KCRag Forum

kcdcchef wrote: then a lot of other stadiums in pro sports that are adding all kinds of shit to their stadiums should not have gotten them either. that train in houston?? the hotel in torontos stadium? the built up warehouses in baltimore that were designed to look like old warehouses???

lock&load wrote: Why can't anything be about Kansas City and what is best for us?  You always bring up crap about other cities that is not relevant.  A train in Houston is not comparable to an amphitheater in the outfield here. 

Try making valid comparisons if you must.  A train is more comparable to fountains in the outfield.

kcdcchef wrote: then a lot of other stadiums in pro sports that are adding all kinds of shit to their stadiums should not have gotten them either. that train in houston?? the hotel in torontos stadium? the built up warehouses in baltimore that were designed to look like old warehouses???

KCMax wrote: No, Chef is right, other teams are doing it, and the Royals do need to do it too to keep up.

bahua wrote: How does the fact that it may or may not have happened in other cities take away from the fact that it's complete fraud? It's not renovation. It is not the rehabilitation of existing structures. It's the construction of new structures, and further, no assurance whatsoever, is given that the buildings we already have will be renovated.

It's fraud. It's theft. It's criminal.

lock&load wrote: If we were trying to keep up with other cities, we'd be building a downtown ballpark.  That is what almost everyone else is doing.

kcdcchef wrote:
okay then how about those office buildings that are warehouses in baltimore?

okay then how about that hotel in toronto?

Kard wrote: Do the Orieols get to keep the revenue from the office space, or do the Blue Jays get to keep the revenue from the hotels?  Who knows if they're even profitable, and it's splitting hairs, but it's kinda silly that the Royals are now in the business of promoting concerts, etc.

kcdcchef wrote: there are MILLIONS of examples in architecture in sports and the business community where something called renovation involved expansion too. good god.

kcdcchef wrote: semantics then, it is renovation AND expansion. they are taking an area of the stadium, centerfield scoreboard area, where, there is nothing but cement, and making it into something.

kcdcchef wrote: glad you said almost. there are still some that have renovated that are burb stadiums.

lock&load wrote: Amazingly you felt the need to respond to my point, with nothing to add to it. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: You seem shocked.   #-o

KCMax wrote:

GRID wrote: I read somewhere that the Royals originally wanted a 16k seat amphitheater.  Barnes objected due to competition with Startlight so we have this 9500 seat theater for game days only.

A large full purpose amphitheater could be a nice revenue producer for the Royals, they could also share many of the same overhead cost such as event staff, bulk consession purchases etc.

But they are not building a major amphitheater and they are not using it for other uses.

I assume the Royals know what they are doing?  That thing sounds like a total joke.

A new 16,000 seat amphitheater would compete with hillbilly theater in Bonner, but you could limit it's competition with Startlight by not booking smaller shows.  Starlight does not do a lot of concerts anyway.

I would love to have a nice, modern large scale amphitheater in Downtown area, but I would also rather have one at the TSC vs a 9500 seat arena facing Kauffman that will be for before and after games only.

I'm just trying to understand what exactly they are doing here.