KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - NFL owners voted Wednesday to tentatively award Kansas City a Super Bowl, largely as a tribute to owner Lamar Hunt, who gave the game its name.
It comes with one giant string attached: improvements to Arrowhead Stadium, including a rolling roof to keep out the February cold. The team estimates the cost of the roof alone at $100 million to $200 million - and that's not counting $300 million or so the Chiefs say they need in stadium upgrades.
That would be awesome to have the Super Bowl in the midwest. Hopefully the Chiefs can get the improvements done. Nor sure I like the looks of that roof though. It almost make it look like they put a big tarp over Arrowhead.
I agree with that icejammer! Why is it such a big deal if there is a roof or not? That is just a part of the game. If it snows, so what? Also, it's not like KC is in North Dakota. It doesn't get too cold down there.
Its not about the players. Look at recent playoff years when the Pat's won in snowstorms. The players can play in the weather but the fans won't stick around and spend their $$ if its uncomfortably cold out. So its all about the bottom line.
*edited to add that if this rolling roof with lowering heating panels is built you can pretty much rule out a downtown stadium for either sport. So, with 10yrs until their Super Bowl window, do they spend the $300M on updates plus another untold millions on the rolling super-roof? Not when you can build a brand new covered stadium for that much money and have it ready in time for their window. I would not be surprised if that happens.
Last edited by almighty_tuna on Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Super Bowl is played in late January early February..It is PLENTY cold in Kansas City, MO in the dead of winter..I attended a Cowboys-Chiefs game at Arrowhead Stadium in December of 1998 and it was so cold, my toes were numb..
The bottom line is, no rolling roof, no Super Bowl..Even in 2014..
It may be cold, but it won't stop people from going to the game. Average highs in early February are about 41F and lows 24F, with record highs up to 69F and record lows down to -12F. There have been plenty of playoff games played in colder weather that were sellouts elsewhere - and this is the Super Bowl! It's all about "cold" weather being perceived as favoring one team over another. Heck, Super Bowl VI had a temp at kickoff of 39F in New Orleans.
The average person who can afford a ticket and attend the Super Bowl today is more a corporate person than blue collar person and they demand the comforts of an enclosed stradium.
why not just build a |expletive| new one downtown?
I don't think football stadiums have any business being downtown (NEAR... maybe). I mean you're only going to have like 10 games per season, perhaps an occasional concert. That's a big empty space downtown most of the time. On the other hand... professional baseball sees at least 70 home games per year. That's alot of downtown activity.
If you're going to put about $500 mil into a stadium, why not just build a |expletive| new one downtown?
Arrowhead is in a great location. It was one of the first "sports complexes" in country. However the talk is if they build a new stadium, they should build it out by the racetrack, NW KC Kansas.
jhuston wrote:I don't think football stadiums have any business being downtown (NEAR... maybe). I mean you're only going to have like 10 games per season, perhaps an occasional concert. That's a big empty space downtown most of the time. On the other hand... professional baseball sees at least 70 home games per year. That's alot of downtown activity.
Plus one of the great things about going to football games is tailgating, and where are you going to talegate if there is none of the big expansive parking areas that you all hate?
It's called a bar or a restaurant. You see, when someone spends money there (instead of drinking Busch Light out of a cooler from their pickup truck), they are contributing to the local economy by creating jobs, tax revenue and such. Here's another idea... don't drink for 7 hours before going to a football game. Tailgating is the economic equivalent of drinking at home alone in the dark.
As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be a parking lot/structure within 8 blocks of any significant sporting complex or event center (that means you Qwest), and every route from said complex to parking structure should be lined with retail, restaurants and bars. If someone can't afford $8-$12 bucks for a burger and a couple of beers before or after the game, they probably shouldn't be dropping $45+ on the game.
There's a reason cities are building all of their new stadiums in or around populated downtown area: IT BRINGS IN MONEY. There's a reason they are moving all of their stadiums away from big oceans of concrete: IT DOESN'T BRING IN MONEY.
