Legoland in Kansas City? Would you go?
Legoland has selected the Kansas City area as the site for its second U.S. theme park, and is in the process of trying to build public support for tax increment financing to help pay for the project.
The new Legoland would be built in Lees Summit, in the southeast suburbs of Kansas City. The development would include a Sea Life Aquarium (the first in the U.S.), as well as a hotel and shopping center.
Legoland and its development partner are seeking more than $180 million in subsidies to help pay for the estimated $540 million project. This week, Lego held an open house to try to sell local residents on the project, in advance of applying for the tax breaks.
What do you think? Would you go to a Legoland Kansas City? Is Kansas City the best location for a second U.S. Legoland? Should theme park companies get tax breaks to build new parks?
I dont know about Kansas. The first park is where? California? Seems a little close in proximity. With it being in Kansas would that make it a seasonal park? Seems like a lot of variables for a park that gets alot of good word of mouth. A park further east might have done better, or even Texas....a place where you can run it year round.
Kansas is an interesting choice to say the least. I guess the ultimate question is why Kansas? I would have preferred to see it built on the east coast, perhaps in Virginia like their original intentions for their first park.
Interesting choice. Kansas City already has a Cedar Fair park, but it is still in a market thin with competition, and thin with population. I would have envisioned the next Legoland on the east coast, but hey...who am I? Walt Disney was an hour or two away from making a commitment to build Disney World in St. Louis...before Busch and his executives insulted him and he changed his mind. Personally I thought North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, somewhere like that, but I guess they know what they are doing.
While I am going to Kansas City this summer, and visting Worlds of Fun while also going to a WWI museum and see Pres. Trumans home, I wouldnt make a special trip to go to a Lego Theme park. If I was in the area I might go see it if it wasnt that expensive, but since I dont have small kids anymore it doesnt mean that much and im not that much of a coaster credit monger to just go there and ride some kiddie coasters.
Well I think it'll be ok for them but as I was discussing w/my hubby last night, since Astroworld has disappeared (RIP) there's no other theme parks, even smaller family-owned type parks closeby (that I know of). It'd be nice if something else were put in around the Houston area. We have Kemah bdwalk but that's on the coast. Other parks are way far out of the way to get to. Too bad Legoland didn't come here to search for their next location, it would've been nice. KC already has Worlds of Fun but at least ppl will have a second park to visit there so I guess it won't be all bad. I'm happy for them I guess. It's nice to have a new park to goto but would've been nice to have it here or at least some other park if not LegoLand. There's really nothing to do here (theme park-wise anyway). :)
Cities give money to businesses in the form of tax breaks all the time, but I'm not sure this is a great deal for KC. If you think about most of the jobs you'll pick up at a theme park, they're pretty low paying and will not be a huge boost for your local economy. If we were talking about a Disney resort, then you could count on a lot of hotel nights and other tourism dollars getting added to the pot and I could see it being very worth while. But how many people will travel and stay in a hotel to see a Legoland park? I see it becoming a mostly local attraction.
I wonder if Legoland is not more comfortable in slightly-off-the-beaten-path locations. Legoland California could have been in Garden Grove, down the street from Disneyland. Or near downtown San Diego, close to SeaWorld. But instead, Lego chose Carlsbad, in between San Diego and Orange County. It's a lovely place, but not one with a massive number of nearby residents and tourists, as the other locations would have delivered.
I lived in Kansas for a while before coming down to FL. The weather there in the winter is horrible, summer heat will hit the triple digits often, and KC is just an ugly city with not a whole lot to do. I could not imagine taking a vacation there. But then, if Worlds of Fun does fine business in that area, I don't see why Legoland wouldn't survive. I just think that there are better places for it than Kansas City.
Wow, Kansas City? That seems a bit odd. And honestly, coming from the East coast, I probably would not go to Kansas City. If I am going to fly to go to parks then I would just assume go back to California...at least there, we can do Disney, Sea World, San Diego Zoo, etc. We really loved Legoland so we wish them well, but you won't see us making a trip to Kansas just to see the second park.
Just to clarify, especially for those outside the U.S., Kansas City and the suburb where Legoland would be located are in the state of Missouri.
Perhaps the whole Kansas City pitch is some attempt to get land prices down or better tax breaks etc from another more fruitfall alternative location(s)
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.