KC Royals New Baseball Stadium

[Voight]

Click to read more...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Hopefully it doesn't come at the cost of an arm and a leg for local taxpayers, but glad to see that they're at least seemingly taking steps without the threat of relocation as has been the norm for other teams.

I'll have to swing by KC before they move out of Kauffman.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Kaufmann is the last active MLB stadium from the 1970s, and actually the last built between 1966 and 1989.

In the NHL, there are no arenas built between 1968 and 1983.

In the NBA, none between 1968 and 1990.

In the NFL, there are three from between 1957 and 1987: the Superdome, Arrowhead, and former Ralph Wilson Stadium (72, 73, 75). Of those, only the Superdome is likely to be in use beyond the next few years.

Definitely reaching the end of an era.

 

[Voight]

Kaufmann is the last active MLB stadium from the 1970s, and actually the last built between 1966 and 1989.

In the NHL, there are no arenas built between 1968 and 1983.

In the NBA, none between 1968 and 1990.

In the NFL, there are three from between 1957 and 1987: the Superdome, Arrowhead, and former Ralph Wilson Stadium (72, 73, 75). Of those, only the Superdome is likely to be in use beyond the next few years.

Definitely reaching the end of an era.

RWS is getting the wrecking ball as soon as the new Bills stadium is ready.

If the Royals get government funding to help with a new stadium, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chiefs go down that path. Just like when the Mariners & Seahawks got new stadiums in a short span.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I thought Kaufman just had a major renovation... just googling it was 2007-2009 for $250 million.

 

[tornadowarning33]

RWS is getting the wrecking ball as soon as the new Bills stadium is ready.

If the Royals get government funding to help with a new stadium, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chiefs go down that path. Just like when the Mariners & Seahawks got new stadiums in a short span.

Kansas just had a bill signed into law last week legalizing sports betting. The law allows the state to use 80 percent of per bet tax revenue to fund incentives for luring pro teams into the state. The Chiefs have been rumored to be the primary target for said incentives. Its possible that they get caught up in a bidding war between the two states as the Arrowhead lease nears expiration in 2031.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I thought Kaufman just had a major renovation... just googling it was 2007-2009 for $250 million.

Thats why this is such a disgrace. If they use private funding, sure, whatever. But they are asking for tax money again.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Kansas just had a bill signed into law last week legalizing sports betting. The law allows the state to use 80 percent of per bet tax revenue to fund incentives for luring pro teams into the state. The Chiefs have been rumored to be the primary target for said incentives. Its possible that they get caught up in a bidding war between the two states as the Arrowhead lease nears expiration in 2031.

Conversations are already happening. This could be incredibly bitter considering the emotional allure of Arrowhead Stadium.

KC Chiefs Considering Move to Kansas, Away from GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium in KC MO - Sports Illustrated Kansas City Chiefs News, Analysis and More

Kansas City Chiefs President Mark Donovan says the Chiefs are considering several options for the home of the Chiefs.

www.si.com

 

[tornadowarning33]

Conversations are already happening. This could be incredibly bitter considering the emotional allure of Arrowhead Stadium.

KC Chiefs Considering Move to Kansas, Away from GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium in KC MO - Sports Illustrated Kansas City Chiefs News, Analysis and More

Kansas City Chiefs President Mark Donovan says the Chiefs are considering several options for the home of the Chiefs.

www.si.com

Oh, it will certainly be bitter. There's still a big/little brother dynamic between the two sides. And yeah, Arrowhead itself is hugely important to Chiefs culture.

The question is where do you build on the Kansas side? There isn't much to downtown KCK. Legends makes sense because of what's already there (Speedway, Sporting KC, minor league baseball park, Great Wolf Lodge, tons of shopping), but its further away from the core than Truman Sports Complex.

 

[BKarchitect]

There’s little stomach for public funding of a downtown baseball stadium. It’s a nice idea and I’m sure something will happen eventually but asking Joe taxpayer to foot a huge chunk of the bill is not going to go over well.

I don’t think the Chiefs are moving to the Kansas side. It’s a negotiating position. While there is little stomach for publicly paying for a new baseball stadium - I guarantee you my KCMO neighbors are much more willing to subsidize the Chiefs staying in Missouri than a downtown baseball stadium. Also - it strains credibility that Missouri and all states won’t also have sports gambling within the next few years. Kansas has a short window to try to use it to their advantage.

 

[sh724]

Missouri Governor has already said the state will give money to keep the Cheifs in MO. The problem MO has with two large population centers is that usually when the state gives signficant money to one the other wants their piece of the pie as well.

 

[Voight]

Oh, it will certainly be bitter. There's still a big/little brother dynamic between the two sides. And yeah, Arrowhead itself is hugely important to Chiefs culture.