Stadiums are not big economic generators, especially when counting against the cost of building the stadium to taxpayers spread out over 30 years. There have been a plethora of studies done on the issue. What does a stadium bring to an area: service-related employment - minimum wage jobs. I'd rather not drop $300 million to gain some waiter/waitress, bartender, vendor, retail sales associate positions (that most game patrons won't visit anyway because they are dropping so much money at the stadium). Especially when the team will be demanding a new stadium before this one is paid for. Be glad Omaha doesn't have pro teams to haggle with over these issues. DC is still trying to find a buyer for their new baseball team. Meanwhile, land prices have skyrocketed around the proposed stadium site and landowners are being forced out. It only benefits a few in the end and won't be the promised boom to economic development. They will be paying for it after the stadium is obsolete!
i want to make it clear that I despise cities shelling out for stadiums that owners can pay for out of their pockets. I'm certainly not implying that a stadium is the end-all be-all solution for economic stimulous, nor should it be the ONLY part of a development plan. Far from it. What I AM saying is businesses and residences AROUND the stadium are a helluva lot better than a parking lot. If you have to waste $300 million in taxpayer money, at least get SOMETHING back. Call it a lessening of an evil.
Land prices only go up when there is someone willing to pay more for it. We lament losing the owners that can't afford the land, but what about the new, higher property tax revenue generated by the NEW owner?
Stastistics and studies can only take an argument so far. Statistics and studies told us it would be better to spend $102 million on a bridge over a road at 114th & Dodge, rather than just leaving the east and west bound lights green for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening. Studies and the resulting statistics are almost always paid for by someone with a goal.
Isn't the possible royals ballpark in Northdowntown suppose to be the economic driver for the area? Maybe I am mistaken.
I guess I thought if a stadium would be built, more projects would be built around it - condos, retail, entertainment, maybe a trolly line. I guess I also thought more businesses would want to relocated to downtown if there is a better environment that includes public transportation, condos, retail, and entertainment. I know I would want to live/work downtown if it had more amenities and I think this notion holds true for a lot of people.
No, the baseball stadium is not supposed to be the economic stimulant for the area. It will be an additional amenity. The economic stimulant was the cleanup of the riverfront and the capital infusion from the city. This has resukted in over $2 billion of investment - all long before the mention of the baseball stadium. This is now silling over into the North Downtown area and the Inplay, Creighton expansion, Qwest Center, Hilton, Slowdown and other projects are reviatalizing the area. The baseball stadium will be a result of the interest and activity, not the stimulus for it! That is why the North Downtown plans had various options for the main site - stadium, museum, etc.
I agree with you that the 2+ billion dollar investment in Downtown Omaha was a key stimulus, but I think it is unfair to group a bunch of projects together and call them all the economic stimulus. I guess when I think of an economic driver/stimulus/catylist, I think of the first event that changed peoples minds and perceptions about an area. The clean-up and capital infusion from the city was the result of other subsequent events. The Creighton Expansion and the First National Tower were planned well before the clean-up of the riverfront. And Conagra's park downtown helped revitalize the area before all of this.
There is a fine line between being an economic driver and a major additional project to keep the ball rolling. Maybe I am using the two terms interchangeably. Maybe it is an issue of proximity. Yes, it is correct that the riverfront, clean-up, qwest, etc., etc., etc. have contributed much to the area, but a ballpark will further enhance the growth of the downtown economy. And I believe a ballpark will greatly enhance the economy of the area, especially north downtown.
No matter how this project is classified, the baseball stadium will spur further growth. If the stadium does not get built, I think north downtown will be at a major economic loss. The investment of other projects will probably be less grand if the stadium is not built. I would consider this project to be an economic stimulus. A new stadium would not just provide low income jobs as you address, but also increase the perception of Omaha as a city and provide an abundant amount of goodwill that cannot be measured.
