urbanSTL

Monday evening with a tornado watch and storm front imminent

Edit: Tornados on the ground now

New renderings are out for the 1650 Broadway Project, Encore. I know some were worried that the star of the show, the 33-story building would be a part of the later phases, but it looks like the tower is a part of phase I. 

A part. Apart pretty much means the opposite.

Sorry. Just one of my pet peeves.

Dev7 wrote: ↑

6:22 AM - 9 days ago

https://www.kctv5.com/2026/04/13/read-k ... uare-park/ 

On Tuesday afternoon at their meeting, Kansas City Parks and Recreation board members will consider approval of allowing City Manager Mario Vasquez “to execute a lease agreement with the Kansas City Royals for Washington Square Park.”

Is there enough pull/pushback from the opposition in KC to force this to a vote. Seems like KC government is dead-set on pushing this through without the voters having a say. I think they know it will get shot down like the last downtown proposal. I like the look but I still question how that will impact traffic, how much of a nightmare it will be getting in & out & parking. Seems like a rush-job to get a downtown stadium & keep the Royals out of KS. Just my uneducated observation. 

From what I read they are presenting it as an emergency so I do t think the voters will get a say on the stadium funding but someone who lives in KC will likely know more on it like Chris Stritzel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑

6:04 PM - 6 days ago

From what I read they are presenting it as an emergency so I do t think the voters will get a say on the stadium funding but someone who lives in KC will likely know more on it like Chris Stritzel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the ordinance to negotiate a lease is being done with an emergency clause, meaning it has a faster effective date (practically this afternoon once it passes city council). Now, there’s some debate as to whether the actual lease will need to be voted on by the public or not, but the incentive package likely can’t be voted on without changing the way incentives of any kind are issued. And forcing a vote on the park lease would require the rewriting of the City Charter, which currently permits the city to lease park land without a public vote with the only public vote being held if the park is to be sold and removed from the parks system. The opposition will collect signatures, but it’s possible for an initiative to be thrown out in court since everything I see follows the charter and status quo.

I’m not sure if a super majority vote on the city council changes anything though, but 9 councilmembers and the mayor are cosponsors on the legislation. 10-3 should be the vote.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑

6:14 PM - 6 days ago

PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑

6:04 PM - 6 days ago

From what I read they are presenting it as an emergency so I do t think the voters will get a say on the stadium funding but someone who lives in KC will likely know more on it like Chris Stritzel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the ordinance to negotiate a lease is being done with an emergency clause, meaning it has a faster effective date (practically this afternoon once it passes city council). Now, there’s some debate as to whether the actual lease will need to be voted on by the public or not, but the incentive package likely can’t be voted on without changing the way incentives of any kind are issued. And forcing a vote on the park lease would require the rewriting of the City Charter, which currently permits the city to lease park land without a public vote with the only public vote being held if the park is to be sold and removed from the parks system. The opposition will collect signatures, but it’s possible for an initiative to be thrown out in court since everything I see follows the charter and status quo.

I’m not sure if a super majority vote on the city council changes anything though, but 9 councilmembers and the mayor are cosponsors on the legislation. 10-3 should be the vote.

So this is pretty much a done deal assuming the Royals get things done on their end?

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

6:25 PM - 6 days ago

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑

6:14 PM - 6 days ago

PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑

6:04 PM - 6 days ago

From what I read they are presenting it as an emergency so I do t think the voters will get a say on the stadium funding but someone who lives in KC will likely know more on it like Chris Stritzel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the ordinance to negotiate a lease is being done with an emergency clause, meaning it has a faster effective date (practically this afternoon once it passes city council). Now, there’s some debate as to whether the actual lease will need to be voted on by the public or not, but the incentive package likely can’t be voted on without changing the way incentives of any kind are issued. And forcing a vote on the park lease would require the rewriting of the City Charter, which currently permits the city to lease park land without a public vote with the only public vote being held if the park is to be sold and removed from the parks system. The opposition will collect signatures, but it’s possible for an initiative to be thrown out in court since everything I see follows the charter and status quo.

I’m not sure if a super majority vote on the city council changes anything though, but 9 councilmembers and the mayor are cosponsors on the legislation. 10-3 should be the vote.

So this is pretty much a done deal assuming the Royals get things done on their end?

It could be unless opposition proposes changing the City Charter to force public votes on leases on park land. In which case, this would grind to a halt.

Sounds like the odds are in favor of this stadium getting built. 

Be interesting to see how the state is asked to subsidize this stadium.  Cardinals are already sniffing around for some socialism for Busch 3 upgrades.  I'd guess any effort to spend tax money on KC's stadium will then be used here as well.   

I do think that in about 20-25 years, if downtown STL doesn't improve enough, it's possible the Cards (try to) bolt for the suburbs. However, as with the Chicago Bears new stadium, I'd guess Card's ownership would simply shop the suburban municipalities for the most socialism and the city wouldn't have a whole lot of choice but to match/top. DT STL absent the Cardinals? woof.

soulardx wrote:Be interesting to see how the state is asked to subsidize this stadium.  Cardinals are already sniffing around for some socialism for Busch 3 upgrades.  I'd guess any effort to spend tax money on KC's stadium will then be used here as well.   

I do think that in about 20-25 years, if downtown STL doesn't improve enough, it's possible the Cards (try to) bolt for the suburbs. However, as with the Chicago Bears new stadium, I'd guess Card's ownership would simply shop the suburban municipalities for the most socialism and the city wouldn't have a whole lot of choice but to match/top. DT STL absent the Cardinals? woof.

