Presented below is a study in connection with the Kansas City Urban Society that is in the development process, which we hope to bring to the table publicly soon.
Rest assured, there are architects, planners, and visionaries who have been working hard to come together in pursuit of this great opportunity.
Regardless of what a certain owner or major newspaper may believe, there are many that are dedicated to move forward in doing what is right in the best interests of our baseball team and our city.
Here's the North Loop plan, with proposed pedestrian plaza linking the River Market. The stadium size is based off of Coors Field in Denver. I won't go in to much more detail other than to post these images I've been in the process of developing.
That's a great location - close to the P&L District AND the River Market.
One question - what's the plan for the "gray area" past left field, that goes across the highway? Is that to protect freeway traffic from a long homerun?
Now that we have pretty pictures, maybe some of the people that refused to consider anything but the Washington Park location will give this one some consideration. Looks how well it fits and is truely urban -- buildings on all sides!
A River Market view would be cool, too. Show off our old river heritage with our turn of the century brick, with a hint of modern on the side and a very modern, happing downtown outside.
Cool rendering. I'm glad this came to light despite Glass' damage control move.
I know it's just a rendering and they can't put fountains in renderings very well...there has to be some fountains otherwise that stadium doesn't belong in KC!
actually most in a stadium wouldn't be able to see a highway that is located 30 feet below the stadium's street level. I know my seats at Kauffman I can't even see i70 and it's way higher than the stadium itself.
A view is neat and all but probably not one of the main factors to consider in where we place a new park....at least in my opinion.
KCPowercat wrote:actually most in a stadium wouldn't be able to see a highway that is located 30 feet below the stadium's street level. I know my seats at Kauffman I can't even see i70 and it's way higher than the stadium itself.
A view is neat and all but probably not one of the main factors to consider in where we place a new park....at least in my opinion.
I agree.
I don't want to kick up an old debate, but it is interesting how a pedestrian bridge here would be a cost nightmare, but at Washington Square a pedestrian bridge was sited as one of the factors overcoming the massive railroad right-of-way pit.
The quality of the baseball experience is many times more important than the outfield view. Looking down on the Rivermarket is not a bad deal and it is still better than Kauffman. The experience outside the stadium would be what makes this site.
These renderings look to confirm that we'd only lose a gas station and the Historic Suites east building.
I think others' comments about views from the seating is valid. I would look at rotating the whole thing around about 90 degrees clockwise. Seems like a "downtown stadium" should be facing inward to downtown, not away from it. If that puts too much of the stadium over the highway, to the point where it wouldn't be feasible, then I think that makes the north loop option not so viable. . . you don't want to have the tail wagging the dog.
Also-- why so much freakin parking right up against the stadium? I agree you need SOME parking up close, but I think we need to encourage people to walk through the city too. Not necessarily clear from P&L (which really isn't that far) but at least a few blocks. The most ideal solution is to scatter parking all through downtown. This way, people have the most options, it makes people walk through different parts of the city instead of clumping them all into one place or one path, and it scatters the postgame traffic out as well. And scattered parking is more flexible too-- all those new parking garages would probably be half empty M-F 8-5.
Long, you are absolutely correct on the need for scattered parking that enourages walking about downtown. Methinks economic stimulus would occur in terms of street-level commerce-- another one of the benefits of a downtown stadium.
that gray area to the north linking to the Rivermarket is a pedestrian plaza, not parking. I agree with Long it would be cool if the stadium were oriented south east, but at the same time i think this view would be pretty rad anyway, i'm guessing you'd be able to see the River Market, the bridges and maybe even the river, which is pretty rocking if you ask me.
looks very cool, thanks a bunch for sharing MidtownCat.
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
Traditionaly baseball stadiums/fields are build with the first base line running east-west with home plate at the west end (thus the name southpaw for a left handed pitcher) anyone know of any major league outdoor stadiums that arn't oreinted this way.
I assume that they do it to keep the sun out of the eyes of the batter in the late afternoon. And to keep the sun off of the grandstands.
Yes, the gray area to the north beyond the stadium is a pedestrian plaza which would link the River Market.
The strength of this scheme in my opinion is the way it addresses the pedestrian experience. I enjoy the way in which the stadium bridges the canyon between downtown and all of the vitality that is emerging in the River Market. Also, you can see how the stadium's facade now defines a strong corridor or 8th street from Main to Broadway. All along street level, there is the potential for shops, restaurants and bars all contained in the stadium and accessible to the street at any time. This really would be a stadium in use continuously.
