s getting better weekend crowds than what I saw in Denver a couple months ago.

I go again in a couple weeks and I’ll see if it got better.

[DColeKC]

Trust me, if you are from a sizable city, Downtown KC is not going to impress anybody much more than the TSC. Downtown KC has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go. Please don't take that as an insult, I love KC. Despite it being 1000 times better than it was 20 yeas ago, Downtown KC is just smallish and not very active compared to other cities.

A downtown ballpark might be the one thing that takes downtown to another level, you never know. I still think decades of KC's corporate migration to JoCo killed downtown and it still has not recovered from that. That has impacted not just office construction, but hotels, and high end residential.

Dude that's not true at all. Even if you're from a sizable city, KC has a charm that is appealing.

I literally haven't talked to one person that has visited downtown KC in the past 5 years (most are from large cities in CA or TX and have gone for Chiefs games or the Big 12 tournament) and had a negative experience. Minus the cold which is usually a shock.

City-wise they're always pleasently surprised by it. Maybe they go in with very low expectations or during big events where the city is more lively, but I don't think downtown KC is as bad as you say it is.

I love KC's charm and architecture etc. I think KCMO is a great city, but no, its just not on the same level as most other major cities as far as being an active "city". Also, there is a difference when you are in KC for a major event vs just passing through town on a random day. Most of the time KC really does feel like a ghost town compared to other large cities. That's just a fact. It has some amazing attractions like the WWI Museum and Union Station, but downtown in general is still void of traffic, people etc most of the time compared to just about any mid to large city out there. I know saying that always pisses people off, but it's just the way KC is.

That does not mean it's a bad thing. I can always show off KC in a way that blows people away. But KC is a not really a city that will not show itself off to out of towners very well outside the Union Station area.

Sorry but you're way off here. Downtown see's great weekend traffic without anything special going on. Of course it's even better with something happening but void of traffic just isn't accurate. Some of the best saturday's down here are when there's nothing going on and we have great weather.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I literally took the average attendance for the entire stadiums history & compared it to the entire history of the new stadium. There's no cherrypicking. The downtown stadiums win every single time.

OK then. Let’s not talk about the current Royals attendance. Use the numbers from the time the team moved to Royals Stadium. And then use that average to compare to expected attendance to a new downtown stadium. At the same time the current attendance numbers exceed the numbers for the team’s 4 years at Municipal.
Using the entire history, as you do, distorts what the current attendance is in those new stadiums. After the newness of the new stadiums wears off in many cases there is a large drop off in attendance at those stadiums.
You are comparing attendance from one stadium to another over the history of the stadiums by teams. My comparison is different. I’m comparing the somewhat current attendance wnumbers to the first years the new stadium was utilized, looking at the attendance drop off. And then compare the current attendance average to the last few years the older stadium was used.
You have to admit there are many different ways to look at attendance numbers. For the Royals the team’s first three years at Royals Stadium the numbers certainly didn’t set the world on fire but for the league as a whole the average ranked 3rd, 5th, and 4th. Starting with what I would say the team’s glory days (1976 to 1990) attendance did pick up quite a bit going over 20,000 and staying over that number but 1990 was the last year the team’s average attendance finished in the top half of the league until 2015 and 2016.
Anyway, you looked at the numbers and utilized them to prove the conclusion you wanted. I looked at the same numbers and utilized them them to get the conclusion I wanted. Both conclusions are valid so it’s much like point and counterpoint.
Just looking at the numbers tells one story. Sometimes the story behind the numbers tells something different. Even with the Royals average attendance of 18,267 in 2019 (13th in the league) exceeds the average attendance in the first three years in Royals Stadium (16,609, 14,485, 14,220).

[AlkaliAxel]

My new favorite NIMBY argument is that "the Royals have always been a family friendly place and therefore we can't move them downtown. Losing that will kill us!"

[AlkaliAxel]

Check out image before/after of urban San Diego in this tweet for an example of what a baseball stadium can do for an area

https://twitter.com/evt_news/status/152 ... jLp6Y5yjDg