The question is where do you build on the Kansas side? There isn't much to downtown KCK. Legends makes sense because of what's already there (Speedway, Sporting KC, minor league baseball park, Great Wolf Lodge, tons of shopping), but its further away from the core than Truman Sports Complex.

On the flip side, a good chunk of football stadiums are away from the respective cores of their cities. & asking people to drive a bit out of their way once a week, 8-9 times a year isn't too bad vs if it was the Royals or another pro team that plays 40+ home games.

 

[tornadowarning33]

On the flip side, a good chunk of football stadiums are away from the respective cores of their cities. & asking people to drive a bit out of their way once a week, 8-9 times a year isn't too bad vs if it was the Royals or another pro team that plays 40+ home games.

That's a big reason why I think if it happens, it'll be at Legends/Village West. I doubt it would shake up the demographic of attending fans all that much. Maybe you pull in a few more people from Johnson County, but for the most part the fans who would be at Arrowhead anyway will follow them. It wouldn't move the needle much for Wichita fans. Building at Village West would shorten a nearly three hour drive one-way to around 2:40, so going to a game would still be a full day trip or at least the crown jewel of a weekend getaway.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I guess the rule now is once you reach the point of 20 years since a major renovation, you demand another expensive renovation or a new stadium. A shame, really.

It's a great stadium with the distinctive feature of the waterpark. It would be a shame to lose that although I'm bet a new stadium would incorporate something similar. I'm sure they could spend another $200 - $300 for renovations 5 - 10 years from now to spruce up/expand the various club areas in and around home plate that have become so prominent in the past decade or so..plus moderate renovations to the rest of the stadium and clubhouse. It beats the alternative of spending a likely $650 million or more to build a 35,000 seat ballpark in downtown

At least at their current stadium which nearly seats nearly 80,000 there is a chance for Joe Blow to attend some games at a reasonable price. If the Chiefs built a new stadium, capacity will likely be reduced quite a bit...probably closer to the 65,000 range limiting the number of cheap seats available.

 

[tornadowarning33]

I guess the rule now is once you reach the point of 20 years since a major renovation, you demand another expensive renovation or a new stadium. A shame, really.

It's a great stadium with the distinctive feature of the waterpark. It would be a shame to lose that although I'm bet a new stadium would incorporate something similar. I'm sure they could spend another $200 - $300 for renovations 5 - 10 years from now to spruce up/expand the various club areas in and around home plate that have become so prominent in the past decade or so..plus moderate renovations to the rest of the stadium and clubhouse. It beats the alternative of spending a likely $650 million or more to build a 35,000 seat ballpark in downtown

At least at their current stadium which nearly seats nearly 80,000 there is a chance for Joe Blow to attend some games at a reasonable price. If the Chiefs built a new stadium, capacity will likely be reduced quite a bit...probably closer to the 65,000 range limiting the number of cheap seats available.

My favorite part about Kaufmann is that it has been able to retain its charm and uniqueness even after undergoing the modernization that has kept it fresh. That's not an easy feat to accomplish. Each time I go there I'm reminded of the first time I saw a Royals game as a kid. It still "feels" the same after all these years, even with all the new and updated frills. It would really suck for that to fall by the wayside, but unfortunately it will happen eventually.

 

[KevFu]

Thats why this is such a disgrace. If they use private funding, sure, whatever. But they are asking for tax money again.

I was researching Kauffman Stadium for another message board (a fascinating topic about the 10 former MLB players who died young of a specific brain cancer, with six of them being former Phillies players, three being former Royals players, and Gary Carter who played in Montreal... and all three of those stadiums opened in a 5-year window).

And one of the articles I found was from a while back where the city of Kansas City was pushing a Downtown stadium on the Royals, who were quite content with Kauffman. This was when the Glass family owned the Royals, and KC wanted the project to revitalize downtown.

Of course, that was well over a decade ago (I'm thinking like 2006-2012 range?) and it appears that the new owner wants a downtown stadium...

But it's important to note that you can't really accuse an MLB team of holding a city hostage for taxpayer money when they were OFFERED the taxpayer money before and basically said "we don't need a new stadium at taxpayer expense, thanks, but no thanks" (!!!).

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I thought Kaufman just had a major renovation... just googling it was 2007-2009 for $250 million.

"Just had" will be nearly 20 years prior by the time they move.

$12.5mm/year to extend the life of it 20 years isn't awful.

 

[MinnesotaFlyersFan25]

Kaufmann is the last active MLB stadium from the 1970s, and actually the last built between 1966 and 1989.

In the NHL, there are no arenas built between 1968 and 1983.

