KCRag Forum

I don't live there anymore, so it's not like what I think matters, but if you are not going to go all out, then it may as well stay where it is.

And "all out" is relative. All out in KC is probably economy compared to most other cities, so an economy stadium in KC would probably be way below average comparatively speaking.

I don't see how you do a stadium in East village for under 800 million. The new stadium in Arlington was well over a billion and the one in suburban Atlanta was like 700 million several years ago and that's a cheaper suburban location. Any stadium in KC would need 100 million in surrounding infrastructure improvements. The entire east side of downtown needs all new utilities, curbs, sidewalks etc and that's before you even touch improving interstate access to the stadium.

So if they are trying to do a stadium for under 3/4 of a billion all in, then, it's likely not going to be all that impressive.

Face it, a new stadium in Downtown KC and all the needed improvements is going to be expensive. I hope they don't sell the public on an ultra low price and KC ends up with a cheap stadium surrounded by crumbling streets and sidewalks and the same 1950's interstate ramps in the area.

Be honest to voters. A new stadium will easily approach if not exceed a billion dollars of total investment so yeah, you are going to have to find a way to wow people. Why leave Kauffman for a 500-600 million dollar "minor league" feeling stadium? I honestly think that's the numbers we will see at first.

What are the realistic numbers as to amount of land needed and size dementions for a mlb stadium? Let's assemble the data and I'll break my old sketch up program and spend many hours designing a Downtown stadium for Kansas City to last the next 3 decades!
I admit TSC was ,when built totally awesome ,but slowly becoming outdated.

Roughly four square blocks.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:31 pm A good chunk wants a "blow me away stadium" the other chunk wants an economical "pay for it yourself stadium". Need to determine a balance between the two before fancy renderings or proposals are of any value. Populous can design the best stadium ever imagined but its meaningless without a budget

If Populous designed the best ballpark in the world, and presented it to KC and Sherman really does have a parking plan worked out…I just don’t think people are stupid enough here to pass on something that glorious for KC no matter what their attachments are to Kauffman. Something that amazing couldn’t get less than 50% on a vote.

Yes they would. A growing chunk is anti public support for stadiums. Building a Cadillac stadium on the public dime is a main argument against public support.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:59 am Yes they would. A growing chunk is anti public support for stadiums. Building a Cadillac stadium on the public dime is a main argument against public support.

This chunk is likely much smaller than one willing to vote yes to keep the team.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:33 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:59 am Yes they would. A growing chunk is anti public support for stadiums. Building a Cadillac stadium on the public dime is a main argument against public support.

This chunk is likely much smaller than one willing to vote yes to keep the team.

Royals aren't at a risk of moving to a different metro so that's a nonissue.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:48 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:33 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:59 am Yes they would. A growing chunk is anti public support for stadiums. Building a Cadillac stadium on the public dime is a main argument against public support.

This chunk is likely much smaller than one willing to vote yes to keep the team.

Royals aren't at a risk of moving to a different metro so that's a nonissue.

No but they are "at risk of moving to Kansas". So it would be a "battle" like that that for public money.

Also it wouldn't be publicly financed 100%, it would be some sort of split.

The Braves stadium in 2017, which is *even bigger* than a new Kauffman would be- was $672 mil.

What we know: Public passed $425 mil in 2006 for renovations. Today's dollars that's about $580 mil.
So we *already* have passed before what would be the public contribution to a new stadium.

I don't even think the public will need to pay nearly that much for stadium. If public pays for half (which is generous) they're only paying at most $350 mil.

So my point is, they might not need as much of % tax as they asked for in 2006--which has been passed before. They've passed stadium taxes before here in this range successfully. Also take note that no matter, Royals would ask for about this same chunk of change again for "renovations" if they don't go downtown, so they're gonna pay either way.

Braves new stadium in 2017, which is 41,000 seats-- $672 mil.

Royals new stadium, which would be prob a smaller 35,000 seats-- I doubt would be any more than Braves's number.

In 2006 voters already allotted $425 mil in the vote. They'd probably only need to pay $500 mil at most for this one (if public paid about 75%), so this tax vote might ask for even less % than we did in 2006 (adjusted for inflation).


