Downtown Baseball Stadium

[DColeKC]

I know this is your thing and I respect that.

I would hope downtown urbanism would be your thing too, or anyone on this forum, but I guess I expect too much

I wasn't trying to be cunty. We all have different personal beliefs on urbanism, I was only saying I respect yours.

[KCPowercat]

Yeah just rip down the printing press. Solved

You'd still need to level all the buildings to the east and west, plus vacate McGee and Oak, and you just might have enough space for a ballpark here.
Hard pass.

Yeah I'm not wanting a ballpark there in any way. I was saying if we are trying to solve the problem of the building being unused. Just tear it down and restore the grid.

I still think the airline history museum there would be cool

[AlkaliAxel]

I think they need to do it on Grand.

It solves two problems:
1. Proximity to the city center & activity
2. Filling in these empty spaces on Grand that just seem to never get filled, but need to be because it’s too prime of a location

[Critical_Mass]

Please direct me to these empty spaces on Grand of which you speak

[FangKC]

This city, and many others for that matter, have a bad history of demolishing existing buildings and ending up making things worse. Some of these efforts were a disaster for this city and especially diminished the vitality inside the Loop.

I don't see the need to be tearing down anything when surface parking is available in the EV. Using the excuse of moving the stadium closer to activity centers just means we will never create new activity centers elsewhere. It's also bad reasoning seeing that the stadium will sit unused for months of the year. The argument that people can't walk 5 blocks to reach P&L will somehow sink the whole enterprise is silly. People walk that far now. Some walk that far to take the streetcar.

[DColeKC]

This city, and many others for that matter, have a bad history of demolishing existing buildings and ending up making things worse. Some of these efforts were a disaster for this city and especially diminished the vitality inside the Loop.

I don't see the need to be tearing down anything when surface parking is available in the EV. Using the excuse of moving the stadium closer to activity centers just means we will never create new activity centers elsewhere. It's also bad reasoning seeing that the stadium will sit unused for months of the year. The argument that people can't walk 5 blocks to reach P&L will somehow sink the whole enterprise is silly. People walk that far now. Some walk that far to take the streetcar.

We are a small market, it’s not about walkability it’s about cohesion and the overall fan experience. Too many activity centers in close proximity eat each other alive. We have already built the hub and centerpiece of our activity center, proximity to it should be considered with every move we make especially considering the tax shortfalls and exaggerated projections.

This is baseball where you have 80 games packed into 6 months of the year.

As for tearing down existing buildings opposed to using empty parking lots. I get the argument but you can’t expect private parties to invest millions into something and not push for their most desired location because we’d rather them fix our parking lot problem at the detriment of their success.

Not to mention, we wouldn’t have the current downtown we have without hundreds of buildings being torn down. I’m all for saving historic ones but could care less about saving unremarkable buildings just to save them.

[phuqueue]

I don't think the point is about "saving unremarkable buildings just to save them," it's about cannibalizing existing density (and I would say that any occupied building counts as "density" compared to a parking lot) when there is still plenty of open space in the area. 80 games in six months means that for the other 100 days of those six months the stadium is still empty (to say nothing of the other six months of the year). A stadium is not optimal land use in the heart of an urban area, but if you're going to do it anyway, at least build it on land that was being put to even worse use.

[KCPowercat]

This city, and many others for that matter, have a bad history of demolishing existing buildings and ending up making things worse. Some of these efforts were a disaster for this city and especially diminished the vitality inside the Loop.

I don't see the need to be tearing down anything when surface parking is available in the EV. Using the excuse of moving the stadium closer to activity centers just means we will never create new activity centers elsewhere. It's also bad reasoning seeing that the stadium will sit unused for months of the year. The argument that people can't walk 5 blocks to reach P&L will somehow sink the whole enterprise is silly. People walk that far now. Some walk that far to take the streetcar.

We are a small market, it’s not about walkability it’s about cohesion and the overall fan experience. Too many activity centers in close proximity eat each other alive. We have already built the hub and centerpiece of our activity center, proximity to it should be considered with every move we make especially considering the tax shortfalls and exaggerated projections.

You want the new stadium at the Plaza?? j/k

[DColeKC]

I don't think the point is about "saving unremarkable buildings just to save them," it's about cannibalizing existing density (and I would say that any occupied building counts as "density" compared to a parking lot) when there is still plenty of open space in the area. 80 games in six months means that for the other 100 days of those six months the stadium is still empty (to say nothing of the other six months of the year). A stadium is not optimal land use in the heart of an urban area, but if you're going to do it anyway, at least build it on land that was being put to even worse use.

Sure, just not at the detriment of the business that has to spend millions and occupy the land for 50 years.

This is nearly a billion dollar project. The absolute best location for the stadium, the fans and the other downtown investors who have also pumped in billions should be a higher priority than getting rid of surface parking lots.

