Downtown Aquarium

[ComandanteCero]

yeah, that would be the fourth option (and probably best option if we're not going for a 5+ million gallon aquarium), simply upgrade our existing zoo with an aquarium exhibit.

edit: and i wonder if that would pass on a regional ballot (some kind of tax that promised to not only upgrade the zoo but also build an aquarium attraction there).  Of course... with Mission going for their aquarium that becomes a more contentious issue.

[GRID]

At one time the zoo was really pushing for an aquarium.  I think back when it was first brought up (Cleaver days?), the zoo was pretty loud about telling the city that if we got an aquarium, they wanted it or that they were going to build one.

Not sure why that idea seems to have died.

The aquarium in Vancouver is in a park setting and it works well.

The zoo needs a wow factor.  It's not a bad zoo, it gets a bad rap like most KC attractions do, but it's not a bad zoo at all.  An aquarium and the polar bear and penguin exhibits would really make it one of the top zoos in the country if you ask me.

BTW, I'm a FOTZ and we visit zoos all over, including the "famous" Omaha, San Diego, San Antonio zoos etc.

Now, if we do decide to build a MAJOR aquarium then by all means, throw it in the riverfront or something.

The aquarium in Atlanta is amazing.  Most other major aquariums are dated and kind of boring.  The small ones that are popping up all over the place are a total waste of money.

No way would a 19 dollar per person 1 million gallon aquarium last in KC (or mission).

But if that's all we are going to build, then I don't care where they put it.  We will go once and move on.

That's why it should go in at the zoo and at least create a synergy there, helping both the aquarium and zoo.

[LindseyLohan]

My vote goes to GRID. That would help generate some more year round traffic.

[IraGlacialis]

Just wondering, what are the official plans for this area:

[PumpkinStalker]

Just wondering, what are the official plans for this area:

I thought that was official parking for Oktoberfests and the like.  Don't take that away from us!

[rxlexi]

  First of all, I can't believe this idea has been kicked around for so many years, in KC of all places.  I wish we could get creative and start building some major, unique regional attractions rather than attempting to build the same "build it and they will come" stuff as every other city (though to some degree that kind of stuff needs to be done as well).

  If we're really gonna do this, than it's gotta go on the riverfront, in a sweet new building housing both the aqaurium and Steamboat Arabia museum, and I'd like to see it include a sizable regional wetlands/ecology portion and perhaps a sweet cantilevered walkway over the river, a la the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis.  The riverfront is just screaming for redevelopment, especially with the forthcoming rail connections, a blossoming city market area and a pretty new bridge.  A combined museum here could also be the starting point to get the planned housing, etc. built down there that has been discussed.  I see the merits of other locations, especially the zoo and Union Station, but for me the riverfront is where it's at.

  Additionally, I feel sorry for Mission in all of this, as the Gateway really started out as a great project that for the city that has become bogged down with the STAR bond issue and the need to build a
'regional' attraction.  Howver, if KC is really gonna do an aquarium, anywhere other than downtown or in long stretch the zoo is just another addition to our pool of sprawling attractions that do not achieve the potential inherent in their investment.  Even if Mission goes ahead with their aquarium, I have no problem giving the green light to a combined aquarium/SA/regional ecology museum on the riverfront.

[KCMax]

On KC WIR, Funk, not surprisingly, stated he was against public subsidies for an aquarium in Kansas city.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Good.  Let Mission go ahead and sink money into their's.

[thesnowman21]

I personally rather spend the money on something other than an aquarium, the only way I am going to one is if my son really wants to go. However if we are going to have one I would rather have it downtown to help build some density of attractions, personally going for union station and second for the 13th and grand.

[Tom in KC]

A couple people at work were pretty excited about the aquarium possibly getting built in Mission.  That in and of itself isn't noteworthy, but they're architects so they should know better that it would be much more useful downtown!

[LenexatoKCMO]

Admittedly, I know nothing about aquariums.  So, can someone explain to me why the Mission project is 1.5 mil gal. (307M) and the DT proposals are 1 mil gal. (40M)?  What am I missing.  

Its pretty simple - the Mission Aquarium has a relatively tiny budget and the DT version is much less (especially given that it isn't funded at all).  Regardless of where it gets built - it will be a half-ass, rinky-dink, tourist trap that would be just as suitable in a Wichita strip mall.  It needs to stay in Mission because having it DT would only further the reputation of KC having half-ass tourist attractions and never doing anything right.  If there was some group talking about creating a foundation and raising the major money it would take to build a proper muesum grade acquarium, than by all means it should be DT - this on the other hand, belongs in Branson. 

[KCTigerFan]

You know, I would love to see a top 10 aquarium in KC, but a 1.5M gallon aquarium can be a very nice facility.  Houston and Denver have both created enjoyable attractions with much less.  In Houston, the place cost $38,000,000 and attracts a huge number of tour groups, private parties and general public.  Is it a little nearsighted to assume that it is a piece of junk at this stage.   

Its pretty simple - the Mission Aquarium has a relatively tiny budget and the DT version is much less (especially given that it isn't funded at all).  Regardless of where it gets built - it will be a half-ass, rinky-dink, tourist trap that would be just as suitable in a Wichita strip mall.  It needs to stay in Mission because having it DT would only further the reputation of KC having half-ass tourist attractions and never doing anything right.  If there was some group talking about creating a foundation and raising the major money it would take to build a proper muesum grade acquarium, than by all means it should be DT - this on the other hand, belongs in Branson. 

[LenexatoKCMO]

You know, I would love to see a top 10 aquarium in KC, but a 1.5M gallon aquarium can be a very nice facility.  Houston and Denver have both created enjoyable attractions with much less.  In Houston, the place cost $38,000,000 and attracts a huge number of tour groups, private parties and general public.  Is it a little nearsighted to assume that it is a piece of junk at this stage.     

We don't need any more attractions in KC that can only be politely called a "very nice facility".  Either improve the attractions we have to provide real punch or build something right - no more half-ass, cow town budget attractions are needed in the core of our city.  Why should we assume that McAquarium, Inc. is going to build anything remotely unique or destination worthy with the tiny budget we give them? 

[voltopt]

They should know better...
silly architects...

[2taall]

Every City needs a nice aquarium.