Why Kansas City Needs a New Downtown Arena

by Bill Worley

Negativity and nay-saying are professional sports in Kansas City. For years, pessimists have criticized progressive ideas, and already, skeptics are condemning the idea of a new downtown arena.

"It's too expensive. Isn't Kemper Arena underutilized as it is? Why not just renovate Kemper? Do we really need it?" This city needs a new downtown arena, and it can be done, in spite of the negativity. A new arena will complement the new Performing Arts Center and the expansion of Bartle Hall. Together, these project will serve as catalysts for development in the Downtown loop, bringing people from every corner of the metropolitan area and beyond into Kansas City's Downtown. The positives of building a new downtown arena far outweigh the negatives.

So here are some answers to points raised by arena pessimists. Considering the City's budget shortfall, some have wondered how the city can afford such an expense. The decisions about how to pay for a new arena are still being made, but it is likely that there will be a package of financing options, which may or may not include a tax increase or support from the City's budget. Besides, a well-planned and well-run new arena not only will generate new revenues for the city, but it will also leverage additional development in the surrounding area.

A new downtown arena will help us compete to regain the Big XII Basketball Tournament, a long-standing and much- loved Kansas City tradition. The Tournament returns to Kansas City in March 2005, but the likelihood of the Big XII choosing Kansas City as a future tournament site without a new arena is low. It is also unlikely Kansas City will be considered to host games for the NCAA Basketball Tournaments without a much-improved facility. Kemper simply cannot compete with the spectacular new arenas around the country.

Is drawing these sporting events alone enough reason to build a new facility? Of course not. But the recent arena feasibility study indicates that if a new arena is built and run in a first class manner, it will be full on more than 150 dates, draw a total attendance of more than 853,000 people--not counting any NCAA or Big XII basketball events it might draw--and produce a profit of between $480,000 and $2,000,000 annually.

So why not just renovate Kemper? There are many reasons, the first of which is the fact that it has already been renovated, and it still doesn't come close to any of its competitors. The newer arenas across the country have better site lines, more amenities, more concession and retail space.

Under the plan to build a new arena there is also a reuse plan for Kemper that will make it a more practical facility for the American Royal. With greater access to Kemper, the Royal has suggested it can draw more equestrian and agriculture related shows to the facility than it currently does.

There is also the issue of arena size. Some believe that unless we build a new arena with 25,000 seats, it will be a waste of time and money. This, too, is a fallacy. There are no 25,000-seat arenas in the United States. In fact, of the eight facilities being used during the first three rounds of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, which are not domes, basketball seating capacities are as low as 12,210 and as high as 20,500, averaging just over 17,000 seats. With a new 18,000-seat arena we can and will compete for national events.

The nay-sayers want to know why we would spend this kind of money on an arena when our schools and our streets need significant help. The answer is simple. Economic development--in the form of a new arena and new surrounding development--makes money for the city. These new tax revenues can then be spent on paving streets, picking up trash, and cleaning city parks. In sum, a new arena is an investment in Kansas City's future.