In the NBA, none between 1968 and 1990.

In the NFL, there are three from between 1957 and 1987: the Superdome, Arrowhead, and former Ralph Wilson Stadium (72, 73, 75). Of those, only the Superdome is likely to be in use beyond the next few years.

Definitely reaching the end of an era.

Target Center where the Minnesota Timberwolves play in downtown Minneapolis broke ground in 1988 and officially opened in October 1990 for the 1990/1991 NBA season.

Source - I'm a Born & Raised Minnesotan that has attended many, many, many, many Timberwolves games over the years.

 

[Voight]

I thought Kaufman just had a major renovation... just googling it was 2007-2009 for $250 million.

Rogers Center is doing a $250 million dollar one in the next few years to extend its "life" another 10-15 years. These renovations aren't meant to make the stadium last forever (unless its a historical venue like Lambeau or MSG)

I was researching Kauffman Stadium for another message board (a fascinating topic about the 10 former MLB players who died young of a specific brain cancer, with six of them being former Phillies players, three being former Royals players, and Gary Carter who played in Montreal... and all three of those stadiums opened in a 5-year window).

And one of the articles I found was from a while back where the city of Kansas City was pushing a Downtown stadium on the Royals, who were quite content with Kauffman. This was when the Glass family owned the Royals, and KC wanted the project to revitalize downtown.

Of course, that was well over a decade ago (I'm thinking like 2006-2012 range?) and it appears that the new owner wants a downtown stadium...

But it's important to note that you can't really accuse an MLB team of holding a city hostage for taxpayer money when they were OFFERED the taxpayer money before and basically said "we don't need a new stadium at taxpayer expense, thanks, but no thanks" (!!!).

Either way, governments paying/contributing huge sums of money for sports stadiums is nothing new. Its pretty much the standard minus a few exceptions (T Mobile Arena, Oracle Park, Chase Center).

 

[KevFu]

Either way, governments paying/contributing huge sums of money for sports stadiums is nothing new. Its pretty much the standard minus a few exceptions (T Mobile Arena, Oracle Park, Chase Center).

Right. It's supply and demand. I really don't care if a team gets a taxpayer boondoggle that makes no fiscal sense for a city with legitimate issues; because OF COURSE there's better things to spend money on BUT there's no evidence that politicians will actually spend money wisely to fix those issues anyway. (And most people are ignorant of how those deals are financed and assume the city is $800 million poorer because of a stadium deal).

American politics is insanely divided, but Buffalo is NOT split 56-42 on the issue of Liking The Bills.

I just don't like when owners are jerks about it and hold a city for ransom.

Of course Pegula said they'd have no choice but to move without the deal. But it was obvious to everyone that Buffalo had to build a new stadium. It's the fourth-oldest in the league. It needed a billion dollars worth of renovations, which Erie County would be on the hook for most of; so why do that when you can build a brand new one for an extra $400 million? Taxpayer money was going to build a new stadium, and it was just a matter of making a deal that was acceptable to everyone.

But if you go 50 years in a stadium to the point that it's cheaper to build a new one than to maintain an antiquated one, you're doing it right. The problem to me is like the St. Louis Rams or Atlanta Braves. The Rams acted in such bad faith that St. Louis won a $790 million settlement. The Braves replaced Turner Field (which admittedly wasn't the ideal situation when opening a new stadium because it wasn't designed SOLELY for baseball) after just 20 years.

The Royals getting a new stadium? Good for them. They'll have played 50 years in Kauffman. I don't think it's "Necessary" because Kauffman is nice, but it's probably behind other stadiums based on age. You can get away with that in Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles, but you can't get away with that when you're in Kansas City.

 

[Voight]

Right. It's supply and demand. I really don't care if a team gets a taxpayer boondoggle that makes no fiscal sense for a city with legitimate issues; because OF COURSE there's better things to spend money on BUT there's no evidence that politicians will actually spend money wisely to fix those issues anyway. (And most people are ignorant of how those deals are financed and assume the city is $800 million poorer because of a stadium deal).

American politics is insanely divided, but Buffalo is NOT split 56-42 on the issue of Liking The Bills.

I just don't like when owners are jerks about it and hold a city for ransom.

Of course Pegula said they'd have no choice but to move without the deal. But it was obvious to everyone that Buffalo had to build a new stadium. It's the fourth-oldest in the league. It needed a billion dollars worth of renovations, which Erie County would be on the hook for most of; so why do that when you can build a brand new one for an extra $400 million? Taxpayer money was going to build a new stadium, and it was just a matter of making a deal that was acceptable to everyone.