The only way it goes much higher than this sum is if they want more money for a district surrounding it (which the Braves got an additional $400 mil for)

Here's my prediction: Sherman will claim the sales tax that you'll have to pay for new renovations will be higher than the tax you'll have to pay for a new stadium. That's one way they'll sell it. "Welp, the cheaper tax is for the new stadium!" They'll claim renovations totals will be more expensive than a new ballpark.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm Braves new stadium in 2017, which is 41,000 seats-- $672 mil.

Royals new stadium, which would be prob a smaller 35,000 seats-- I doubt would be any more than Braves's number.

I'm guessing you're not in the construction industry. No offense, but $672M in 2017 terms is likely 1.2B in todays world. At minimum. By construction start of some pie-in-the-sky downtown stadium proposal you're looking at 1.4-1.6B for a comparable stadium. That's not something KC voters would likely support, which is why the reality is that if it's mostly publicly financed then it's going to have to be super small or have very economic finishes. Which, means you're getting rid of a nicer stadium simply to move downtown. Is that really worth it? Probably not.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm In 2006 voters already allotted $425 mil in the vote. They'd probably only need to pay $500 mil at most for this one (if public paid about 75%), so this tax vote might ask for even less % than we did in 2006 (adjusted for inflation)

You misunderstand. People voted to spend $425 million to SAVE Kauffman, because they LIKE Kauffman. Not because they wanted a new or renovated stadium. I'd be surprised if a single person in that crowd ever contributed a single dollar or vote to tear down Kauffman and build an un-iconic mini stadium in downtown.

im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:30 pm

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm Braves new stadium in 2017, which is 41,000 seats-- $672 mil.

Royals new stadium, which would be prob a smaller 35,000 seats-- I doubt would be any more than Braves's number.

I'm guessing you're not in the construction industry. No offense, but $672M in 2017 terms is likely 1.2B in todays world. At minimum. By construction start of some pie-in-the-sky downtown stadium proposal you're looking at 1.4-1.6B for a comparable stadium. That's not something KC voters would likely support, which is why the reality is that if it's mostly publicly financed then it's going to have to be super small or have very economic finishes. Which, means you're getting rid of a nicer stadium simply to move downtown. Is that really worth it? Probably not.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm In 2006 voters already allotted $425 mil in the vote. They'd probably only need to pay $500 mil at most for this one (if public paid about 75%), so this tax vote might ask for even less % than we did in 2006 (adjusted for inflation)

You misunderstand. People voted to spend $425 million to SAVE Kauffman, because they LIKE Kauffman. Not because they wanted a new or renovated stadium. I'd be surprised if a single person in that crowd ever contributed a single dollar or vote to tear down Kauffman and build an un-iconic mini stadium in downtown.

Globe Life Park in Texas is a massive stadium with a roof that just opened up last year for $1.1 bil. We're not gonna have a roof and we're not that many seats. It's not even comparable stadium to Atlanta's, it's gonna be 7k seats smaller, which means relatively speaking it's less expensive.

I'm sure Sherman knows approx how much it'll cost to build a new park. If it were some insane number that were unattainable, they wouldn't be making any sort of push at all for this project. He clearly started campaigning for it in the KC Star, so it's some number they think is attainable atleast. It was the same process in Atlanta, they started out from 30% support and worked their way up. All the same arguments against it, etc. Buffalo Bills are looking to get a new stadium right now too. They're about half the size of KC and that's a 70k seat stadium.

I can 100% guarantee you that with the worlds greatest architecture firms being located in KC, the stadium isn't going to be "un-iconic mini stadium". You may be right about construction costs, but that part of your argument just isn't right.

There's not gonna be a "keep Kauffman" option. There's only 2 paths this is going down:
A.) A battle between downtown stadium or "move to Kansas" stadium
B.) A downtown stadium or a "we must renovate Kauffman again" tax, that I'm guessing they're going to claim is a tax that will be higher than the public's tax for just paying for a new stadium. That's exactly what the Braves claimed for theirs too.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:17 pm

im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:30 pm

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm Braves new stadium in 2017, which is 41,000 seats-- $672 mil.

Royals new stadium, which would be prob a smaller 35,000 seats-- I doubt would be any more than Braves's number.

