Downtown Baseball Stadium

[scooterj]

I was looking out the conference room window a few minutes ago and I spotted something and thought to myself, "Why not build the downtown baseball stadium there?"

Take a look at this picture, particularly the lower middle section. That's a HUGE surface lot with a smattering of low-rise warehouse-looking buildings. Seems like you could fit a bigger stadium in there for quite a bit less money. Anyone know who parks there and what companies are located there?

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image. ... 9&z=15&w=2

This is on the north side of the railroad tracks, just east of Oak, just northeast of Crown Center.


It's also too bad the PAC is going where it is and Bartle has to expand, because you could build just about ANYTHING here:

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image. ... 1&z=15&w=1

[aknowledgeableperson]

Your first choice puts you at quite a distance from Crown Center and its parking. So where will the cars park unless you are also building lots or garages?
Your 2nd choice is a good one but the topography of the land would make it difficult. Much rock there and that will drive up your costs.

[KCPowercat]

I don't see distance being a problem on the first site. The size is a little small (less than Columbus park it looks like)....I belive Children's Mercy uses that lot mostly.

On the 2nd location (PAC), I'd much rather have the PAC than the baseball park...and I'm a huge baseball fan. topography & makeup of the ground can't be that huge of an issue....we're building a $300M PAC there.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I don't see distance being a problem on the first site. The size is a little small (less than Columbus park it looks like)....I belive Children's Mercy uses that lot mostly.

On the 2nd location (PAC), I'd much rather have the PAC than the baseball park...and I'm a huge baseball fan. topography & makeup of the ground can't be that huge of an issue....we're building a $300M PAC there.

Do you mean "Columbus Park"? Isn't that park by the River Market? Isn't Washington Park by Union Station and Crown Center?
In looking at the previous overlays it appears that the area by Union Station is not wide enough for a stadium unless modifications are made to Main Street and/or Grand.
And the PAC takes up less room than a stadium if the pictures I have seen are accurate. PAC is close to the top of the hill whereas a stadium will take more land. Just drive Broadway and I believe it is 17th street and you will see what I mean.

[KCPowercat]

I don't see distance being a problem on the first site. The size is a little small (less than Columbus park it looks like)....I belive Children's Mercy uses that lot mostly.

On the 2nd location (PAC), I'd much rather have the PAC than the baseball park...and I'm a huge baseball fan. topography & makeup of the ground can't be that huge of an issue....we're building a $300M PAC there.

Do you mean "Columbus Park"? Isn't that park by the River Market? Isn't Washington Park by Union Station and Crown Center?
In looking at the previous overlays it appears that the area by Union Station is not wide enough for a stadium unless modifications are made to Main Street and/or Grand.
And the PAC takes up less room than a stadium if the pictures I have seen are accurate. PAC is close to the top of the hill whereas a stadium will take more land. Just drive Broadway and I believe it is 17th street and you will see what I mean.

Dang I always do that...yes Washington Park....too late to think I guess.

The overlays given were for Kauffman stadium...a new stadium could easily fit the surroundings...it would not be just a drop in of Kauffman (ie. the exact same diminsions are not needed)....architecture firms have stated it can be done, I'll trust them....cause I have no idea.

What I've seen of the PAC is it will take up that entire area (minus the area for the new ballet). The pac will sit high on the hill but the slope to the south will all be dug out because a parking garage is planned in there and then covered by the tiered greenspace. I don't doubt that the subsurface there can raise costs but not to the level of not being able to build....all of downtown is on that same type of surface as well.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Wasn't one of the initial plans for a downtown stadium by Crown Center and closer to downtown for just a 25,000 seat stadium. And those plans had it fitting at Crown Center. However, if you go up to 35,000 seats your size will not be all that different than Royals Stadium. I guess you could put all of the seats between the bases but talk about nose bleed.

[KCPowercat]

yeah one design was for a smaller number but not the only "design" drawn up. You can fit a field like Fenway in that spot w/o touching any of the streets or buildings....granted it's 30k seats.

