KCRag Forum

trailerkid wrote: nice looking stadium in a very wonky location. should've shelled out more $$$ for a decent site downtown.

mykem wrote: How does Target Field compare to Kauffman in terms of architectural design, and amenities????

staubio wrote: Huh? This isn't a bad spot. It straddles the line between downtown and the Warehouse District and it is right on the end of the light rail line, which they extended just one stop to connect the stadium. Do you just make up stuff to be negative about?

Granted, it isn't the intersection of two interstates, but it'll do.

grovester wrote: uh...I think he was disagreeing with you.

trailerkid wrote: i wasn't the first one to say the location is bad. collison wrote an entire article about it and i've heard the term "shoehorned" thrown around while my old roommate was watching miserable Royal's games. i walked around it last Fall and it's a pretty common sentiment outside your apparent, cheery, vanilla two-scoops perspective.

btw, the location is near the intersection of two interstates-- 394 & 94. i walked around it last Fall...it's directly behind the target center, next to a parking garage/greyhound station, various social services agencies with some nasty energy plant blocking on its north end.  yes, it is located in the greater downtown area. HOOOOORAAAYYY!

i really wish people that don't want a lively discussion would quit engaging with me. there are plenty of others wanting an honest, multi-leveled discussion about development issues like what used to go on here. i would encourage the forum discussion to be as negative, positive, indifferent, realistic, idealistic as it needs to be. it is a discussion board after all-- not an agreement board.

KCMax wrote: Baseball stadiums in urban areas have historically been "shoehorned in" (thus the short distance, and great height of the Green Monster at Fenway - because there is a street just beyond it). I find it odd that you of all people would object to that kind of style. It creates a more dense atmosphere, puts transit right at the front step of the stadium, and makes it a vibrant area on game days. Leveling entire blocks of salvageable buildings to make way for a stadium isn't as appealing to me as preserving as much of the historic district as you can and building the stadium around it. For another great example, look at Petco Park in San Diego, where they actually use an old building as part of the stadium.



I mean really, you're complaining that there is a bus station and social service buildings around it? I mean god forbid there actually are people LIVING in a downtown area that have day-to-day needs.

KCMax wrote: I thought the prevailing thought was stadiums create spinoff development. Its kinda silly to think that they would build the stadium and voila, a bar district would pop up around it overnight.

KCMax wrote: I thought the prevailing thought was stadiums create spinoff development. Its kinda silly to think that they would build the stadium and voila, a bar district would pop up around it overnight.

KCMax wrote: I thought the prevailing thought was stadiums create spinoff development. Its kinda silly to think that they would build the stadium and voila, a bar district would pop up around it overnight.