WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:35 am
I stand by everything I said.
Which is nothing that’s not public and the rest is just your opinion but said as if you have some kind of sinister inside information.
Maybe add a few “in my opinion” or “I believe” to your statements because you like to say things thinly veiled on this idea you have special access to information with your “my sources”.
Like I said, due to multiple sunshine requests this will all come out in time. I don’t know how many times I’ve shared information on this forum and it’s been proven to be correct yet I still have to deal with personal speculation.
This is one of your worst opinions you’ve consistently held. Views matter. You think Petco would be the gem it is with a view of nothing but interstate? I’m not saying it’s at the top of the list but when investing over a billion dollars it better be top of mind.
Yes. Petco would be the same. Wrigley is awesome. Yankees stadium. Fenway. Coors. Cleveland. These are fun urban stadiums and the "view" from home plate has 0 to do with it. It naturally fills in sure but you don't pick a location due to the backdrop. If you did the Royals wouldn't have picked ugly AT&T building location. It's just idiotic to even consider that as a factor to the location of a baseball stadium. I'm sure people in meetings talked about it you'll tell us and sure they may have. They didn't move to crossroads due to the view.
I didn’t say they picked EC simply because of its view and once again you think the worlds best sports architecture firm are idiots. The AT&T building would have been mostly blocked by new development. Building number 1 actually.
8 out of the top 10 mlb parks have great views. But sure, views are idiotic when spending money on something people come to view a game and enjoy an experience.
No baseball stadium location has been passed over or moved because of the outfield view. That's my point. It's a cool after thought and like you said things end up in the outfield for their own clout. it's not the other way around. Many on this thread have put that above all else which is ludicrous.
It doesn't make sense to enough people, though. So best to just move on unless you've really got the time and energy to engage and commit to doing things differently. On top of the botched roll out, the rug being pulled out at the last minute didn't help -- not to mention skeezy things like offering us opening day tickets during negotiations or asking when First Fridays occur. We even had you-know-who ask us for our membership list. True stories!
A lot of captured energy in Star press pavilion, which is actually quite beautiful despite being a disaster at the ground level. Would be a phenomenal waste of resources to demolish.
My concern was never with the star either, but there was no engagement.
My concern was what happens to to the surrounding area. I wanted to make sure it wouldn't remain parking for the foreseeable future. I had questions about the street closures and the Truman stuff.
I said before that why I liked the ev was because I could see a quality hill style development built around a stadium. They promised investment, which I always thought was fake, but the idea of it was nice.
When Q and cordish got involved and said we can just build to the crossroads and you don't have to invest in the neighborhood, just in buying a few people, and protecting the district, they lost me.
That’s not what happened. Once again.
They still were going to invest the same amount. They were still going to build entertainment, residential properties and more. The only thing that changed was the location and some of the programming of the village. It was never about doing less, it was about doing more and integrating better with existing neighborhoods. We don’t need to create a new one when we can improve existing ones.
I get it, you don’t like Cordish and want to somehow place blame on them for this but stop lying about something you have zero credibility on.
They literally in the last 48 hours changed their tune on Oak and "well figure out east of oak after the vote". There was no confidence put in the mind of the voter at that point. There was no plans, if there were they would have been able to share better details and no change literally everything on a whim. So how in the world is anybody supposed to believe "we're investing a billion"?
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:35 am
I stand by everything I said.
Which is nothing that’s not public and the rest is just your opinion but said as if you have some kind of sinister inside information.
Maybe add a few “in my opinion” or “I believe” to your statements because you like to say things thinly veiled on this idea you have special access to information with your “my sources”.
Like I said, due to multiple sunshine requests this will all come out in time. I don’t know how many times I’ve shared information on this forum and it’s been proven to be correct yet I still have to deal with personal speculation.
My name is Andrew woodward.
.
Happy to stand by what I say.
My concern was never with the star either, but there was no engagement.
My concern was what happens to to the surrounding area. I wanted to make sure it wouldn't remain parking for the foreseeable future. I had questions about the street closures and the Truman stuff.
I said before that why I liked the ev was because I could see a quality hill style development built around a stadium. They promised investment, which I always thought was fake, but the idea of it was nice.