I'm guessing you're not in the construction industry. No offense, but $672M in 2017 terms is likely 1.2B in todays world. At minimum. By construction start of some pie-in-the-sky downtown stadium proposal you're looking at 1.4-1.6B for a comparable stadium. That's not something KC voters would likely support, which is why the reality is that if it's mostly publicly financed then it's going to have to be super small or have very economic finishes. Which, means you're getting rid of a nicer stadium simply to move downtown. Is that really worth it? Probably not.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm In 2006 voters already allotted $425 mil in the vote. They'd probably only need to pay $500 mil at most for this one (if public paid about 75%), so this tax vote might ask for even less % than we did in 2006 (adjusted for inflation)

You misunderstand. People voted to spend $425 million to SAVE Kauffman, because they LIKE Kauffman. Not because they wanted a new or renovated stadium. I'd be surprised if a single person in that crowd ever contributed a single dollar or vote to tear down Kauffman and build an un-iconic mini stadium in downtown.

Globe Life Park in Texas is a massive stadium with a roof that just opened up last year for $1.1 bil. We're not gonna have a roof and we're not that many seats. It's not even comparable stadium to Atlanta's, it's gonna be 7k seats smaller, which means relatively speaking it's less expensive.

I'm sure Sherman knows approx how much it'll cost to build a new park. If it were some insane number that were unattainable, they wouldn't be making any sort of push at all for this project. He clearly started campaigning for it in the KC Star, so it's some number they think is attainable atleast. It was the same process in Atlanta, they started out from 30% support and worked their way up. All the same arguments against it, etc. Buffalo Bills are looking to get a new stadium right now too. They're about half the size of KC and that's a 70k seat stadium.

I can 100% guarantee you that with the worlds greatest architecture firms being located in KC, the stadium isn't going to be "un-iconic mini stadium". You may be right about construction costs, but that part of your argument just isn't right.

There's not gonna be a "keep Kauffman" option. There's only 2 paths this is going down:
A.) A battle between downtown stadium or "move to Kansas" stadium
B.) A downtown stadium or a "we must renovate Kauffman again" tax, that I'm guessing they're going to claim is a tax that will be higher than the public's tax for just paying for a new stadium. That's exactly what the Braves claimed for theirs too.

Design talent means nothing. It hinges entirely on budget.

*shrugs* I'm sure they have some plan in mind atleast.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:00 pm Sam Mellinger said on the KC Star podcast today he thinks that the Women’s soccer team will try to build a new soccer stadium downtown for the team.

Just remember who tried to get the word out on this first over a month ago!

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm
In 2006 voters already allotted $425 mil in the vote. They'd probably only need to pay $500 mil at most for this one (if public paid about 75%), so this tax vote might ask for even less % than we did in 2006 (adjusted for inflation).

You seem to forget the voters in 2006 were voters living in Jackson County, not just the city south of the river. If there is an election of just Kansas City voters the downtown stadium might have a chance of passage. However if you are asking for a vote of Jackson County voters for a downtown stadium the passage becomes less likely and more like a longshot.
And that 2006 vote the voters approved a 0.375% sales tax for $425M but that money was for both stadiums not just the baseball stadium.

In other words it is hard to compare what happened in 2006 to what may happen at some point in time in the future.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:08 am

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm
In 2006 voters already allotted $425 mil in the vote. They'd probably only need to pay $500 mil at most for this one (if public paid about 75%), so this tax vote might ask for even less % than we did in 2006 (adjusted for inflation).

You seem to forget the voters in 2006 were voters living in Jackson County, not just the city south of the river. If there is an election of just Kansas City voters the downtown stadium might have a chance of passage. However if you are asking for a vote of Jackson County voters for a downtown stadium the passage becomes less likely and more like a longshot.
And that 2006 vote the voters approved a 0.375% sales tax for $425M but that money was for both stadiums not just the baseball stadium.

In other words it is hard to compare what happened in 2006 to what may happen at some point in time in the future.

Yep. It’s actually more likely now. We’ve gone in a much better direction since 2006. The progress has been great. I don’t know exactly how, but they’ll find a way.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:33 pm Yep. It’s actually more likely now. We’ve gone in a much better direction since 2006. The progress has been great. I don’t know exactly how, but they’ll find a way.

"we" being who exactly?

Because big public incentives, tax breaks and the like are less popular than in 2006.

/shrug

If they want to play the Kansas game, let Kansans pay for it and buh-bye. But I'll probably never go to a game or buy merch again.

It's not even about Kansas spite, really, so much as just being completely over the "play states against each other for maximum profit" crap. It has gone on too long. We can't give people medical care or educations, but we sure can build stadiums! It's obscene and insulting.

Biz Journal says Populous is working on this.