Cost of new NFL stadiums

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:17 am

Lamar's comments yesterday seem to hint at a new football stadium instead of renovations.....which many think is crazy. Here are some costs of new NFL stadiums in various cities and a general breakdown of how they were funded.

Get ready KC, we're about to build new and it won't be cheap.

Phoenix - $371M. Cards giving $104M, Public $266M....no land cost
Dallas - $650M. this plan has never really taken shape
San Diego - $400M. Just plans at this point
Detroit (built 2002) - $300M. No details except naming rights were $40M
Philly (built 2003) - $512M. No real details
Seattle (built 2002) - $300M. Car & hotel fees $75M, lottery games $91M, owner $100M, naming rights $75M
Boston (built 2002) - $325M. All privately financed
Pittsburgh (built 2001) - $230M. $77M from ownership, $57M naming rights

I'd say a new NFL stadium built by 2010 would cost about $400M...in the same location...I don't see the team moving locations within KC.

SWFan · Post by **SWFan** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:50 am

So, we have quite a few stadiums in that list around the $300 million mark, for a NEW, ground up, stadium? And some were wanting to pass Bistate II, to spend roughly the same amount of money to simply improve an existing stadium? Call me confused.

In regards to ownership, are most football and baseball stadiums city owned like in KC?

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:52 am

exactly....and now columnists saying KC doesn't want to be a big league city? Screw that, that's exactly what we want to stay...repairing 30 year old stadiums isn't the way to do it.

$300M is probably too low now but I think $400M could do it

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:09 am

What do you think of a football arena in the location where Indian Springs sits right now? Let Kansas have one of the stadiums, I guarantee that it would make it easier to pass the vote.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:11 am

location wise it wouldn't be so bad but I don't think there is enough room there for parking and the stadium.

I'm not going to lie, I'd rather it stay in KCMO too. The location is good for people to get in and out and the land is already there and paid for....a new site puts a little more to the cost.

Who would pay for it?

SWFan · Post by **SWFan** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:19 am

I would rather see it downtown. As has been mentioned in aother thread, these type attractions need to be located in close proximity. Having the Sprint Center going in, and the whole P&L District, and the downtown revitalization in general, I think it makes more sense that a baseball field would fit in better, and contribute more, by locating to downtown KCMO.

My only concern about all this stuff going into downtown is traffic. Its a pain, especially coming from the north to get downtown. The bridges crossing the river are 20 years behind where they should be for the amount of traffic they carry. Whoever designed the downtown loop should be found and shot, if they are not already dead. To fix the freeway system going into downtown KC would easily cost billions upon billions of dollars. At least its mostly all Interstates, which means funding from the Feds and MO is possible. But still, I can't imagine the hell it would be like to drive to the Sprint Center or a downtown baseball game on a game day. Aieee.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:29 am

this thread is more about cost but let's talk location.

No way I want a football stadium downtown. It would KILL tailgating and pro football stadiums are not good urban neighbors. They require too much land that is not used enough.

Keep football stadiums out on their own where they can create their own atmosphere....Arrowhead isn't called one of the best atmosphere for nothing. Go to a football game in say Minneapolis where they tailgate 2 miles away....not cool.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:35 am

It'd be awesome if Arrowhead could go in an open location near downtown, but not directly in it, so that the skyline would still loom overhead and downtown would be close by, plus building future mass transit to Arrowhead would be easier in a central location.

Unfortunately, I cannot think of many places in the central city that are suitable for Arrowhead. Near the river would be awesome, but there is absolutely no way the infrastructure could handle it.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:46 am

KCPowercat wrote:location wise it wouldn't be so bad but I don't think there is enough room there for parking and the stadium.

I'm not going to lie, I'd rather it stay in KCMO too. The location is good for people to get in and out and the land is already there and paid for....a new site puts a little more to the cost.

Who would pay for it?

The UG would practically sell their collective souls to get a football stadium in there. I wouldn't doubt that the UG could get them in the Indian Springs location for cheaper than staying in the current location. The land area itself is indeed large enough in that area for a football stadium. The only reason I mention this is because I thought about it a while back as a way to redevelop a more eastern part of KCK. They are in the process of performing a huge highway upgrade to I-635, so traffic can be handled better.

Its just a dream anyway, Missourians wouldn't be too keen on losing their football team to Kansas, regardless of the fact that a lot of Kansans make up the Chiefs fan base.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:56 am

the citizens would have to tax themselves for it more than likely.

According to terraserver and comparing the two areas, Indian Springs plot could hold the stadium and about 1/3 of the parking. Not enough room.