When Q and cordish got involved and said we can just build to the crossroads and you don't have to invest in the neighborhood, just in buying a few people, and protecting the district, they lost me.
That’s not what happened. Once again.
They still were going to invest the same amount. They were still going to build entertainment, residential properties and more. The only thing that changed was the location and some of the programming of the village. It was never about doing less, it was about doing more and integrating better with existing neighborhoods. We don’t need to create a new one when we can improve existing ones.
I get it, you don’t like Cordish and want to somehow place blame on them for this but stop lying about something you have zero credibility on.
They literally in the last 48 hours changed their tune on Oak and "well figure out east of oak after the vote". There was no confidence put in the mind of the voter at that point. There was no plans, if there were they would have been able to share better details and no change literally everything on a whim. So how in the world is anybody supposed to believe "we're investing a billion"?
It was rushed. Has they realized how flawed EV was and taken the meeting with the Mayor sooner they’d have had longer to plan, listen and change plans.
I mean the fact they listened to the public feedback and made changes should only solidify and grow confidence in them. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion they ever said they’d just figure out east of Oak. They said they’d still develop it and would work with existing buildings and tenants. Once again, listening to the public feedback and making accommodations.
As for your comments on views. Some stadium sites have been picked specifically due to their views. Stadiums outside of open air stadiums are often oriented towards a certain direction to allow for views from one perspective. Unless Populous is lying then you’re right.
The view isn’t where you start in many situations like ours and there are all kinds of different views, it doesn’t have to be a skyline. Dodgers stadium has a great view without any skyline. I’m simply saying let’s not totally fucking KC this thing up and go from one embarrassing view to another.
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:35 am
I stand by everything I said.
Which is nothing that’s not public and the rest is just your opinion but said as if you have some kind of sinister inside information.
Maybe add a few “in my opinion” or “I believe” to your statements because you like to say things thinly veiled on this idea you have special access to information with your “my sources”.
Like I said, due to multiple sunshine requests this will all come out in time. I don’t know how many times I’ve shared information on this forum and it’s been proven to be correct yet I still have to deal with personal speculation.
My name is Andrew woodward.
.
Happy to stand by what I say.
Yes, I’ve known this for a long time Chad. I’ve asked everyone I know in the industry if they know you and haven’t found one person yet. Your drinking buddies aren’t reliable sources.
They still were going to invest the same amount. They were still going to build entertainment, residential properties and more. The only thing that changed was the location and some of the programming of the village. It was never about doing less, it was about doing more and integrating better with existing neighborhoods. We don’t need to create a new one when we can improve existing ones.
I get it, you don’t like Cordish and want to somehow place blame on them for this but stop lying about something you have zero credibility on.
They literally in the last 48 hours changed their tune on Oak and "well figure out east of oak after the vote". There was no confidence put in the mind of the voter at that point. There was no plans, if there were they would have been able to share better details and no change literally everything on a whim. So how in the world is anybody supposed to believe "we're investing a billion"?
It was rushed. Has they realized how flawed EV was and taken the meeting with the Mayor sooner they’d have had longer to plan, listen and change plans.
I mean the fact they listened to the public feedback and made changes should only solidify and grow confidence in them. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion they ever said they’d just figure out east of Oak. They said they’d still develop it and would work with existing buildings and tenants. Once again, listening to the public feedback and making accommodations.
I voted yes but what I'm saying is they couldn't have expected this to pass without real plans. this isn't a pissing and "i know more than you" contest and defending them conversation, this is about getting a stadium downtown, you continue to miss that point and want to have these personal fights. I agree them listening is a good thing, what I'm pointing out is there can't be this much unknown and expect a yes vote, especially when displacing businesses was a big point.
What made me come to the conclusion they ever said they'd just figure out east of Oak? Sherman publicly stated it “There will be discussion on the other side of April 2 about that whole development,” he said. “What we’ve said today is that we’ll keep Oak Street open. There will be a series of discussions with the city, the city council, and the businesses in the area as to how that will play out, you know, after April 2.”