But if you go 50 years in a stadium to the point that it's cheaper to build a new one than to maintain an antiquated one, you're doing it right. The problem to me is like the St. Louis Rams or Atlanta Braves. The Rams acted in such bad faith that St. Louis won a $790 million settlement. The Braves replaced Turner Field (which admittedly wasn't the ideal situation when opening a new stadium because it wasn't designed SOLELY for baseball) after just 20 years.

The Royals getting a new stadium? Good for them. They'll have played 50 years in Kauffman. I don't think it's "Necessary" because Kauffman is nice, but it's probably behind other stadiums based on age. You can get away with that in Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles, but you can't get away with that when you're in Kansas City.

Nobody wants to be the mayor/governor that let a pro team pack up and leave. Plus, stadiums/arenas are great vanity projects that are very easy to tout yourself for getting done.

In the Braves case its similar to the Cowboys. A wealthy suburb offered to help them build a brand new stadium and pull them out of downtown. They also saw the city help pay for the Falcons new stadium so there wasn't much of a chance of them paying for a new ballpark. I get that Turner wasn't very old but it wasn't built to last nor was it state of the art at the time of construction.

 

[KevFu]

Nobody wants to be the mayor/governor that let a pro team pack up and leave. Plus, stadiums/arenas are great vanity projects that are very easy to tout yourself for getting done.

In the Braves case its similar to the Cowboys. A wealthy suburb offered to help them build a brand new stadium and pull them out of downtown. They also saw the city help pay for the Falcons new stadium so there wasn't much of a chance of them paying for a new ballpark. I get that Turner wasn't very old but it wasn't built to last nor was it state of the art at the time of construction.

Right, Turner wasn't bad, but it also wasn't a great stadium because it was designed to serve as the Olympic Stadium FIRST and then retrofitted for baseball.

The real reason the team did what they did was that the downtown stadium didn't draw fans because of the demographics. Their fan base was in Cobb County, they claimed. Which is a more polite way of saying "The people who could afford baseball tickets on a regular basis lived in the suburbs."

And yes, those are code words. The team - which should be renamed the Hammers, and I regret using their nickname in the previous post -- wanted to have a new stadium "near the white people."

I think the difference between the Dallas Cowboys (and I admit I don't know that exact situation) vs Atlanta Baseball was that the term "offered." I think the Hammers chased Cobb County, and Irving chased the Cowboys. But I could be wrong.

It's also funny you mentioned the Cowboys since the OTHER TEAM to get a new stadium ridiculously fast (1994-2020) was the Texas Rangers.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

There was a climate factor behind the Rangers desire for a new ballpark. IIRC, their stadium was open air and the Dallas area is ridiculously hot during baseball season, which certainly played a role in attendance crater during the dog days.

 

[Voight]

There was a climate factor behind the Rangers desire for a new ballpark. IIRC, their stadium was open air and the Dallas area is ridiculously hot during baseball season, which certainly played a role in attendance crater during the dog days.

Arlington was also willing to contribute $500 million.

Too bad they designed it to look like a warehouse

Right, Turner wasn't bad, but it also wasn't a great stadium because it was designed to serve as the Olympic Stadium FIRST and then retrofitted for baseball.

The real reason the team did what they did was that the downtown stadium didn't draw fans because of the demographics. Their fan base was in Cobb County, they claimed. Which is a more polite way of saying "The people who could afford baseball tickets on a regular basis lived in the suburbs."

And yes, those are code words. The team - which should be renamed the Hammers, and I regret using their nickname in the previous post -- wanted to have a new stadium "near the white people."

I think the difference between the Dallas Cowboys (and I admit I don't know that exact situation) vs Atlanta Baseball was that the term "offered." I think the Hammers chased Cobb County, and Irving chased the Cowboys. But I could be wrong.

It's also funny you mentioned the Cowboys since the OTHER TEAM to get a new stadium ridiculously fast (1994-2020) was the Texas Rangers.

When Irving didn't commit money to renovate/upgrade Texas Stadium Jones turned his attention towards building a brand new stadium. He approached 4/5 of the Dallas suburb cities (as well as the city itself) to find the best location and see who was willing to contribute the most. Eventually Arlington agreed to put in $300 million, the rest is history.

RE Braves, from what I understand it was also a pain in the rear end to get downtown for home games. Especially during weekdays.

 

[KevFu]

There was a climate factor behind the Rangers desire for a new ballpark. IIRC, their stadium was open air and the Dallas area is ridiculously hot during baseball season, which certainly played a role in attendance crater during the dog days.

Oh definitely. The main point people brought up with a new Texas ballpark was "Already? TBPAA is only like 26 years old!" It was all about the roof.

Arlington was also willing to contribute $500 million.

Too bad they designed it to look like a warehouse

I like the Grill comparison: