If I were going to move today, a sports franchise would be the last thing I would think about. I would look at the architecture, how walkable and bikeable the neighborhood is, transit, parks, pools, crime, education, weather, etc. in other words, I would look how the city takes care of its residents.
For me personally, I looked for cities who had major sports and got major concerts and were within a days drive of my hometown. Every city has pools and parks, every city has good and bad neighborhoods. Only the biggest of cities have rail transit which is something I'd also like, but then you are getting into bigger cities with higher COL which was also a factor. So immediately after I graduated college, when I was looking at which cities I was willing to move to, I ended up only considered cities with MLB/NFL team. The only cities I've ever applied for jobs in ended up being Denver, KC, Chicago, and STL (which still had the Rams at the time). I honestly preferred STL over KC at the time as they had a light rail network and an NHL team but ended up landing in KC and don't regret that now.
If the 2006 vote had failed and the Royals/Chiefs had both moved immediately after, I'd would not have considered KC a big city worthy of looking into and would probably be in Denver or STL right now.
Austin's a weird town. UT might as well be the NFL there
Austin's not a slow growth midwestern city. It's a sunbelt city with the fastest growth rate of any city in the US and in a very business friendly state. There is not a 1:1 relationship between pro sport cities and growth or economic development. It's a very complicated relationship. Which makes studies such as this (https://globalsportmatters.com/business ... s-stadium/) completely worthless (and biased products of the political think tanks they sprout from). In fact, I'd guess that a pro franchise has a lot more value to a city like Kansas City than it does to Austin, Denver, Phoenix or Houston or any other city where the growth can be attributed to the demographic drivers of the past 30-40 years (sunbelt weather, recreational attributes, business friendly environments). KC needs to have such attributes to compete because it's not in the sunbelt nor does it have the recreational attractions that a Denver or SLC has.
But it's only a matter of time before Austin's fast growing population starts to attract the attention of the NFL or MLB. In fact, they are probably not an expansion target because MLB and the NFL already exist in the region in Houston and Dallas areas but a business group in Austin with deeper pockets than any Kansas owner group would ever have could start looking to poach a team from a midwestern city with stagnant growth. People think these things won't happen but they will as emerging markets become much more lucrative than existing markets.
What's the guarantee that the Royals won't pack up and move after we build the stadium? Isn't that pretty hard to enforce?
This is the only thing I would be concerned about given demographic trends in the US that do not appear to be abating. Having a stadium sized hole downtown if the Royals do leave at some point in the next 50 years. Sherman is not a youngster. The remainder of the issues are surmountable or not really issues at all. I definitely have a different POV than you do about the direction KC is going and should go and I'm probably more pessimistic based on the longer time I've had to observe KC's urban core take 2 steps forward and then 1.9 steps back over the last 40-50 years.
That's not how any of this works. I'm so sick of explaining this.
Under Missouri law you can build the fucking white house where they want to build it and keep it in perfect condition, and then have it declared blighted based off the surrounding areas.
Recent mo courts have looked at that, and we'll see how that goes. But it wasn't seen as a reason against ev, certainly less than ec.
Stop making bs to people that know what they're talking about. It's just annoying.
Austin's not a slow growth midwestern city. It's a sunbelt city with the fastest growth rate of any city in the US and in a very business friendly state. There is not a 1:1 relationship between pro sport cities and growth or economic development. It's a very complicated relationship. Which makes studies such as this (https://globalsportmatters.com/business ... s-stadium/) completely worthless (and biased products of the political think tanks they sprout from). In fact, I'd guess that a pro franchise has a lot more value to a city like Kansas City than it does to Austin, Denver, Phoenix or Houston or any other city where the growth can be attributed to the demographic drivers of the past 30-40 years (sunbelt weather, recreational attributes, business friendly environments). KC needs to have such attributes to compete because it's not in the sunbelt nor does it have the recreational attractions that a Denver or SLC has.
But it's only a matter of time before Austin's fast growing population starts to attract the attention of the NFL or MLB. In fact, they are probably not an expansion target because MLB and the NFL already exist in the region in Houston and Dallas areas but a business group in Austin with deeper pockets than any Kansas owner group would ever have could start looking to poach a team from a midwestern city with stagnant growth. People think these things won't happen but they will as emerging markets become much more lucrative than existing markets.
What's the guarantee that the Royals won't pack up and move after we build the stadium? Isn't that pretty hard to enforce?
This is the only thing I would be concerned about given demographic trends in the US that do not appear to be abating. Having a stadium sized hole downtown if the Royals do leave at some point in the next 50 years. Sherman is not a youngster. The remainder of the issues are surmountable or not really issues at all. I definitely have a different POV than you do about the direction KC is going and should go and I'm probably more pessimistic based on the longer time I've had to observe KC's urban core take 2 steps forward and then 1.9 steps back over the last 40-50 years.
As someone (sorry I forgot) said earlier, puts us back here. I support taking down the star building.
I was talking to someone else I won't mention because I'm not the most beloved member right now, but like if you said ground level hof, restaurant, store, event space looking over the field, funded 5star hotel, hq for new offices,
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:04 am
That's not how any of this works. I'm so sick of explaining this.
Under Missouri law you can build the fucking white house where they want to build it and keep it in perfect condition, and then have it declared blighted based off the surrounding areas.
Recent mo courts have looked at that, and we'll see how that goes. But it wasn't seen as a reason against ev, certainly less than ec.
Stop making bs to people that know what they're talking about. It's just annoying.
