Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 540

Thread: Kauffman Stadium / Royals Stadium

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,103

    Kauffman Stadium / Royals Stadium

    I found this article on the Royals website. I think the plans look great and enhance the original stadium design very well. It doesn't look like a glaring, out of place addition, it works with the original design. I like the plans for the bullpens too, having them run parallel with the outfield wall instead of how they are now. Outfield seating is needed but they aren't overdoing it and ruining the view of the outfield and the fountains. The outfield prominade with restaurants, etc. is a good idea since the stadium is not in the middle of a restaurant/bar district. I haven't been out to Kauffman since I was a kid but I can't wait to catch a game there in a few years since I live across the state.

    http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/new...t=.jsp&c_id=kc

  2. #2
    It's good they didn't drastically alter the seating arrangement because Kaufmann Stadium is probably the best park to come out of the 1960s-1970s era. Unlike Anaheim Stadium, there would be no need to make it more baseball friendly.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteU View Post
    It's good they didn't drastically alter the seating arrangement because Kaufmann Stadium is probably the best park to come out of the 1960s-1970s era. Unlike Anaheim Stadium, there would be no need to make it more baseball friendly.

    Yeah I hope they don't overdo it. Remember the old "if it ain't broke don't fix it" addage first. That said, it sounds like some of the upgrades should be pretty good.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteU View Post
    It's good they didn't drastically alter the seating arrangement because Kaufmann Stadium is probably the best park to come out of the 1960s-1970s era. Unlike Anaheim Stadium, there would be no need to make it more baseball friendly.
    For my money, you can strike the "probably;" it IS the best park from that era. I lived in KC when I was a very small child, and my parents tell me that they took me to a Royals game at the old Municipal Stadium. I wish I could remember it. I hadn't been to KC since I was five years old, until this past summer. I went to the place where I used to live 34 years before, and it was remarkably unchanged. I then took my boys to a Royals-As game at Kaufman Stadium, and I was just captivated by the architecture of that ballpark. I'm glad they are renovating the place and not simply building a new stadium. The plans for the renovations do look great. I'll have to make another visit to KC in a few years to see it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    346
    Weren't there plans for a different renovation a few months back? I remember seeing renderings for some renovations that appeared different than these.

  6. #6
    I don't understand, why did the Royals opt for this design?
    In my very brief opinion, this is a half assed design that will not do much good.
    I read if isn't broke don't fix it, but if that's the case why do the Royals struggle to draw fans and create revenues?

    From my view it seems the Royals need a new ballpark with luxury boxes and other sources to get revenues to increase payroll, this new renovation seems to give them less than what a new ballpark would and frankly doesn't look brand new or retro.

    I would have preferred a new state of the art facility with gorgeous water fountains.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Van City
    Posts
    3,662
    Quote Originally Posted by bluecountry View Post
    I don't understand, why did the Royals opt for this design?
    In my very brief opinion, this is a half assed design that will not do much good.
    I read if isn't broke don't fix it, but if that's the case why do the Royals struggle to draw fans and create revenues?

    From my view it seems the Royals need a new ballpark with luxury boxes and other sources to get revenues to increase payroll, this new renovation seems to give them less than what a new ballpark would and frankly doesn't look brand new or retro.

    I would have preferred a new state of the art facility with gorgeous water fountains.
    Are you serious? It has been proven that a new ballpark doesn't necessarily make a team any better. And to answer the part in bold, it's because they're the worst team in the MLB!!! It has nothing to do with Kauffman Stadium.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Richmond Hill Phoenix View Post
    Are you serious? It has been proven that a new ballpark doesn't necessarily make a team any better. And to answer the part in bold, it's because they're the worst team in the MLB!!! It has nothing to do with Kauffman Stadium.
    How is a renovation going to help?
    Doesn't the current stadium lack the luxury boxes and infastructure?
    A new ballpark does not equal winning, but it can lead to more revenues to help aid in payroll.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Van City
    Posts
    3,662
    A new stadium will draw fans in for a few years, but it really is a band-aid solution.

    Also, it is much more economical to renovate an existing facility than it is to build a new one. Kauffman Stadium is a great park, and there is no reason to replace it with a generic HOK park. I am worried that the renovation will lessen the originality of the place, but at least it's not one of the neo-cookie cutters we have today.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Richmond Hill Phoenix View Post
    A new stadium will draw fans in for a few years, but it really is a band-aid solution.