The amount of days it’s used Vs dark is irrelevant. It’s about the overall economic impact.

Some cities build downtown stadiums hoping it helps spur other development but in our case, downtown development has spurred a desire to have a downtown baseball stadium.

[DColeKC]

This city, and many others for that matter, have a bad history of demolishing existing buildings and ending up making things worse. Some of these efforts were a disaster for this city and especially diminished the vitality inside the Loop.

I don't see the need to be tearing down anything when surface parking is available in the EV. Using the excuse of moving the stadium closer to activity centers just means we will never create new activity centers elsewhere. It's also bad reasoning seeing that the stadium will sit unused for months of the year. The argument that people can't walk 5 blocks to reach P&L will somehow sink the whole enterprise is silly. People walk that far now. Some walk that far to take the streetcar.

We are a small market, it’s not about walkability it’s about cohesion and the overall fan experience. Too many activity centers in close proximity eat each other alive. We have already built the hub and centerpiece of our activity center, proximity to it should be considered with every move we make especially considering the tax shortfalls and exaggerated projections.

You want the new stadium at the Plaza?? j/k

That works! Everyone can get their yoga pants, trendy outerwear, Apple Watch and other retail therapy before hitting up a baseball game.

[AlkaliAxel]

Some cities build downtown stadiums hoping it helps spur other development but in our case, downtown development has spurred a desire to have a downtown baseball stadium.

And this right here is why I'm confident that downtown Royals will be more Denver/Wrigley successful than St. Louis, Cleveland, etc. levels of little success currently outside the stadium.

[glacier890]

I don't really know a lot about this area but I wonder what's the longest stadium lease you could get a team to commit to. It would be great if we could do a 50 year lease with a scheduled $400 million renovation at the 25 year mark. That way we don't run into a situation like the Atlanta Braves where the team wants to bail to the suburbs after 20 years.

[phuqueue]

I don't think the point is about "saving unremarkable buildings just to save them," it's about cannibalizing existing density (and I would say that any occupied building counts as "density" compared to a parking lot) when there is still plenty of open space in the area. 80 games in six months means that for the other 100 days of those six months the stadium is still empty (to say nothing of the other six months of the year). A stadium is not optimal land use in the heart of an urban area, but if you're going to do it anyway, at least build it on land that was being put to even worse use.

Sure, just not at the detriment of the business that has to spend millions and occupy the land for 50 years.

This is nearly a billion dollar project. The absolute best location for the stadium, the fans and the other downtown investors who have also pumped in billions should be a higher priority than getting rid of surface parking lots.

The amount of days it’s used Vs dark is irrelevant. It’s about the overall economic impact.

Some cities build downtown stadiums hoping it helps spur other development but in our case, downtown development has spurred a desire to have a downtown baseball stadium.

The stadium is a public asset, not a giveaway to "other downtown investors." There was no downtown stadium when Cordish got into downtown. There was no promise that a downtown stadium was on the way. If they made any investment decisions on the assumption that they would be stadium-adjacent twenty years later, then I don't really know what to tell you. Stadium decisions now must be made based on what is best for the neighborhood and for the city as a whole, not based on what will benefit Cordish the most.

The amount of days it's used vs. dark is completely relevant, which is why you brought it up in the first place. When the stadium isn't in use, it's just a gigantic hole in the middle of the city. I will take your word for it that the "overall economic impact" is net positive in spite of the stadium sitting empty nearly 80% of the year, but I'm not a downtown commercial landlord, so I care more about the broader impact on the urban environment than I do about the economic impact for the immediately adjacent businesses. I believe the urban fringe is the more appropriate place for a stadium because that is where it can do the least damage to the rest of the neighborhood. I don't expect it to spur a significant alternative entertainment district, so Cordish's investment in P&L will be safe even if the stadium is a few blocks away. Maybe business within P&L will surge somewhat less during game days than it would if the stadium were right next door (or maybe it won't -- P&L really is not that far from EV), but I'm not sure that makes this a "higher priority" than improving the neighborhood as a whole.

[DColeKC]

The stadium is a mix of public assets and privately owned entity. There was no talk of a downtown stadium until developers and the city invested in downtown thus making it possible. I'm not advocating for one location over the other and I'm definitely not saying it should go where it only benefits certain developers. Yet it's hard to argue it shouldn't go near PNL based on the fact that cordish are the experts at this baseball entertainment deal with proven examples in STL, Texas, Atlanta, Philly etc. So you have this major asset already built, operated by a company who specializes in baseball stadium entertainment complexes around the country. Why wouldn't you do everything possible to put it close and create that fan experience?

You say a smaller entertainment complex in east village really won't hurt other's that much. That's completely false. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars a week if there's a home stint.

