Baseball parks are better in urban environments. 81 home games a year in a walkable environment
New Arrowhead?
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
Tell me you don't watch the Royals without telling me you don't watch the Royals. Newsflash, Kansas City is not, and will never be a big market. A new ballpark downtown isn't something that will change that. They still won't be able to spend like other teams can. The Royals have one of the better farm systems in baseball and the #1 prospect who is likely to make the opening day lineup. They're likely a few years out from being really competitive again.
The Royals revenue problems relative to the rest of the league are due to being one of the smallest markets in MLB and having a horrible TV deal. How much added revenue do you think they would get moving downtown? They would lose all the existing parking income the get at the K. They would get an attendance bump due to the novelty of the new stadium, but that would wear off. And any ballpark village isn't assured to route cash to them. Power and Light doesn't spin off cash to the TMO Center, and P and L continues to be a money loser for the city anyway.
I really don't believe that there are a bunch of people not going to games today who will suddenly become regulars if the ballpark is downtown. If most of the attendance to the Royals really is from Johnson County, then either location is a 30 minute drive, with the K having very easy parking and interstate access.
Moving to downtown won't change that.
I'm pro-downtown stadiums and if the owners want to spend to move them downtown, by all means, but taxpayers should not be swindled into a fool's errand
If they build a roofed stadium, maybe they can host the Big 12 Championship game
How about San Antonio? Or go full wildcard and move to Dallas and play in the newer old stadium of the Rangers.....
Let's get outside of the box here
Is it really that iconic? Besides Lambeau are there many iconic old stadiums? Soldier field? NFL is the worst, tearing down if it's old and replacing with uninspired corporate domes.
You will add the people that are currently downtown that will go to the game... Easier to go to a game on a whim when your right there. There is no one 'right there' in current location.
Coworkers wanting to grab game after work. 20 somethings that catch game before night at P&L. People entertaining work clients. A lot easier to do when you walk 2 blocks to game than sit in I70 traffic.
Its not going to magically change revenue, but it will certainly help atmosphere and gameday feel.
You can shove that idea deep into your *ss and leave it there.
But as far as Arrowhead and Kauffman whatever the billionaire owners and the state, county, and city officials work out is fine.
Going to try and catch a Mike Rose game this fall in Arrowhead. Is a mid-field(ish) seat better on the press box side or the visitor side?
Soon all these nfl teams will have indoor stadiums with no character and will suck.
I love sports - clearly - but hope to God some day soon the tax payers and municipalities stop paying for new stadiums and whatnot. Professional sports teams are revenue generating companies and need to be self sustaining. Same with tax incentives for landing new building permits and ****.
But otherwise, it really doesn’t need debating IF the Chiefs and Royals should move, but rather should they do it now or in 20 years. The trend is clearly to build new every 20 years regardless of the waste in doing so. Personally, their current stadiums seem practical, suitable, and have decent history. If either were to move, Royals seem a bit more logical if they build the area around the new stadium up, but it still doesn’t seem like a huge money maker difference.
But otherwise, it really doesn’t need debating IF the Chiefs and Royals should move, but rather should they do it now or in 20 years. The trend is clearly to build new every 20 years regardless of the waste in doing so. Personally, their current stadiums seem practical, suitable, and have decent history. If either were to move, Royals seem a bit more logical if they build the area around the new stadium up, but it still doesn’t seem like a huge money maker difference.
Waiting to see if the Bears finally take the leap and play under a roof. Heck if the Rams have a roof in LA then Chicago should have one.
I like watching games played in snow and rain on a real goddam grass field. This is how God intended football to be played.
But as a fan there's zero chance I'm sitting in **** Chicago weather for a game. Nope.
In reality with the price of pro sports tickets, all stadiums will need to be enclosed to be competitive with staying home in the not too distant future. Baseball is a great example, who wants to plan for sitting in the son for seemingly half a day when they can save money and watch on tv with cheaper drinks and food? No worrying about heat, rain, ungodly long games, etc.
Not just that, but given the cost of these facilities its an pretty big waste to make them single use when they could be generating revenue every day of the week. Enclosing them allows all kinds of additional opportunities beyond hosting sports.