There are other designs out there for Washington Park (I think that's the right park this time)...the one done by E-B was for a 33-40k seat stadium...

this aerial does have the Blue Cross building gone from what I can see.... This is from E-B. The BCBS building would be one thing that would obviously need to be addressed but this shows it can easily fit

[KCDevin]

if we go only 30k, then we will have no more 40k+ opening games,

[aknowledgeableperson]

The E-B looks like it MIGHT work but it looks like this will have an adverse seating problem. One thing a new stadium or arena should do is to try to maximize the prime or most expensive seating. With this example it looks like the Royals would be losing the number of seats in the lower level as well as the number of seats between the bases, lower and upper level. It looks like almost 40% of the seats are past the third base. And counting seats past first base over 70% percent of the seats are in the outfield.

Although Kemper Arena has many faults one of the major ones is its seating configuration. The lower seating bowel (prime seating) is smaller than the upper level seating. This causes some headaches when promoters scale the house. And the Royals would have a similiar problem with seating setup.

Just food for thought.

[KCPowercat]

yeah something to think about....it is just a drawing of an example of what could be done.

[trailerkid]

Letter writers from The Star are taking note...
----------------------------------------------------------
New stadium?

Building a new baseball stadium is the stupidest thing Kansas City has ever come up with. We have a beautiful stadium already. How can they even think anyone would ever want their tax dollars spent on another one?

Marilyn Moore

Independence

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 478085.htm|
-------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
Renovating an aging stadium in the wrong location is the stupidest thing Kansas City has ever come up with. We have a beautiful stadium, but how can they even think anyone would want their tax dollars spent on renovating a stadium that generates virtually no economic stimulus around it.

Trailerkid

Lawrence

[LyRiCaL GanGsTa]

There's no way that buildng is coming out of there. It's not that old and it wouldn't be prudent to pay to tear it down, that's not KC's style. Too many 'other' forces to deal with in bringing it down and the aditional cost is prohibitive. There are too many places downtown that can accomodate a baseball stadium. I mirrored the E-B design for home plate to face northwest, putting the majority of the seats on the east side of the park instead of the west. I then put the Blue Cross building back in the design where it is now. and moved the stadium south. The extreme south edge of the stadium seating in this depiction would have to be elevated over the tracks... which would really be cool... but at additional cost.

The other image is an actual pic of the site and I superimposed the E-B design over the sat photo, moving the E-B design around the Blue Cross building and south. The tracks don't look that close to the southern tip of the stadium, is it possible that new tracks were added since the photo was taken?

[aknowledgeableperson]

Letter writers from The Star are taking note...
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
Renovating an aging stadium in the wrong location is the stupidest thing Kansas City has ever come up with. We have a beautiful stadium, but how can they even think anyone would want their tax dollars spent on renovating a stadium that generates virtually no economic stimulus around it.

Trailerkid

Lawrence

BUILDING a new stadium at twice the cost of renovating the old one is the stupidest thing Kansas City has ever come up with. If Royals Stadium was in an awful state it would make much sense. But Royals Stadium is still in very good shape so it doesn't make much sense to tear it down.
And to build a new stadium for purely economic stimulus reasons doesn't make much sense either.
Think of it this way. There are 365 days in a year. There would be 81 game days, or 22% of the days in a year. Of those 81 days probably 20 would not be prime dates for various reasons (weather, time of day of game, day of game, etc.). So to spend an extra $170,000,000 for purely economic reasons for just 60 days a year is a waste of money. Wouldn't it make sense to spend those funds on other things that would benefit the surrounding area more than 60 days?

[trailerkid]

But Royals Stadium is still in very good shape so it doesn't make much sense to tear it down.

So now we are spending $200 million on things that are in "very good shape"?

We need a visit from the logic gods to figure that one out.

[aknowledgeableperson]

But Royals Stadium is still in very good shape so it doesn't make much sense to tear it down.

