Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it looks like it's inevitable, that Kauffman will be replaced in the not too distant future.
I'm a bit sentimental about it and have often wished they'd just do a major renovation, but I understand why they'd move also.
2 options were unveiled yesterday, one downtown and one in North Kansas City.
That latter one is out of left field, but it's also quite interesting since it's really the only urbanish-style suburb of KC.
Downtown of course is on the east side in an area needing some attention in order to make downtown's comeback more complete.
I have a hunch that NKC might be a pawn in order to put Jackson County at attention, but it's not a completely bad idea either.
I'm thinking downtown has about a 80% chance of being the one barring some unforeseen circumstance. Maybe higher.
I tend to prefer downtown for downtown's sake. It would have more of a wow factor especially for visitors from elsewhere.
There's also the fact that I really like North Kansas City the way it is: low-key and charming. I always wanted to buy a house there and might still would if the opportunity presented itself. A ballpark would drastically change it.
Thoughts? Opinions? What do you think they will do? What should they pick?
A sidenote: the political aspect of public/private/whatever ballpark financing is an unfortunate reality that I've given up on having too strong of an opinion about so I personally won't be commenting on any of that too much.
So it looks like it's inevitable, that Kauffman will be replaced in the not too distant future.
I'm a bit sentimental about it and have often wished they'd just do a major renovation, but I understand why they'd move also.
2 options were unveiled yesterday, one downtown and one in North Kansas City.
Thoughts? Opinions? What do you think they will do? What should they pick?
As a taxpayer of Jackson County, I do not care what the Royals do as far as downtown or NKC, as long as I am not taxed to build it or any commercial ventures tied into the area where the stadium is located. For many years now, I have helped fund the building and maintenance of Kauffman Stadium. As a baseball fan, I see no reason to move to a new location.
In a recent poll that I saw Kauffman was ranked by fans as the 15th best stadium for baseball. If that is accurate, then Kauffman is a well enough loved stadium to keep and continue to maintain.
I am against a new stadium being built away from the Truman Sports Complex and think they should stay there (either in a renovated Kauffman or a new stadium built in the same complex). Of those two choices though, I like the North KC option better because I don't see the Downtown location being good for the "current downtown" in the long-run, and I like the current Downtown. So if it is further away and in North KC, then that seems like the least worst of the two options to me.
I'm all for a new stadium downtown. Unless the Royals get a new ownership group, they are not going to remain at TSC. People need to recognize that TSC is not really an option going forward. Without a new stadium, the current owners with the highest stake would likely sell (they won't be onboard for any further improvements to Royals Stadium) and that will most likely end the Royals tenure in KC. There are a host of cities that have passed us in population that would be ecstatic about getting a MLB franchise.
I like downtown far better than of the two options. First, it has easy access to all points in the metro with I-35 (and I-29 via I-35), I-70, I-49 (US71) and a plethora of downtown roads including high volume SW Trafficway. The Plaza-to-downtown streetcar will run less than a half mile from East Village. I think egress/ingress would be a major issue in NKC. Second, the space downtown is available without any major teardowns. In fact I disagree with Eyel1ner who suggests that it's not good for the current downtown. The new stadium would occupy a part of downtown that is currently almost entirely surface lots. Despite western downtown's renaissance, the east part of downtown has had virtually no development in the last 50 years except for the Dunn HQ building and a nearby apartment. Parking is not as big of an issue as many seem to think. A look at Google Maps should convince most people that plenty of parking will be available (not to mention what is constructed in the area to accompany a new stadium). You may not be able to see your destination the moment you park but for most, the walk would be no further than what you already experience at Royals Stadium.
I live in Johnson County so I will not be able to vote on any public financing package - although I'd gladly vote yes if Johnson had that option. Nonetheless, of the proposed 2 billion dollar investment (1 billion for a stadium and another for an entertainment district), the owners are on record as saying they would pay the entire cost of the entertainment district and $650 million of the stadium cost leaving $350 million for the taxpayers in the form of extending an already in place 3/8 cent sales tax. Since I and other JoCo residents do shop and dine out in Jackson Co (I do rather frequently), the burden would not be carried exclusively by Jackson County residents.