I don't know if this is in response to me but I have no idea what you're trying to point out. Who's arguing against the extremely lenient eminent domain laws in Missouri?
I'm not even talking about land acquisition being in the top three reasons EV was and is out.
Your track record of accusing me of talking BS is atrocious btw. You've been proven wrong once and time will prove that again.
Saw one person complain about the crossroads site, clicked on their name and 4 posts previously they were complaining about cities being designed for cars.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:17 pm
I'm not even talking about land acquisition being in the top three reasons EV was and is out.
I might have missed it but why was East Village eliminated as a site? Afterall it was one of the two choices remaining when the team eliminated a few others.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:17 pm
I'm not even talking about land acquisition being in the top three reasons EV was and is out.
I might have missed it but why was East Village eliminated as a site? Afterall it was one of the two choices remaining when the team eliminated a few others.
Not the only issue, but security concerns raised by GSA and FPS at the Federal building, as well as the FTA & FAA buildings meant that the site was ruled out. It’s annoying for sure, but it doesn’t outlaw development in EV forever, just not things that generate large crowds regularly.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:17 pm
I'm not even talking about land acquisition being in the top three reasons EV was and is out.
I might have missed it but why was East Village eliminated as a site? Afterall it was one of the two choices remaining when the team eliminated a few others.
Not the only issue, but security concerns raised by GSA and FPS at the Federal building, as well as the FTA & FAA buildings meant that the site was ruled out. It’s annoying for sure, but it doesn’t outlaw development in EV forever, just not things that generate large crowds regularly.
If this is accurate (I have no reason to believe it's not) it needs to be made public. There is no reason for it not to be and helps everyone understand the constraints with the EV site that made it a non-starter. However ridiculous the fed's reasoning is. I have a contact over there that I'd be pretty confident could confirm this.
All I know is the whole "save the crossroads" shit worked and everybody in the city and the suburbs that I know are now pretty convinced to vote no. It's likely going to be the one thing that causes the vote to fail when it might have had a slight chance before. Everybody has jumped on that bandwagon. Very few people on the "save the crossroads" bandwagon ever go there ore know much about it and the few that do go probably go once or twice a year and think the stadium will wipe out everything they remember about it.
I just wonder if the people that really are for a downtown stadium are okay with with the stadium vote failing and downtown losing out on getting the stadium over this. I think it's a real possibility that downtown might be stuck with both the star building and the vibrant dense area that surrounds it AND the empty EV.
I honestly do not see how this passes unless the Chiefs basically threaten to leave Arrowhead if it fails. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but even people I know that were on the fence before have switched to saving the crossroads. And these are people that were open to the idea at the star location before all the social media rhetoric.
It’s sad to see the lies sway people so easily. I don’t mind people defending the businesses even though I strongly disagree with the idea they’re too important to go away in order for this stadium. It’s the other stuff I’m seeing that’s influencing minds while being inaccurate or downright wrong that’s upsetting.
The royals need to open the floodgates yesterday and I know they’re being sensitive to recent events but it’s go time.
I might have missed it but why was East Village eliminated as a site? Afterall it was one of the two choices remaining when the team eliminated a few others.
Not the only issue, but security concerns raised by GSA and FPS at the Federal building, as well as the FTA & FAA buildings meant that the site was ruled out. It’s annoying for sure, but it doesn’t outlaw development in EV forever, just not things that generate large crowds regularly.
If this is accurate (I have no reason to believe it's not) it needs to be made public. There is no reason for it not to be and helps everyone understand the constraints with the EV site that made it a non-starter. However ridiculous the fed's reasoning is. I have a contact over there that I'd be pretty confident could confirm this.
Absolutely. I’ve heard it from separate sources that have said the same thing, and I now am employed by the Company that has the security contract for all buildings under FPS protection/supervision, and even being lower on the totem pole you can hear the rumblings trickle down.
Not that it will make moving businesses out any better but it puts a lot more logic behind the sudden shift and gives people some justification to what is happening (and can help the voters understand)
I might have missed it but why was East Village eliminated as a site? Afterall it was one of the two choices remaining when the team eliminated a few others.
Not the only issue, but security concerns raised by GSA and FPS at the Federal building, as well as the FTA & FAA buildings meant that the site was ruled out. It’s annoying for sure, but it doesn’t outlaw development in EV forever, just not things that generate large crowds regularly.
If this is accurate (I have no reason to believe it's not) it needs to be made public. There is no reason for it not to be and helps everyone understand the constraints with the EV site that made it a non-starter. However ridiculous the fed's reasoning is. I have a contact over there that I'd be pretty confident could confirm this.
Kind of curious that this never came up in the 20-odd years that EV has been the future home of the Royals.
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:53 pm
Not the only issue, but security concerns raised by GSA and FPS at the Federal building, as well as the FTA & FAA buildings meant that the site was ruled out. It’s annoying for sure, but it doesn’t outlaw development in EV forever, just not things that generate large crowds regularly.
If this is accurate (I have no reason to believe it's not) it needs to be made public. There is no reason for it not to be and helps everyone understand the constraints with the EV site that made it a non-starter. However ridiculous the fed's reasoning is. I have a contact over there that I'd be pretty confident could confirm this.
Kind of curious that this never came up in the 20-odd years that EV has been the future home of the Royals.
Yeah I thought the same thing. Nobody asked? Feds can always change their mind too and once they play the"security" of buildings card it's going to kill it.
“Process wasn’t moving along” or whatever variation Sherman said. Idea are just ideas until they start getting executed and that’s when it gets hard and road blocks come flying at you.
