KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The Kansas City Royals intend to build their new downtown ballpark blocks away from T-Mobile Center and the Power & Light District, scrapping two concepts elsewhere in the city for a location that puts the stadium closer to existing entertainment areas.
The Royals revealed plans for the $2 billion-plus ballpark project Tuesday at Kauffman Stadium, two days after the Kansas City Chiefs -- whose Arrowhead Stadium shares the Truman Complex with their existing ballpark -- won their third Super Bowl in the past five years, and one day before the city celebrates another Lombardi Trophy with a parade downtown.
"This is going to be awesome!!! Can't wait!" Chiefs quarterback and Super Bowl MVP Patrick Mahomes wrote on X in response to renderings of the new Royals ballpark.
The parade route Wednesday travels along Grand Avenue to Union Station, or directly past the location of the new ballpark.
"We're the second-smallest city with both an NFL franchise and Major League Baseball club," Royals owner John Sherman said, "and we want to sustain ourselves as a major league city. We want these franchises to thrive here for another 50 years."
The new ballpark -- located in "the heart of Kansas City," per an X post from the team -- will seat about 34,000 fans, or roughly 3,000 fewer than Kauffman Stadium, and the Royals are hopeful it would be ready for the 2028 season. The final design is still under development, but renderings shown Tuesday paid homage to the K's swooping roof lines and iconic center-field fountains.
"The ballpark will have a really great feeling of intimacy," Sherman said.
Kansas City started play at Municipal Stadium in 1969, then moved to Kauffman Stadium in 1973 and extensively renovated the current ballpark from 2009-12.
The Royals unveiled two other locations last fall, one on the eastern edge of downtown and the other across the Missouri River in Clay County, Missouri. Both were met with tepid reaction from fans, many of whom still love Kauffman Stadium, and political infighting ensued over the extension of a sales tax in Jackson County, Missouri, to help pay for the ballpark.
The Royals' ownership group plans to invest more than $1 billion in private funding for the project, but some of the money will come from the 3/8-cent tax, which also will provide funding that the Chiefs plan to use to renovate Arrowhead Stadium.
"I know I'm biased here," Sherman said, "but between what the Chiefs can do out here with an expanded tailgate experience, and what we do down there, we will have two of the best pregame and postgame experiences in all of sports."
The Royals and Chiefs pushed to put the sales tax on the April 2 ballot, and Jackson County legislators initially approved the referendum, only to watch Jackson County executive Frank White -- a five-time All-Star and member of the Royals' Hall of Fame -- veto the measure. Last month, two legislators changed their vote and joined five others in overriding the veto.
That not only put the tax extension on the ballot, it put the onus on the Royals to reveal exactly what voters will be paying for.
Home-field advantage: Chiefs, Royals to stay put
40d
Royals' 11-year Witt deal a shot to build with star
8d
The new ballpark would be situated adjacent to Interstate 670, where the Kansas City Star's former printing press building sits largely vacant, and tie together several disparate neighborhoods into a more cohesive downtown environment.
Just to the north, where new parks would cover the interstate and allow for safe pedestrian traffic, sits Power & Light, the home to many existing bars and restaurants. To the south lies the Crossroads Art District, a trendy enclave anchored by the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts. And to the east is the historic 18th & Vine neighborhood, home to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, the American Jazz Museum and iconic restaurants such as Arthur Bryant's Barbeque.
"The fact of the matter is, we've always been cognizant of this site. It never went away," said Earl Santee, the founder of the Kansas City-based sports architectural giant Populous. "We looked at other sites over time, and this is my 23rd major league ballpark site, and it's timing that leads you to the end, and this is the right timing for this site."
Santee compared the 17.3-acre site to downtown ballparks built in Denver, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis. There are about 20 property owners in the area and the Royals will need to negotiate with each of them to purchase their parcels of land.
"Development is happening in ways that are engaging," Santee said. "This will amplify the brand of Kansas City."
Indeed, the Royals hope the project continues what Sherman called "a golden era" for the former cowtown on the plains.
Over the past decade, Kansas City has hosted two World Series, baseball's All-Star Game and the NFL draft, while a $1.5 billion airport opened just over a year ago. The Kansas City Current of the National Women's Soccer League will open their new purpose-built stadium next month on the north edge of downtown, and Arrowhead Stadium was recently awarded six games -- including a quarterfinal match -- by FIFA for the 2026 World Cup hosted by the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
"This is about a lot more than just a new home for the Royals," said Brooks Sherman, Royals president of business operations, who is unrelated to the team's owner. "This generational project is intended for something great."