    Also, it is much more economical to renovate an existing facility than it is to build a new one. Kauffman Stadium is a great park, and there is no reason to replace it with a generic HOK park. I am worried that the renovation will lessen the originality of the place, but at least it's not one of the neo-cookie cutters we have today.
    1) Isn't Kauffman a cookie cutter 70s stadium as it stands?
    2) Won't keeping it just be a real band aid, having them stay in a old facility that can't get people today and has old infrastructure with the retro Wrigley appeal?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Van City
    Posts
    3,662
    Quote Originally Posted by bluecountry View Post
    1) Isn't Kauffman a cookie cutter 70s stadium as it stands?
    No, Kauffman definitley is not a cookie cutter stadium.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluecountry View Post
    2) Won't keeping it just be a real band aid, having them stay in a old facility that can't get people today and has old infrastructure with the retro Wrigley appeal?
    You are making the statement that "the facility can't get people". That is false. It is the team itself that cannot "get" people. Fix the team, and the people will come. Kauffman is not even the problem. That being said, upgrades are always nice.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Richmond Hill Phoenix View Post
    No, Kauffman definitley is not a cookie cutter stadium.
    You are making the statement that "the facility can't get people". That is false. It is the team itself that cannot "get" people. Fix the team, and the people will come. Kauffman is not even the problem. That being said, upgrades are always nice.
    If Kauffman isn't the problem then why do they have so much problems generating revenues that new ballparks with luxury boxes and flashy buildings tend to repair?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by bluecountry View Post
    If Kauffman isn't the problem then why do they have so much problems generating revenues that new ballparks with luxury boxes and flashy buildings tend to repair?
    Correlation implies causation!

    How much has the payroll gone up for the Pirates since PNC opened? My guess is, not dramatically more than the general increase across the league. Bud and his cronies want you to believe that publicly financed stadiums will fix every issue with the team and the city, but it's not the case.

    Fenway has comparatively few luxury boxes, little seating and few amenities, and is one of the top revenue generating facilities in sports. Same goes with Yankee Stadium. They're fortunate to be in major media markets, with huge population bases that can spend money on the team. KC is a football town with a small population. Thus, they can't compete with the heavy hitters, whether they're playing in HOK Crapfest #27, or the beautiful Kauffman Stadium.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by bluecountry View Post
    1) Isn't Kauffman a cookie cutter 70s stadium as it stands?
    Calling Royals Stadium a cookie-cutter is like calling Michael Moore a neo-con.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by bluecountry View Post
    If Kauffman isn't the problem then why do they have so much problems generating revenues that new ballparks with luxury boxes and flashy buildings tend to repair?
    Actually, Kauffman Stadium does have luxury boxes.

    And no, it is definetly not a cookie cutter. The exterior may leave a little to be desired, but the interior is beautiful and very unique.

    Do you think Wrigley and Fenway always drew capacity crowds? No, for many years they were considered expendable and even an eyesore. Only with time did they come to gain the classic status that they now have, and which helps bring in crowds. I honestly feel Kauffman Stadium will end up the same way in time. Along with Dodger Stadium, it was a true baseball-only gem in an era of mostly forgetable multi-purpose ballparks.
    Last edited by PeteU; 06-13-2007 at 04:09 AM.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteU View Post
    Actually, Kauffman Stadium does have luxury boxes.

    And no, it is definetly not a cookie cutter. The exterior may leave a little to be desired, but the interior is beautiful and very unique.

    Do you think Wrigley and Fenway always drew capacity crowds? No, for many years they were considered expendable and even an eyesore. Only with time did they come to gain the classic status that they now have, and which helps bring in crowds. I honestly feel Kauffman Stadium will end up the same way in time. Along with Dodger Stadium, it was a true baseball-only gem in an era of mostly forgetable multi-purpose ballparks.
    i think its funny how what you say is so true. fenway and wrigley were looked down upon. just like this boards favorite old stadium, ebbets was hated at the time it existed. but now what 50 years since? we look back on it as being an absolute gem of a park. its all relative really. if any of these HOK stadiums are around for 40-50 years then im sure people on boards just like these will worship them.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    359
    BUMP

    Royals Stadium is my favorite stadium from the 1970ís era and I hope the enhancements donít ruin what is already a great park. Because the Royals have been so bad for so long, people tend to forget that the Royals were one of baseballís dominant teams for over a decade and regularly drew 2 million + annually to Royals Stadium. Back then, they were considered anything but ďsmall marketĒ Here are two photos, the first from the Inaugural Opening Night on 4.10.73 against Texas with 39,464 in attendance, and the second is shot from the late 1970ís or early 1980ís showing Royals Stadium in all her majesty (pun intended) in addition to its architectural marvelous neighbor, Arrowhead Stadium.