They literally in the last 48 hours changed their tune on Oak and "well figure out east of oak after the vote". There was no confidence put in the mind of the voter at that point. There was no plans, if there were they would have been able to share better details and no change literally everything on a whim. So how in the world is anybody supposed to believe "we're investing a billion"?
It was rushed. Has they realized how flawed EV was and taken the meeting with the Mayor sooner they’d have had longer to plan, listen and change plans.
I mean the fact they listened to the public feedback and made changes should only solidify and grow confidence in them. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion they ever said they’d just figure out east of Oak. They said they’d still develop it and would work with existing buildings and tenants. Once again, listening to the public feedback and making accommodations.
I voted yes but what I'm saying is they couldn't have expected this to pass without real plans. this isn't a pissing and "i know more than you" contest and defending them conversation, this is about getting a stadium downtown, you continue to miss that point and want to have these personal fights. I agree them listening is a good thing, what I'm pointing out is there can't be this much unknown and expect a yes vote, especially when displacing businesses was a big point.
What made me come to the conclusion they ever said they'd just figure out east of Oak? Sherman publicly stated it “There will be discussion on the other side of April 2 about that whole development,” he said. “What we’ve said today is that we’ll keep Oak Street open. There will be a series of discussions with the city, the city council, and the businesses in the area as to how that will play out, you know, after April 2.”
I don’t disagree about the amount of mistakes and overall poor campaign at all. I’m also not defending anyone here just offering up what I can with what I know.
I’m also not trying to make anything personal but when I’m telling you views matter and you come back with how that’s idiotic, expect the worst. You can have you opinion but if it’s completely wrong when compared to the best stadium design team in the world, it’s your personal opinion and not the general consensus. I’m simply saying it does matter and let’s at minimum try to improve it over what we have now. I’m not saying let’s find the view first and go from there.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:40 pm
I’m not saying let’s find the view first and go from there.
that's literally all I'm saying. Some are picking sites or hating on EV because the view is bad. It's inconsequential when making a huge urban splash like a downtown stadium is.
Which is nothing that’s not public and the rest is just your opinion but said as if you have some kind of sinister inside information.
Maybe add a few “in my opinion” or “I believe” to your statements because you like to say things thinly veiled on this idea you have special access to information with your “my sources”.
Like I said, due to multiple sunshine requests this will all come out in time. I don’t know how many times I’ve shared information on this forum and it’s been proven to be correct yet I still have to deal with personal speculation.
My name is Andrew woodward.
.
Happy to stand by what I say.
Yes, I’ve known this for a long time Chad. I’ve asked everyone I know in the industry if they know you and haven’t found one person yet. Your drinking buddies aren’t reliable sources.
Who uses the word Chad? I've been kind enough to you.
Saying my drinking buddies tells me exactly who you've talked to. I don't mind. I still stand by what I said.
My name is Andrew woodward.
.
Happy to stand by what I say.
Yes, I’ve known this for a long time Chad. I’ve asked everyone I know in the industry if they know you and haven’t found one person yet. Your drinking buddies aren’t reliable sources.
Who uses the word Chad? I've been kind enough to you.
Saying my drinking buddies tells me exactly who you've talked to. I don't mind. I still stand by what I said.
You're insufferable. Go away
I’m insufferable? The block user feature is just for these types of situations. I’m saying the info you likely hear from people in social settings who are not affiliated to anything is not relevant. Yet you talk in code as if you got the inside details. It’s fine to speculate and opine, just make it clear that’s what you’re doing.
It’s clear you don’t know who I am, so once again stop speculating about my identify when I wish to remain anonymous on this forum.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:40 pm
I’m not saying let’s find the view first and go from there.
that's literally all I'm saying. Some are picking sites or hating on EV because the view is bad. It's inconsequential when making a huge urban splash like a downtown stadium is.
It feels like you’re saying views don’t matter at all which is the rub I’m having with it. I agree a downtown stadium with no views is better than no downtown stadium at all.
"Remove the need for a public vote and this site still makes sense."
"But only a small amount of people voted no because of the location or because they cared to save this area of the crossroads. Many things contributed to losing but same site, more information, better collaboration, signed agreements further out and a far better campaign would get the yes vote but they don’t need that."