I too care about the overall impact on downtown and want whats' best for all of downtown. I happen to think a certain location or two works the best for everyone, including ALL the developers and city folks who laid the ground work to even make it a possibility. On top of that, these locations will offer the best fan experience possible. Hopefully making a weekend Royals game more palatable when they're not winning.

As far as stadiums being gigantic holes when not in use. It doesn't have to be. STL isn't that way as it's vibrant and the baseball stadium just adds to the fabric of downtown even where there's no home game. Wonder why that is? Could it be the entertainment complex, office buildings, gyms, hotels and residential towers operated by Cordish and the Cardinals? Probably.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Interesting comments above soa question comes to mind. Where are the current baseball stadiums located in downtown areas? Are they in the heart of the city's downtown or are they located in a fringe area of downtown? My thoughts are you wouldn't want it in the heart of downtown since you would have multiple connected blocks without activity 280 days of the year. In the heart of downtown that is where one wants activity 365 days of the year, not a big dead space most of the time. My thoughts would be the best location of a baseball (or football) stadium would be on the fringe or just outside of a downtown area.

[KCDowntown]

I'm inclined to think that if the only person on here who has seen the proposed renderings / pitch deck for the new stadium is someone associated with Cordish, that the site for the new stadium directly involves Cordish in some fashion. That leads me to believe that the proposed location is either the 12th and Grand, Jail, or possibly land close to the 15th and Main developments (thinking the Helzberg vacant lots to the east of the PAC over to Main - which gets you the view of downtown). That would eliminate EV, North Loop, the speculation around the KC Star plant site (unless Cordish is involved in an entirely different downtown venture.)

Just a thought.

And I think the stadium should go as close to existing assets as possible - the stadium will bring ~2 million people a year downtown, which is equivalent to the traffic of Union Station. The more traffic we add to existing assets, then higher quality development and tenants will be attracted to the area.

KCDowntown

[alejandro46]

Interesting comments above soa question comes to mind. Where are the current baseball stadiums located in downtown areas? Are they in the heart of the city's downtown or are they located in a fringe area of downtown? My thoughts are you wouldn't want it in the heart of downtown since you would have multiple connected blocks without activity 280 days of the year. In the heart of downtown that is where one wants activity 365 days of the year, not a big dead space most of the time. My thoughts would be the best location of a baseball (or football) stadium would be on the fringe or just outside of a downtown area.

The best parks are typically on inner fringe areas whether or not just from good design, good geography or that was just where land was available such as on reclaimed ports. That is not per se the reason why they are the best, but they just happen to be in my opinion. However, historic parks like Wrigley and Fenway are probably not worth considering to answer your question, as they have a whole host of character that makes them somewhat in a different league so to say.

PNC Park is in my opinion, one of the best MLB stadiums. (I have been to all as of a decade or so ago). Perhpery, but easily walkable across the Roberto Clemente Bridge to DT Pittsburgh.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/PNC+P ... 80.0057054

Camden Yards - Highly ranked, also by harbor/on perphery. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oriol ... 76.6216782

ATT/Oracle Park https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oracl ... 22.3892698

Although Cardinals' stadium is very centrally located, it's still a few blocks from the main downtown area.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/St.+L ... 90.1927117

[Karambit25]

This is why Washington Square is STILL the best possible location. It's right on the streetcar and across the street from Crown Center, Union Station, Liberty Memorial and a 4 minute streetcar ride to P&L.

And with the south loop park completed, there is no hindrance to walking from the loop.


This park is simply unnecessary and is the best location, best views and will spur more mid-high residential development in the East Crossroads. The ONLY drawback is space but we can get this done with our hometown architects.

[DColeKC]

This is why Washington Square is STILL the best possible location. It's right on the streetcar and across the street from Crown Center, Union Station, Liberty Memorial and a 4 minute streetcar ride to P&L.

And with the south loop park completed, there is no hindrance to walking from the loop.

Please don't blow this KC. This park is simply unnecessary and is the best location, best views and will spur more mid-high residential development in the East Crossroads.

The ONLY drawback is space but we can get this done with our hometown architects..

That site is disconnected from anything conducive to a great baseball game experience. Fans won't be attending union station or Crown Center before or after a game. It doesn't add to the overall MLB fan experience.

Views would be neat though.

[Karambit25]

This is why Washington Square is STILL the best possible location. It's right on the streetcar and across the street from Crown Center, Union Station, Liberty Memorial and a 4 minute streetcar ride to P&L.

That site is massively disconnected from anything conducive to a great baseball game experience. Fans won't be attending union station or Crown Center before or after a game. It doesn't add to the overall MLB fan experience.

Views would be neat though.

Are you saying only P&L restaurants and bars are the only thing "conducive to a great baseball game experience?" If so I guess I am out of touch. Sure I can see bars and restaurants being a good thing but why not great hotels, family and cultural attractions in addition to bars and restaurants?