So now we are spending $200 million on things that are in "very good shape"?

We need a visit from the logic gods to figure that one out.

The stadium is in very good shape. The funds are to improve it. Wider concourses, more concession stands, more restrooms, etc. I would imagine that some of the funds are also to extend the life of the stadium. Anyway, $170,000,000 is alot less than $350,000,000.

Or maybe you have all of the extra funds in your pocket and wish to contribute to the cause. Nobody still has not identified where the additional funds are coming from if all of the other sources of tax increases are going to the arena. And if Bistate II is not part of the funding where the total amount is coming from.

[KCPowercat]

akp....I don't know you so don't take this personally but you seem to be a person that is happy with the status quo and doesn't feel the need to push the city to be great. No city gets great by keeping things in "pretty good shape"

Would you spend $10k to fix your 10 year old car or $20k to buy a new one?

The funds can be found.....I wouldn't mind a good portion being thrown in by the owners if a new stadium is the route we go. They are benefiting most.

and no, this isn't just an economic move or the "magic bullet" for downtown.

[trailerkid]

Nobody still has identified where the additional funds are coming from if all of the other sources of tax increases are going to the arena. And if Bistate II is not part of the funding where the total amount is coming from.

Uhh...did you know that the Bistate money for the renovations is NOT SECUREED YET EITHER!!!???!!

Don't count your chickens until they hatch. The "safe" plan of renovating 30-year-old stadiums next to a freeway is nowhere close to being "financed" either. Pass Bistate II in South Jo Co and then come talk to us about how "off the wall" our plan is.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I know Bistate II is not definite at this time. Much has to be done before it is finalized. But at least there is a plan to improve the stadium and a means to finance it. The talk about a downtown stadium has neither. All the people, and there are not that many, that are supporting a downtown stadium are just talking about it. Why not talk about how it would be paid for? And how those funds impact other projects and their funding sources. I have said before that if the powers to be decided to build a downtown stadium I would support it but at this time all that has happened is vague talk, and that talk could end up hurting the support for Bistate II.
One thing to consider is the possibility of biting off more than we can chew. With KC Live, a downtown sports arena, performing arts center, Bartle Hall expansion, Nelson Art Galary expansion, public improvements, and other items we could be at the max at what we can handle financially at this time, especially for the citizens of KCMO.

[trailerkid]

All the people, and there are not that many, that are supporting a downtown stadium are just talking about it.

At least there are people talking about a downtown stadium. How many people are voicing support for Bistate II?

I am so sorry that we don't have information for you how to finance a $350 million stadium. We don't have the magical Bistate tax to hide behind. Bistate is a $1 billion+ tax which is 3X the amount needed for a new stadium. Don't tell me there aren't ways to finance this when Bistate was proposed to cost 3$ billion.

[aknowledgeableperson]

akp....I don't know you so don't take this personally but you seem to be a person that is happy with the status quo and doesn't feel the need to push the city to be great. No city gets great by keeping things in "pretty good shape"

Would you spend $10k to fix your 10 year old car or $20k to buy a new one?

The funds can be found.....I wouldn't mind a good portion being thrown in by the owners if a new stadium is the route we go. They are benefiting most.

and no, this isn't just an economic move or the "magic bullet" for downtown.

Don't worry, it was not taken personally. All this is is discussions. And I am not happy with the status quo. However, I do look at the total picture and there is more to life than a sports arena or a stadium. There are roads, sidewalks, curbs, parks, bridges, etc. in Kansas City that need funds also.
And about spending money on a 10 year old car. Well, if that car was a Chevy no I wouldn't. But if it was a Rolls Royce you bet I would instead of buying a $20,000 Chevy.
Royals Stadium has aged well. It is a Rolls and not a Chevy. Also, don't go by age of the facility or you would have Chicago tearing down Wrigley Field, Boston tearing down Fenway, and New York getting rid of the house that Ruth built.