    Of note, on opening night, the signature water fountains beyond the outfield were not yet operational.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    412
    Here's I shot I took of Kauffman Stadium from the upper deck when I was there in August 2006
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Danielh41; 10-04-2007 at 07:17 PM. Reason: Picture was too big--I hate those horizontal scroll bars.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Section 538, Row 1
    Posts
    7,018
    Love the fact that there's a "Denny's" visible in the distance.
    X
    This is home now - Citi Field, capacity 41,800 - and every seat in this ballpark seemingly filled, some standees as well, anticipating a piece of history as delivered by Mike Pelfrey, the 25-year-old from Wichita, Kansas. Into a windup, his first pitch in the history of Citi Field, a fastball for a called strike to Jody Gerut. Gerut off to a .214 start with no homers and one RBI. - Howie Rose calls the very first pitch thrown at Citi Field, April 13, 2009

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Richmond Hill Phoenix View Post
    Are you serious? It has been proven that a new ballpark doesn't necessarily make a team any better. And to answer the part in bold, it's because they're the worst team in the MLB!!! It has nothing to do with Kauffman Stadium.
    Absolutely true! New stadiums are empty promises. Remember these words in Cincinnati, "give us a new stadium so we can increase payroll and compete." In Pittsburgh, "ditto." In San Francisco, "we are building a new stadium so we can compete. We didn't realize that overpaying ballplayers from the old folks home would cut into our resources." Seattle, too. New stadiums and payroll went down. Lies! Lies! And now in St. Louis, the writing is on the wall, but I just can't make it out yet.

    I do like what KC is trying to do. They are finally spending some of that EXTRA revenue from the revenue sharing program. Really, the only way that program will work is if they put in a league minimum salary. Otherwise, greedy owners can easily pocket millions of dollars that they earned purposely alienating their fans.

    Fix up that stadium. Make a nice place to see a ballgame even better. I think Arrowhead is getting work done, too. Maybe someone from KC can confirm.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    359
    Another photo of the Harry S. Truman Sports Complex from the 1980's, but this time in color.

    It is funny that Chiefs were one of the AFL-AFC's best teams and within a year or two after moving to Arrowhead in 1973, sank to the ranks of irrelevant in the NFL and made the playoffs only once 1990. Arrowhead, as awesome as it is was, drew frightenlingly small crowds during that period while KC became a Royals town with annual visits to the playoffs. Whenever I thought of KC, I always thought Royals, not Chiefs.

    Fast forward to the 1990's and with the Chiefs becoming good and the Royals declining, Arrowhead became on of the most feared places to visit and the now Kauffman Stadium became a ghost town. Now KC is known as a Chiefs town by the rest of the country and the Royals are an afterthought.

    That's for those posters who don't realize that things go in cycles and teams that draw bad now didn't always do so in the past and visa versa.

    It would be interesting to research and see if during all those Royals playoff appearances back in the day, if there was ever a Chief's home game the same day and how the complex handled it. Obviously they are never scheduled deliberately on the same day during the regular season. KC poster's anyone? NFL games are set at 1pm and 4pm, so I'm sure if the Royals were playing at the same time that their playoff game was scheduled for night. Food for thought.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    10,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Monarch View Post
    I do like what KC is trying to do. They are finally spending some of that EXTRA revenue from the revenue sharing program. Really, the only way that program will work is if they put in a league minimum salary. Otherwise, greedy owners can easily pocket millions of dollars that they earned purposely alienating their fans.
    Arrowhead is also being upgraded.

    The problem with the Royals is not that they aren't willing to spend money, but they run their baseball operations so poorly. They have never just taken the revenue sharing money and just stuck it in their pocket. Frankly, if you root for a team that pays revenue sharing money then you want the team that gets it to pocket it.
    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by KCGHOST View Post
    Arrowhead is also being upgraded.

    The problem with the Royals is not that they aren't willing to spend money, but they run their baseball operations so poorly. They have never just taken the revenue sharing money and just stuck it in their pocket. Frankly, if you root for a team that pays revenue sharing money then you want the team that gets it to pocket it.
    So, is it time to clean house? Walt Jocketty is available.

  24. #24
    Take a good, long last look at this icon:



    They're tearing it down this week.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
    Take a good, long last look at this icon:



    They're tearing it down this week.
    The new one is such an abomination. 150' tall? Kauffman is beautiful because it has a human scale, now we're going to obliterate that with technology that's not needed in the first place.

    I'm happy they're keeping Kauffman instead of replacing it with some stupid red brick park, but glass curtain walls and an obscene scoreboard aren't helping.

Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •