Downtown Baseball Stadium

[smh]

Yeah, so now imagine all that plus the new baseball stadium and spin-off. You might get an actual area of the city that resembles what the top 5 cities in the country have. Not just two “good/okay” areas with EV & Crossroads.

This lines up with some of my thinking. Now that I have lived elsewhere for a few years, I really notice how little pedestrian activity there is in the densest most active parts of the city. I am inclined towards a crossroads location because I think concentrating amenities and activity is what the city needs rather than spreading an already thin layer of activity thinner.

[DColeKC]

So many pages of back and forth. Here is a starting pro/con list. Feel free to quote and add or comment.

Crossroads
Pro:
- More “integral” part of downtown
- Closer to Power and Light
- Adjacent to 670 park cap + additional blocked capped
- Existing infrastructure
- Closer to Streetcar
- Existing surrounding neighborhood, not hinging on success of surrounding district build out (STL stadium finished in ’06, Ball Park Village still not done)
Cons
- Proposed plot much smaller
- Existing building & streets require vacation/realigning, and acquisition and demolition from multiple property owners
- Less spin off development potential
- High probability for additional tear downs to add parking
- No future re-use of existing KCStar building

East Village
Pros:
- Land largely owned by 1 entity
- Land mostly vacant
- Larger site
- High potential for spin-off development throughout EV and even some in Paseo Gateway provided east loop highway can be crossed/capped.
- Close to EV transit center
Cons
- Cut off from remainder of downtown by low activated fed and gov buildings
- Higher infrastructure costs for utilities and highway access
- NE facing views not of downtown
- Farther from P&L (.4 miles from 12th & Cherry to E. entrance to PNL).
- More spread out style development (more car friendly?)

Thank you for putting this together. I think it's an accurate list.

[DColeKC]

Correct, and that is facing northwest. There is no way to get the view everyone wants at either site. I'd say that dream is long dead no matter what.

It's either looking at the Fed/Longlines or looking at new build/who knows.

Yeah, surely there's no way to get some great views.

I love the renderings… the AT&T building will be a problem though won’t it

I tossed a 195' hi-rise in right field to help block the view of the AT&T building. I know the Royals would want at least one tower with ballpark views!

[phuqueue]

My argument is very clear and has been for months... scratch that, years. A stadium in East Crossroads no doubt has immediate economic benefits. A stadium in East Village is better than Truman Sports Complex but will not deliver the same impact as one located in East Crossroads.

The Crossroads neighborhood is over 350 acres and we're talking about directly changing 15 acres. So yes, I'm sure there would be some changes in the immediate vicinity that is currently, mostly under utilized but in totality, the neighborhood as a whole will not dramatically change and will still need much of that organic growth that is so often promoted in here.

If your concern is not seeing the city cannibalize itself, East Crossroads makes much more sense.

If the neighborhood as a whole barely changes outside of the land directly appropriated for stadium construction, it's hard to see how the stadium provided all that much economic benefit. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

[DColeKC]

Investors at some point will be "forced" to make moves as their investment costs them more and more money. The people who own the majority are also developers and it seems like they have expertise in mid-rise multi-family, something we could use more of in downtown kansas city and what better reason than a billion dollar development project to get started. As someone mentioned, the government buildings right there have most of the downtown in office workers.

Many of us have had to do P&L's as part of our careers. I'm sure the people who own the land have done there's and they decided long ago that waiting for the Royals was the best bet. Keep in mind they didn't simply want to sell, they wanted to be active participants in the development and make residual income.

"At some point" doing a lot of work there. I've already seen multiple people talking about how Sporting KC should go to EV. Guess we'll have to wait for that to not happen. Maybe then they'll be "forced" to sell. Oh wait, but we'll probably be talking about building a new arena by then...

As long as the city and ASM continue to proactively invest in the arena, we shouldn't need a new one for a very, very long time.

I think you'll see activity at the East Village site sooner than later if it's taken off the board as a potential stadium site.

[shaffe]

15+ pages of arguing just this week. Nobody knows how to fight over hypotheticals like the Rag!

[DColeKC]

My argument is very clear and has been for months... scratch that, years. A stadium in East Crossroads no doubt has immediate economic benefits. A stadium in East Village is better than Truman Sports Complex but will not deliver the same impact as one located in East Crossroads.

The Crossroads neighborhood is over 350 acres and we're talking about directly changing 15 acres. So yes, I'm sure there would be some changes in the immediate vicinity that is currently, mostly under utilized but in totality, the neighborhood as a whole will not dramatically change and will still need much of that organic growth that is so often promoted in here.

If your concern is not seeing the city cannibalize itself, East Crossroads makes much more sense.

If the neighborhood as a whole barely changes outside of the land directly appropriated for stadium construction, it's hard to see how the stadium provided all that much economic benefit. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

No I'm not. It's only logical to assume that many businesses and properties in close proximity to the stadium itself would see increased economic outcomes while those that are several blocks away would perhaps see less. The stadium would open and become part of the existing area on day one, but wouldn't change all 350 acres of East Village day one.

Some people are tying to argue this would "ruin" Crossroads as a whole and stifle the slow albeit legitimate organic growth. That's just not true.

What I'm talking about is the fact it would have major economic benefits without destroying and severally hampering the ongoing organic growth of the larger Crossroads art district.

If that's talking out of both sides of mouth, so be it.

[smh]

15+ pages of arguing just this week. Nobody knows how to fight over hypotheticals like the Rag!

It really has been nice to see this place COME ALIVE, haha.

[DColeKC]

15+ pages of arguing just this week. Nobody knows how to fight over hypotheticals like the Rag!

It really has been nice to see this place COME ALIVE, haha.

We've just burned through more conversation in a week than I see on here in 6 months! A little controversy always gets a few fired up on here.

I've dropped all I've got at this point, including some drawings of what I've been able to put together with the limited information I have.

I'll be back when there's more pubic info, news or some kind of new topic to debate!

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Yeah, so now imagine all that plus the new baseball stadium and spin-off. You might get an actual area of the city that resembles what the top 5 cities in the country have. Not just two “good/okay” areas with EV & Crossroads.

Any 1-2 story building with a couple tenants in them within 2 blocks of the stadium will not be as valuable as tearing down the building and charging $30 per parking spot for 81 games. You guys can imagine how much spin-off development there's going to be all you want but that's the simple truth.

One of the nice things about East Village is that none of those government buildings are getting torn down and there's way more existing parking nearby that isn't devoted to entertainment uses. Paseo West is a concern but it's also 2 blocks or more from the stadium so less of a guarantee that somebody will have a full parking lot for every game.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I think you'll see activity at the East Village site sooner than later if it's taken off the board as a potential stadium site.

If I had a dollar for every time I "thought" something would happen in Kansas City and it didn't, I could retire. Basing any decision on "thinking" that land bankers will suddenly wise up and offload East Village to competent developers that are going to build quality mixed use buildings is pure pollyanna. If you think the East Crossroads site is better, that's fine, I get it, but you should be basing that decision on East Village remaining as it is, not on hopes and prayers.

[DColeKC]

I think you'll see activity at the East Village site sooner than later if it's taken off the board as a potential stadium site.

If I had a dollar for every time I "thought" something would happen in Kansas City and it didn't, I could retire. Basing any decision on "thinking" that land bankers will suddenly wise up and offload East Village to competent developers that are going to build quality mixed use buildings is pure pollyanna. If you think the East Crossroads site is better, that's fine, I get it, but you should be basing that decision on East Village remaining as it is, not on hopes and prayers.

I'm not basing my comments purely on what I think. I also know it's not on the Royals to care about what happens to East Village if they don't build there.

[DColeKC]

Yeah, so now imagine all that plus the new baseball stadium and spin-off. You might get an actual area of the city that resembles what the top 5 cities in the country have. Not just two “good/okay” areas with EV & Crossroads.

Any 1-2 story building with a couple tenants in them within 2 blocks of the stadium will not be as valuable as tearing down the building and charging $30 per parking spot for 81 games. You guys can imagine how much spin-off development there's going to be all you want but that's the simple truth.

One of the nice things about East Village is that none of those government buildings are getting torn down and there's way more existing parking nearby that isn't devoted to entertainment uses. Paseo West is a concern but it's also 2 blocks or more from the stadium so less of a guarantee that somebody will have a full parking lot for every game.

This can be proven wrong with simple math. A very large existing 2 story building in the Crossroads sits on about half an acre. You can fit 60 parking spaces on that amount of space. If that lots sells out every home game at $30 you're looking at $146,000 a year. It would cost twice that much to demolish, haul away the waste, level and pave the lot. You'd also have to secure the lot and pay someone to manage this on game days. A building this size with even two or three tenants would stand to make more in rent each year.

I'm sure there may be some buildings in bad shape that are empty where this would happen, but to pretend that it's more prosperous to demo an existing building for surface parking isn't true.

[TheUrbanRoo]

Also nobody is gonna charge $30 for a fucking Royals game to park lol

There are sooo many surface lots in the Crossroads right now. 95% of them are going nowhere. The only prayer at doing anything about it are the Royals & the south loop cap. If we get the Crossroads mostly filled out, then who cares what happens with EV at that point. It will more than make up for that.

[moderne]

It seems if the last 2 posts were correct than there would be no surface parking lots DT anywhere. All the current lots were once buildilngs.

[GRID]

Also nobody is gonna charge $30 for a fucking Royals game to park lol

There are sooo many surface lots in the Crossroads right now. 95% of them are going nowhere. The only prayer at doing anything about it are the Royals & the south loop cap. If we get the Crossroads mostly filled out, then who cares what happens with EV at that point. It will more than make up for that.

Except the Royals at the TSC. Last game I went to, it was $30. More than I ever pay to park at any urban stadium, let alone a city like KC with as much parking as there is there.

There will probably be one garage charging that much, but you won't have to pay more than 10-15 and a ton of people won't pay anything.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Except the Royals at the TSC. Last game I went to, it was $30. More than I ever pay to park at any urban stadium, let alone a city like KC with as much parking as there is there.

There will probably be one garage charging that much, but you won't have to pay more than 10-15 and a ton of people won't pay anything.

I used $30 because that's what the parking lots across from T-Mobile Center charge. There will always be people willing to pay to be in a lot right by a stadium. I only know what they charge because that's where my parents recently parked after they couldn't find any street parking west of Holmes in the Crossroads on a busy Thursday night in the EC.

[GRID]

I was just making a point of how absurd parking is at Kauffman Stadium.

[DColeKC]

I was just making a point of how absurd parking is at Kauffman Stadium.

It is but they have to charge that much for parking considering royals fans spend almost the least amount of money on concessions in stadium. That’s why tailgating baseball is bad for baseball teams.

[DColeKC]

Owner of the Star Building was on the news again tonight showing yet another drawing of the stadium between grand and oak.

They also interviewed Matt Abbott who owns 50 properties in the crossroads. He said he’d love to talk to the royals and discuss the plan.