“While we are always excited about new carriers, I am thrilled to welcome JetBlue as one of our partners at KCI," said Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas. "With new nonstops to New York and Boston, our flying public in Missouri, Kansas, and beyond will have more access to vital business and cultural offerings in the Northeast, more Royals victories in the American League East, and to JetBlue’s destination network. In 2017, Kansas City, Missouri made a commitment to an improved airport for our entire region. We’re proud to see our voters’ support bearing fruit. Expect more positive announcements as KCI and Kansas City government help lead our reopening and economic recovery.”
Sadly too many people in JACO will give in to their threats SEVEN YEARS BEFORE THE LEASE IS UP.
I'm a "no" vote if for no other reason than the team's performance, but I'd be a "no" vote because it's WAAAY to early to be having this conversation AND because you don't have to be an accountant to understand the numbers are a little too unbelievable. If they weren't complete BS we'd have done this exact thing last time they renovated the TSC.
But again, too many JACO voters are afraid of the team moving, even is only over to the Kansas side of the line. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
If there's one publication that can be counted on for unbiased, objective reporting that doesn't have an ax to grind, it's the Star.
I prefer to get my voting cues directly from John Sherman personally [Reply]
Some things I'm interested to see broken down but have never seen:
1. the city's earnings tax. If the stadium is downtown, I believe that would lead to the city gaining the 1% earnings tax on every dollar earned by a player during a game at the new stadium. So, for the Royals 81 home games, 1% of those checks for Royals players as well as 1% of the checks of every visiting player.
2. The number of employees downtown within walking distance of the stadium. I have several friends who are excited about the prospect of a Crossroads or East Village stadium, but especially Crossroads, because they can go to work, park in their work garage, and then walk or Uber or streetcar to the potential stadium site. Many of these folks work at employers that would buy season ticket passes for their company for entertaining guests and put butts in seats consistently that are not there now.
I'm voting Yes, regardless. Reasons:
1. I'm not tied to the current stadium and understand it's old and needs replacement. The "bad batch of concrete" thing is, unfortunately, a thing that happens at times.
I also don't think tailgating before a baseball game is really something that has to/needs to be supported, either, and the area the stadium is in is not enticing or easy to get to for out-of-town folks.
And finally, I believe the team when it says it will not be at the K past 2030. Voting "NO" isn't a vote to save the K. It's a temporary stay of execution, nothing more.
2. Moving the stadium into a more central location makes access for downtown employees and companies much more convenient and therefore likely.
3. Adding more events in the Crossroads/Power and Light area is good long-term for that entertainment district.
4. Keeping tax revenues from the teams in Jackson County is something I don't see evaluated or mentioned often, if at all, but there's a factor there as well. Even the 1% earnings tax is roughly $3M in revenue for the city (if you base it on average MLB salary, multiply it by 2 teams and base it on 81 home games).
5. I'm, in general, in favor of moves that move the city forward, and I think this is one of them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
If there's one publication that can be counted on for unbiased, objective reporting that doesn't have an ax to grind, it's the Star.
Good to know two PhDs who are experts in economics, one from Kennesaw State and the other from Smith College, have an "ax to grind" against KC sports teams. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Some things I'm interested to see broken down but have never seen:
1. the city's earnings tax. If the stadium is downtown, I believe that would lead to the city gaining the 1% earnings tax on every dollar earned by a player during a game at the new stadium. So, for the Royals 81 home games, 1% of those checks for Royals players as well as 1% of the checks of every visiting player.
4. Keeping tax revenues from the teams in Jackson County is something I don't see evaluated or mentioned often, if at all, but there's a factor there as well. Even the 1% earnings tax is roughly $3M in revenue for the city (if you base it on average MLB salary, multiply it by 2 teams and base it on 81 home games).
Good point. I don't think they're gaining it, but would of course lose it if they moved to Kansas or out of city limits. I could be wrong, but they're inside KCMO limits for that tax now? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Good point. I don't think they're gaining it, but would of course lose it if they moved to Kansas or out of city limits. I could be wrong, but they're inside KCMO limits for that tax now?
The stadium is in KCMO currently, so yes, that's in place. So it would be more of a potential loss if they're outside the KCMO city limits. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Good to know two PhDs who are experts in economics, one from Kennesaw State and the other from Smith College, have an "ax to grind" against KC sports teams.
So, you're only naive when you agree with a story?
Maybe act like you disagree with the story and then tell me why what you said is bullshit.. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
So, you're only naive when you agree with a story?
Maybe act like you disagree with the story and then tell me why what you said is bullshit.. :-)
The Star cited the source of a definitive, evidence-based and unbiased examination that proves stadium projects like this are a net negative to the economic welfare of a city which pays for them. Not only that, this source and another expert looked specifically at the Sherman and Hunt proposal and came to a conclusion which says their projections are complete hokum.
There's naiveté and then there's choosing to be ignorant. [Reply]