This is a once in a generation decision. It needs to be done right. Downtowns are again becoming the focus of major metro areas and it's only going to be more pronounced into the future. Cities with less than vibrant downtowns are just not able to compete. KC cannot afford to mess this up by taking a major piece of cultural infrastructure and placing it somewhere where is doesn't really contribute to the growth and development of the urban core of the city.
Last edited by KC_Retiree; 08-24-2023 at 10:53 AM..
The Truman sports complex is outdated and in a bleak industrial like wasteland of a neighborhood. It is isolated from the surrounding area and it does not support development around it, as there are no affluent neighborhoods even close to it. It was designed in the mid 60's when the main focus of new development was utopian stand alone projects that were oriented toward being car friendly. With the streetcar being extended to UMKC, it, along with other public transportation can give people from the Waldo, Brookside, Plaza and Hyde Park neighborhoods access to downtown without using their cars, it only makes sense to build the stadium within a reasonable walking distance from it. Remodeling a stadium in a run down area in an outmoded complex for a second time makes no sense.
I will admit that I like the more ambitious goals for the North Kansas City site, which it looks like the Royals would build a new mixed-use neighborhood around, but like sub, I like NKC much as it is as well. It's still a(n unusually) charming industrial suburb with a robust downtown, just as it was when I was a lad, and I fear the new stadium would overwhelm the community. (Full disclosure: My brother lives in NKC's residential district.)
I also agree with KC_Retiree that on just about every other metric — accessibility, potential to stimulate spinoff development, location — the Downtown KC site is superior. One thing that struck me as odd about Downtown KC when I visited this past June, however, was that the downtown streets were just about empty during the day but came to life at night around the P&L District (bf and I stayed in The Grand, two blocks north). A downtown ballpark would likely reinforce that pattern, but maybe that's not a bad thing here.
What I find disappointing is the design of the ballpark itself in both versions. It looks to me like Populous would like to recreate those 1970s symmetrical ovals/circles in either location — in effect, replicating the K in a new location. Most of those new urban ballparks that have come in the wake of Camden Yards in Baltimore have attempted to recapture the quirky, asymmetrical uniqueness of the ballparks of days gone by, like Ruppert Field/KC Municipal Stadium.
Here in Philadelphia, we have a wonderful new ballpark with an old-school feel that suffers only from being built in the same area as the multipurpose oval it and the new football field across Pattison Avenue replaced (but the Phillies did try to build a ballpark closer to the city center). It seems to me that Populous would produce a better ballpark if it respected the Downtown street grid and fit the stadium within the dimensions of a several-block square rather than broke it with a circular ballpark sitting astride one of the downtown streets.
Here in Philadelphia, we have a wonderful new ballpark with an old-school feel that suffers only from being built in the same area as the multipurpose oval it and the new football field across Pattison Avenue replaced (but the Phillies did try to build a ballpark closer to the city center). It seems to me that Populous would produce a better ballpark if it respected the Downtown street grid and fit the stadium within the dimensions of a several-block square rather than broke it with a circular ballpark sitting astride one of the downtown streets.
Yes. I would love to see a more retro style to the new Royals Stadium but would love for the Royals to keep the scoreboard and have at least some kind of water feature as a reminder of Kaufman field. East Village is a very large expanse of unoccupied ground. The architects should be able to at least work without the constraints of having to shoe-horn the stadium into a small urban tract surrounded by existing buildings. Of course, the owners who are reportedly paying 65% of the cost will impose their own constraints on any design.
Ironically, Philadelphia's stadium configuration probably is the most like Truman Sports complex of any sports facility in the US (two large stadiums for both major sports surrounded by a sea of parking). The Eagles/Phillies play out there because downtown is too valued and vibrant to rip up for stadiums that are only occupied seasonally and then only during games. KC went to the burbs because downtown wasn't valued, KC had an obsession with becoming a suburban auto-centric city back in the 1960's when the stadium concept was initially conceived (our drive to the gate airport had a similar philosophy).
Yes. I would love to see a more retro style to the new Royals Stadium but would love for the Royals to keep the scoreboard and have at least some kind of water feature as a reminder of Kaufman field. East Village is a very large expanse of unoccupied ground. The architects should be able to at least work without the constraints of having to shoe-horn the stadium into a small urban tract surrounded by existing buildings. Of course, the owners who are reportedly paying 65% of the cost will impose their own constraints on any design.
Ironically, Philadelphia's stadium configuration probably is the most like Truman Sports complex of any sports facility in the US (two large stadiums for both major sports surrounded by a sea of parking). The Eagles/Phillies play out there because downtown is too valued and vibrant to rip up for stadiums that are only occupied seasonally and then only during games. KC went to the burbs because downtown wasn't valued, KC had an obsession with becoming a suburban auto-centric city back in the 1960's when the stadium concept was initially conceived (our drive to the gate airport had a similar philosophy).
I think you and I are on similar wavelengths here. The fountains in the outfield were, and remain, a distinctive feature of the K — and, of course, a reference to the newer of the city's two nicknames — and I would agree with you that any new stadium should incorporate something like that. There's nothing that would prevent them from sitting in the outfield of a retro ballpark, either.
Interesting that you point that out about the South Philadelphia sports complex. It even sits close to the junction of two freeways, though it is also served by a subway line that got extended down that way when the Vet opened in 1971. But even though ballparks sit idle for 284 days out of the year,* historically, they've been tied into their surrounding neighborhoods in ways that football stadia never have been (I'm pretty sure that while Dad and I were walking down 22d Street from Municipal Stadium to some gravel lot where Dad parked the car, many other fans were walking down Brooklyn Avenue to Charlie Bryant's). And the only way we could even hope to recreate that now is to put the ballpark close to an actual neighborhood (though I think I saw someone remark elsewhere that most of those old ballparks were in the middle of residential neighborhoods like Wrigley Field still is in Chicago). NKC seeks to capture this magic by building a new neighborhood around the stadium. At least East Village has the chance to make new magic in one already there.
Anent nothing else, I trust you understand that Kansas Citians living elsewhere carry the city with us in our hearts. Every KC expat I've met in my years on the East Coast loves the city to death, and I've had at least one perfect stranger hug me when she learned where I grew up. (And my friends who didn't grow up there but have visited the city have all been pleasantly surprised by it.). But I still cherish the T-shirt I bought at Raygun on a trip back in 2013 that reads, "I lived in Kansas City before it was cool." (Actually, it was cool during the Pendergast years as well. It just awoke from a decades-long slumber in the 1980s.)
*It just struck me that one reason why ballparks might be different is because the 81 days they are active stretch across seven months of the year. I think that only basketball of the other major spectator sports comes close to having a season as long.
I sympathize with those who like the current stadium. It was ahead of its time but also a product of its time.
They broke the much-maligned donut-shape mold that was popular in the 60's and went with sport-specific stadiums. That gave Kauffman and Arrowhead their longevity over any of those others and also some stadiums that have come and gone since.
It was a really good design and I hate to see it go.
Side note: I often wonder why more effort hasn't been put into revitalizing that part of town. It's a seriously good piece of real estate for something.
Anyway, the Chiefs would be crazy to leave since it's still pretty ideal for the few football games a year that it needs to host. A giant, barely-used football stadium in the middle of the city doesn't seem as good a deal as a baseball stadium that often sees daily traffic in the summers.
The world has changed.
Downtown seems inevitable.
North Kansas City would be a more similar option than what people are giving it credit for. It's still very close to downtown, centrally located, and in a more urban area. They would just have more room to work with there. The streetcar could also go across the river easy enough (maybe on its way to the airport?). The downside is the effect it would have on the community. It just has a unique character that some of us would hate to see changed that drastically.
East Village of downtown on the other hand, could use a boost.
I'll be the outsider here.
I'm really not a fan of the retro ballparks anymore. They were fine for a while and work well in certain cities.
It's just been done to death since the early 90's.
I think Kansas City could pull off something sleek and modern yet enduring. The downtown there doesn't necessarily lend itself to retro anyway.
Personally, I also happen to like the cavernous and symmetrical outfield.
The open and airy renderings were impressive. It probably won't look anything like those, but I imagine that's just the general concept.
I say break the mold again and do something original.
Fountains are a must. Perhaps a few more than the renderings show.
One thing oddly missing from the drawings was the crown scoreboard. Maybe I missed it, but sheesh, gotta have that somewhere.
Last edited by sub; 08-25-2023 at 08:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kauffman Should Be Home of the Royals