The State already passed a law to give taxes generated at the existing stadiums towards renovations or new stadiums (applies to the Cardinals too),

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

7:12 PM - 6 days ago

soulardx wrote:Be interesting to see how the state is asked to subsidize this stadium.  Cardinals are already sniffing around for some socialism for Busch 3 upgrades.  I'd guess any effort to spend tax money on KC's stadium will then be used here as well.   

I do think that in about 20-25 years, if downtown STL doesn't improve enough, it's possible the Cards (try to) bolt for the suburbs. However, as with the Chicago Bears new stadium, I'd guess Card's ownership would simply shop the suburban municipalities for the most socialism and the city wouldn't have a whole lot of choice but to match/top. DT STL absent the Cardinals? woof.

The State already passed a law to give taxes generated at the existing stadiums towards renovations or new stadiums (applies to the Cardinals too),

I do recall that from a vague perspective but not the specifics.  Also, the reporting on KC's MLB stadium is always vague on the state $.  I've read 50%, I've read 25%, etc. Hence, my confusion.

In a related note, does anyone have the a link to reporting on the *minutia* on the *new* state subsidy that is currently available to Missouri's team (Cards, Royals, etc).  It's maddeningly hard to find and another reason I am commenting here.

Regardless of the public funding of the stadium, the stadium location is far better than their current stadium and will be a massive economic boon for the city, and will make it much more convenient to take the train to KC to catch a game.

I am interested in what, if any, plans they have for the Truman complex. Surely it would be fiscally beneficial for the city to sell it and have it redeveloped since there will be no teams there anymore.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote:Regardless of the public funding of the stadium, the stadium location is far better than their current stadium and will be a massive economic boon for the city, and will make it much more convenient to take the train to KC to catch a game.

I am interested in what, if any, plans they have for the Truman complex. Surely it would be fiscally beneficial for the city to sell it and have it redeveloped since there will be no teams there anymore.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

County owns the current stadiums

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:Regardless of the public funding of the stadium, the stadium location is far better than their current stadium and will be a massive economic boon for the city, and will make it much more convenient to take the train to KC to catch a game.

I am interested in what, if any, plans they have for the Truman complex. Surely it would be fiscally beneficial for the city to sell it and have it redeveloped since there will be no teams there anymore.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

County owns the current stadiums

Well same question then, does the county plan to sell and/or redevelop them?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:Regardless of the public funding of the stadium, the stadium location is far better than their current stadium and will be a massive economic boon for the city, and will make it much more convenient to take the train to KC to catch a game.

I am interested in what, if any, plans they have for the Truman complex. Surely it would be fiscally beneficial for the city to sell it and have it redeveloped since there will be no teams there anymore.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

County owns the current stadiums

Well same question then, does the county plan to sell and/or redevelop them?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

It’s not really known yet. There are a few years to decide but general “we will do something” comments exist.

StlAlex wrote: ↑

7:29 PM - 6 days ago

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:Regardless of the public funding of the stadium, the stadium location is far better than their current stadium and will be a massive economic boon for the city, and will make it much more convenient to take the train to KC to catch a game.

I am interested in what, if any, plans they have for the Truman complex. Surely it would be fiscally beneficial for the city to sell it and have it redeveloped since there will be no teams there anymore.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

County owns the current stadiums

Well same question then, does the county plan to sell and/or redevelop them?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

County Executive Levota announced a commission to oversee redevelopment ideas, form a vision, then oversee how the area will be redeveloped. He has visions of a mixed-use destination. That attracts people all year, but whether the market can support it remains to be seen. Levota doesn’t want the sports complex to become industrial usages, but that’s what I see it becoming.

^The area around the stadiums just doesn't seem like a great area for high-end developments. Maybe something similar to what they did in Chesterfield Valley with 'The District" would work. I just don't know what the area is like beyond the actual stadiums. 

Ordinance authorizing City Manager Vasquez to enter into negotiations with the Royals for a lease and development agreement passed City Council 11-1.

My firms HQ is at 2345 Grand (across the street from the park and where the stadium could be ) and from what our CEO gathers, they aren’t taking new leases or renewals, appear to be going for a hotel and apartment conversion

Tomorrow at 10am, the Royals will be holding an event at the American Restaurant at Crown Center to announce their plans. In attendance will be Royals owner John Sherman, Mayor Lucas and Governor Kehoe.

Today, word got out that the stadium might not end up at Washington Square Park and instead end up replacing a large chunk of Crown Center. On a map, Crown Center Square, Legoland, Sealife Aquarium, the office building along Gillham, and the one at the southeast corner of Grand and Pershing would all be demolished for the ballpark. The mixed-use district would be built where the stadium has been rumored to go - Washington Square Park and the vacant BlueCross Building site.

My guys over here are split 60-40 as to whether that'll be the case with 60% saying it will be and the 40% saying that the stadium is Washington Square/BlueCross and the "ballpark district" is Crown Center.

The Crown Center option requires moving office tenants to other spaces nearby and, of course, large-scale demolition. But it does have nearby parking structures that might mitigate some commuting attendees concerns about stadium-adjacent parking. One of my guys said the shift was because of the railroad not wanting a stadium bordering its tracks among other things, including Streetcar operations.

Arms race to build the rest of the BPV plan on our side now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑

12:41 AM - 1 day ago

Arms race to build the rest of the BPV plan on our side now?

I don't see any harm in building two more residential towers at Ballpark Village with one last site for office. Might as well go ahead and announce Two Cardinal Way. I think Downtown STL can handle both 2CW and the Millennium replacement and usher in some new high-dollar residential options.