Are you implying the parties are exploring ways to build without a public vote? If so that is the only way to get a stadium downtown. And from the people I talked to the location was the main reason for voting no. Other reasons justified the no vote.
"I mean the fact they listened to the public feedback and made changes should only solidify and grow confidence in them. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion they ever said they’d just figure out east of Oak. They said they’d still develop it and would work with existing buildings and tenants. Once again, listening to the public feedback and making accommodations.
Come on now, "confidence"? It showed the whole thing was rushed and likely they had no idea what they are doing. in other words reinforced a lack of confidence.
Last edited by aknowledgeableperson on Sat Apr 13, 2024 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 2:33 pm
"Remove the need for a public vote and this site still makes sense."
"But only a small amount of people voted no because of the location or because they cared to save this area of the crossroads. Many things contributed to losing but same site, more information, better collaboration, signed agreements further out and a far better campaign would get the yes vote but they don’t need that."
Are you implying the parties are exploring ways to build without a public vote? If so that is the only way to get a stadium downtown.
Yes, that has always been one option discussed with city leadership. I know it's possible but not sure exactly how it works to be honest. I think if you want to read into the comments made by Shermans wife, she's implying they won't work with Jackson County and not so much that the stadiums won't be located within it. The Mayor thankfully understands how critical to KCMO it is to have these two teams located here.
aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 2:33 pm
"Remove the need for a public vote and this site still makes sense."
"But only a small amount of people voted no because of the location or because they cared to save this area of the crossroads. Many things contributed to losing but same site, more information, better collaboration, signed agreements further out and a far better campaign would get the yes vote but they don’t need that."
Are you implying the parties are exploring ways to build without a public vote? If so that is the only way to get a stadium downtown.
Yes, that has always been one option discussed with city leadership. I know it's possible but not sure exactly how it works to be honest. I think if you want to read into the comments made by Shermans wife, she's implying they won't work with Jackson County and not so much that the stadiums won't be located within it. The Mayor thankfully understands how critical to KCMO it is to have these two teams located here.
Yeah...there's no way this city council, most of whom were too afraid to even come out for or against the stadium vote, is going to do an end-around of voters. I don't buy that as a viable option. They would get killed by certain special interest groups and fold, if they would even consider it in the first place.
The Mayor can say whatever he wants but to actually pass an ordinance, he is just 1 of 13 votes and nothing more.
aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 2:33 pm
"Remove the need for a public vote and this site still makes sense."
"But only a small amount of people voted no because of the location or because they cared to save this area of the crossroads. Many things contributed to losing but same site, more information, better collaboration, signed agreements further out and a far better campaign would get the yes vote but they don’t need that."
Are you implying the parties are exploring ways to build without a public vote? If so that is the only way to get a stadium downtown.
Yes, that has always been one option discussed with city leadership. I know it's possible but not sure exactly how it works to be honest. I think if you want to read into the comments made by Shermans wife, she's implying they won't work with Jackson County and not so much that the stadiums won't be located within it. The Mayor thankfully understands how critical to KCMO it is to have these two teams located here.
Yeah...there's no way this city council, most of whom were too afraid to even come out for or against the stadium vote, is going to do an end-around of voters. I don't buy that as a viable option. They would get killed by certain special interest groups and fold, if they would even consider it in the first place.
The Mayor can say whatever he wants but to actually pass an ordinance, he is just 1 of 13 votes and nothing more.
Not if the case is made about what the city stands to lose. If both teams leave KCMO, taxes will need to go up in order to cover the significant loss of tax revenue and it will need to go up far more than the 3/8th cent county tax that just failed. Make it about the truth, that this city and its coffers need these teams. Not just in the immediate but for the long term as well.
What tax revenue do the teams generate for the city? Not property tax as the stadiums are owned by the county, correct? E-tax for player and staff salaries but even if the teams moved to KS some of those people might reside in KCMO still, so that plus sales tax on concessions. Let me know what other sources I might not be considering.
So that is > 3/8 cent sales tax on every other transaction in the county? IDK doesn’t really pass the smell test to me.