Now you could get some more parking by using the old Venture site across 635...that would give the land needed for a training facility.

Cool reuse idea but just not the room. Best plan and cheapest is to stay at the current location.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:13 pm

KCPowercat wrote:the citizens would have to tax themselves for it more than likely.

According to terraserver and comparing the two areas, Indian Springs plot could hold the stadium and about 1/3 of the parking. Not enough room.

Now you could get some more parking by using the old Venture site across 635...that would give the land needed for a training facility.

Cool reuse idea but just not the room. Best plan and cheapest is to stay at the current location.

Actually there is a lot of land right across 43rd street. The street could easily be removed, the buildings on the other side torn down. Also there is the land where the medical building collapsed. for even more parking. Just remember that the streets can be removed with the exception of State Ave itself.

ComandanteCero · Post by **ComandanteCero** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:40 pm

I would say keep Arrowhead where it is, no point in fixing something that isn't necessarily broke (location wise). Football stadiums are so huge they need their own space and can create their own atmosphere. I would say if they really want a new stadium just build it over one of the existing stadiums there. It's going to be tough enough convincing people a dt bball stadium should even exist, much less starting to look at where a new football stadium should go. However, i think if they do make a new football stadium and absolutely demand a new location........send it Kansas way

,

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:44 pm

send it KS way??? why? then you just have to pay to build it and maintain it.....this way, you sit across the state, get to enjoy it, but don't have to pay for it.

Plus the way the NIMBYS are, it would be at 255th and Old Metcalf.

this taking something from one state and moving it to the other just to have it sounds a lot like spite.....which this metro doesn't need any more of.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:51 pm

KCPowercat wrote:send it KS way??? why? then you just have to pay to build it and maintain it.....this way, you sit across the state, get to enjoy it, but don't have to pay for it.

Plus the way the NIMBYS are, it would be at 255th and Old Metcalf.

this taking something from one state and moving it to the other just to have it sounds a lot like spite.....which this metro doesn't need any more of.

I din't say anything out of spite. I just was talking about a way to revitalize a more eastern part of KCK and if you paid attention to my first post I even mentioned using bi-state money to do it. After all you can't expect a bi-state to pass if both sides don't get something.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:54 pm

actually I was referencing CC's point, should have quoted him.

I'm done with bi-state on things like this....there is just too much "we didn't get this or that" talk. I would love to see a Bi-State pass for a regional transportation plan...something that truly the entire metro would benefit from but using bistate for sports facilities just won't work in my opinion.

ComandanteCero · Post by **ComandanteCero** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:57 pm

No spite on my part, i totally wouldn't support a football stadium in the sticks, i meant putting it close to the urban core on the KS side, like DMW says as a way to spread the love a bit and start building up that One KC idea. And it would definitely start getting people to understand what it means to maintain and pay for a stadium. It would be great to use bi-state funds to pay for that stadium and the ball park dt. But like i said before, i say keep arrowhead where it's at, concentrate on dt ballpark.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:00 pm

if the chiefs moved to KS, it would not be the start of people understanding "one kc", it would be the start of an all out state v. state war.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:53 pm

Why would you abandon the sports complex for football? That does not make any sense what so ever. You have two big freeways with all the parking and off ramps etc. Blue Ridge is six lanes and is an altenative to 435. You already have a few major hotels etc in the area as well.

Why create blight to fix another blight? Indian springs mall, or at least the surrounding area sits on very unstable soil anyway, adding more to the cost.

Bistate will not work. Leave football where it's at and bring baseball downtown.

Maybe Olathe will build a mini football stadium at 119th and Renner, they seem to know what they are doing

.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:35 pm

The question was about getting a new stadium, and maybe you dont understand that in order for people on both sides of the state line to support a bi-state tax for sports, both sides of the state line need to get something significant out of it. The way I see it, Missouri gets a stadium, Kansas gets a stadium, the entire metro pays for both. There is no way that you are going to get a bunch of Kansas people(myself included) to pay for 2 new stadiums in Missouri. It just won't happen. At the same time Missouri people are too cocky to let Kansas have anything. You know the New York Jets play in New Jersey right? Well the same thing could work here.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:50 pm

Itâ€™s a good thing other suburbs of metro areas donâ€™t think like that or the Cardinals or Rams would play in Chesterfield, the Rockies or Broncos would play in Boulder, the Reds or Bengals would play in Glendale, theâ€¦.. (even though the Kansas suburbs are closer to the core of KCMO than these examples I just gave.

And yea, JoCo has taken enough from KCMO, you take their baseball team and you are going to cut local attendance in half.