In terms of the orientation, we faced the stadium to the north because from home plate to third base due north is the optimal configuration. Also, placing a large section of the seating over the highway can be problematic from a security standpoint.
At first, I was a major proponent of the stadium facing directly towards downtown, but the more we investigated the potential of this great plaza which leads from the River Market and tied into north concourse, this really would be a cool urban place. Right now, due to the early stage of the rendering, there isn't a good sense of scale, but we envision it as a place full of activity, trees, lighting, seating. A place to congregate before the ball game, buy something from a vendor, listen to live music or cross downtown to the Market or vice versa.
I know some are still connected to the Crossroads/Washington Park idea but the size of the stadium and all of the support requirements make this idea implausible. There simply isn't a way to fit a modern stadium like the one we need to be profitable with modern concourses, suites, parking and things of the like to fit into that site. There are simply to many programmatic requirements that can't be addressed for it to work.
Ultimately I would say, if we are serious about revitalizing downtown, the stadium needs to be placed downtown. From an urban design standpoint there are so many advantages, pedestrian/vehicular circulation, parking, housing, entertainment venues, it's all in place. It also strengthens 2 of downtowns most vital areas in terms of activity, the Broadway corridor and the market.
shinatoo wrote:Traditionaly baseball stadiums/fields are build with the first base line running east-west with home plate at the west end (thus the name southpaw for a left handed pitcher) anyone know of any major league outdoor stadiums that arn't oreinted this way.
I assume that they do it to keep the sun out of the eyes of the batter in the late afternoon. And to keep the sun off of the grandstands.
you are right but there are exceptions. Somebody has pulled up the stats on this in response to a comment I made similiar to yours. Not sure where it is at this time....but the vast majority of outdoor parks do face east...either southeast or northeast.
I really think this whole thing about how the stadium faces is a secondary issue but sounds like I'm in the minority.
It was me, I guess I'll do it for the fourth time:
eliphar17 wrote:Only one stadium, Minute Maid Park, has a center axis to the west of north. All others face due north (6), northeast (14), due east (2), or southeast (7).
The orientation has two obvious effects: the view from the seating bowl and the location of the home plate (in some people's mind, the "main") entrance. Every stadium has entrances at multiple locations around the seating bowl; people simply go in at whatever entrance is closest. Thus, in my opinion, the view should be the primary consideration. That would suggest a southeast-facing orientation at a North Loop site.
Of course, if the pedestrian area over the highway is included, it wouldn't be a liability at all for the home plate entrance to be at the northwest corner of the stadium. Another benefit in that case would be its visibility from the highway. And think about it - would you rather have the sights and sounds of the game spilling over from the outfield onto the streets to the south, or the highway to the north? The view of the stadium isn't just about looking out from the inside.
If we are going to go through all this trouble convincing people of the merits of a Downtown stadium and vacating Kauffman and spending a half billion to do it, then I think we owe it to ourselves to at the very least make damn sure you can see the skyline from most of the seats and hopefully from the concourses as well. I still think north Crossroads or east of Grand is ideal for this reason. The Downtown and Crown Center skyline would be visible from most of the stadium.
I agree that the most seats should have a skyline view. It would provide the visual justification for moving downtown, and reallly reinforce why it's the right decision.
As for the pedestrian plaza, how critical is it for the actual stadium? While I think it's a great idea, I imagine it will be very expensive and difficult to work with MoDOT on covering part of the loop. In other words, if the highway lid turns out to be too expensive or difficult, can the rest of the stadium still go forward?
i don't know if that location would offer skyline views as much as building views, since it's so close to the buildings themselves. It would be like looking at buildings from a rooftop deck or something. Also, seeing as KC is a very suburban city there might even be aesthetic objections to that, we're not Manhattan, people are not used to urban canyons limiting their views. It can be very claustrophobic for some (even for rabid urbanites this is one of the drawbacks of living in some cities, excessive enclosure ((if you've lived in a place like Manhattan you'll know the feeling, not a big problem for tourists or short term visitors though)). I think a view of the Rivermarket, (a future landmark river bridge), and maybe even the river would be more than enough to justify a change from Kauffman (view wise). Second, think about it, most people will be walking in from the urban streetlevel, so they'll have already experienced the urban atmosphere, to be greeted by a grand view of our historical center, and the two things that made us boom (the river and the bridges). Not to mention 30 years from now we don't know what will have developed in that direction (like a landmark bridge), and then people will be asking questions like: "WTF were they thinking? Why would you turn your back on the river and the bluff views to look at the same never changing view of buildings?" (instead of the more dynamic view of a real mixed landscape).
Anywho.
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