I have often stated on here that one of the most important events that was a major economic stimulus was the ConAgra campus. It helped UP decide to rehab the Harriman Dispatch Center and the Embassy Suites and other investment came along with governmental projects (HOA Park). I believe most of what has happened on the riverfront is related to the ConAgra campus. But, there are subsequent stmuli that keep progress going (not just one event). I also agree that there are subsequent additional projects not necessarily of economic stimulus caliber, the stadium being one. It will be a nice amenity to the growth that is happening and planned but if it was such a stimulus, why are many not convinved of its potential or ability to generate income? Why are there various plans for that space - museum, hotel, etc.? The stadium is not going to draw in expensive condos and office projects - sure restaurants and bars - but those will come with other investment in the area. And will a AAA ballpark really improve the perception of Omaha that much, especially when the CWS will stay at Rosenblatt?
I think a stadium would improve the perception of Omaha. If you look at all the other AAA and even AA ballparks around the country, Rosenblatt is toward the bottom of the list in an overall ranking. Sure, it is at the top in seating capacity, but does that matter if the team can't fill the seats? If the Royals were to play in a smaller stadium with less seats, the stadium will not only look more full it may change people in Omaha's perception of minor league sports. Maybe that increased intrest could make us become one of the top minor league markets in the country because lets face it, we won't be seeing any pro teams anytime soon. With that being said, it suprises me how the entire city is so 'who cares about the royals.' They put on a great product! We need to embrace this product before we turn into simply a college market, just like every other town under 250,000 in the country . Speaking of the ballpark, OmahaChef, have you heard anything lately? It seems as if there has been no speculation at all within the past 6 months. I hope this isn't the case, but is the project dead?
One: Move Rosenblatt downtown and give the space to the zoo for future expansion.
Two: If open or blighted space exists close to (any) downtown (and where doesn't it?) I think its great to have the football stadium there too. Although its empty most of the time, it makes the event that much more 'eventfull'.....case in point - Memorial Stadium. Think if it were alone out in suburbia - and, the majority of DT Lincoln businesses would not be happy to see it go!
Three: RE: Superbowl in K.C.: I'm no cold weather pussie. I love being outdoors in the winter. Snowboarding, ice skating, cross country skiing, snow shoeing...I even tent camp in the snow.
But, I will not sit in a stadium and freeze. Unless the place is enclosed, I wouldn't go to the 'ice bowl' even if the tickets were FREE!!
And unless they get REALLY lucky, Kansas City ISBUTT COLD at Superbowl time!!
I just don't see -replacing- Rosenblatt for the CWS. Any way you cut it... if you are going to have enough seats for the CWS in a new stadium... you have TOO many seats for the Royals. Unless DLR Group can come with a really ingenius way to hide 10-15,000 seats until CWS week.
And forget downtown football... I don't think 10 games (at most) of even 'eventful' (most of which would be in cold weather) football ... would justify the remaining 355 days of the year of expansive emptiness. Let the suburbs plop it down in a cornfield and build a lifestyle center around it or something.
jhuston wrote:I just don't see -replacing- Rosenblatt for the CWS. Any way you cut it... if you are going to have enough seats for the CWS in a new stadium... you have TOO many seats for the Royals.
I'm a little confused....Did the concept of a new baseball stadium downtown entail making it big enough for the CWS, or leaving Rosenblatt in place solely for that event??......and maybe DLR could come up with a design that permits the temporary addition (or de-activation) of the required CWS capacity.
And no, this really has nothing to with the K.C. Superbowl - maybe a different thread?
While it would be great to free up space for additional zoo attractions... I don't think the players involved are thinking in terms of building a downtown ball park which would accomodate the CWS. It's always been about building a 'right sized' park which would provide a 'big crowd' atmosphere for AAA baseball games with attendance in the 7-10,000 range. Something you just cannot get in a cavernous stadium of 25,000 seats.
And we'll turn these threads into whatever we damn well please as long as it's in Omaha's best interests.
DTO Luv wrote:I don't know how this got from the KC Superbowl to Omaha Royals Stadium, but I think I'm back on the NO to a Royals stadium being the North DT anchor.
Don't waiver here grasshopper..Nothing worse than a puddle jumper..
Remember our posting conversation about this last summer? Let that be your guide ..
..Ciao..LiO....Peace
Last edited by Omaha Cowboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.