Just speculating here, but maybe they threw together the original renderings assuming the team wanted more parking, and in recent meetings the team has said "No, but we might be interested in a practice field, and new HQ, and these buildings, etc..."
- 8,155
^^ The building just to the north of Shady Jack's is extraordinarily handsome and would be a shame to see it go for parking. I also can't wait to hear more on the Stamping Lofts/Farmworks project. And whether eminent domain is on the table.
Peacock continues to impress and deliver.
To someone with a more educated eye: in the articles reporting the agreements with the railroad, didn't they talk about the diverted tracks running under pedestrian walkways between stadium and parking? I really liked the mental image of visual juxtaposition of heavy industry coexisting with modern architecture for fans and visitors to the stadium. Someone above mentioned the new practice field traverses the tracks, however on the north end of the stadium it seems like the tracks should be visible in the 3D rendering looking southwest.
I like the changes to the roof lines and agree it has a more modern edge to it. I kind of liked the high light standards for some visual height, however, the new roof and overhang kind of makes up for it. The north end looks like it has some cool elevated areas to walk between concourses also. No change from before but the blue and gold seats make a such a big difference in creating a "Rams" environment. I also like the idea of the team administration being downtown. Coaching and player visits and recruiting efforts including possible metro link from airport to office/facility and potentially more downtown amenity usage is a good thing. Not that it really matters, but more players would probably live in the central corridor as opposed to St. Charles as I've heard some do. The Earth City facility is nice, however and it would seem odd to leave it all together if the team stays.
With the practice field now it is reminding me even more of Cincinnati's Paul Brown riverside set up as an existing comparison.
Starting at 1:40 you begin to see the relationship between downtown, highway cut off, stadium, practice facility, bridge. With the growing Banks project, I know that some of the open ground will fill in between the two stadia with nice mixed-use, and the southern face of Cincy's downtown is more dense which helps off set it, but there is still a decent amount of surface parking on the eastern side of Paul Brown which serves as the "welcome mat" to Cincy's riverfront. I think as long as our pedestrian connections between downtown, Four Seasons, the Landing, and this new stadium are strong, it can work well.
To someone with a more educated eye: in the articles reporting the agreements with the railroad, didn't they talk about the diverted tracks running under pedestrian walkways between stadium and parking? I really liked the mental image of visual juxtaposition of heavy industry coexisting with modern architecture for fans and visitors to the stadium. Someone above mentioned the new practice field traverses the tracks, however on the north end of the stadium it seems like the tracks should be visible in the 3D rendering looking southwest.
I like the changes to the roof lines and agree it has a more modern edge to it. I kind of liked the high light standards for some visual height, however, the new roof and overhang kind of makes up for it. The north end looks like it has some cool elevated areas to walk between concourses also. No change from before but the blue and gold seats make a such a big difference in creating a "Rams" environment. I also like the idea of the team administration being downtown. Coaching and player visits and recruiting efforts including possible metro link from airport to office/facility and potentially more downtown amenity usage is a good thing. Not that it really matters, but more players would probably live in the central corridor as opposed to St. Charles as I've heard some do. The Earth City facility is nice, however and it would seem odd to leave it all together if the team stays.
With the practice field now it is reminding me even more of Cincinnati's Paul Brown riverside set up as an existing comparison.
Starting at 1:40 you begin to see the relationship between downtown, highway cut off, stadium, practice facility, bridge. With the growing Banks project, I know that some of the open ground will fill in between the two stadia with nice mixed-use, and the southern face of Cincy's downtown is more dense which helps off set it, but there is still a decent amount of surface parking on the eastern side of Paul Brown which serves as the "welcome mat" to Cincy's riverfront. I think as long as our pedestrian connections between downtown, Four Seasons, the Landing, and this new stadium are strong, it can work well.
- 182
dweebe wrote: That's 7.36 wins per year for LA vs. 5.18 wins per year for STL. Attendance per win: 114,309 in LA, 184,266 in STL.
From a capacity argument as well, the Anaheim Stadium had a capacity of 69,000 for football and the Edward Jones Dome 66,000 (according to Wikipedia). I laugh when I think at Kroenke thinking he's going to fill an 80,000 seat stadium even WITH the difference in Metro-Area populations St. Louis vs L.A.
- 1,610
If the Inglewood location is deemed "too close to LAX" and will be a terrorist target, wouldn't railroad tracks UNDER the stadium also be considered a terrorist target? I'd have to imagine some sort of flammable/explosive materials are transported by train, though I'm surely not going to Google that to confirm/deny.
- 8,155
^ Not for sure, but it looks like the tracks might be relocated to the west of the stadium and tunneled underneath the second field facility. (Also, that silly report from Tom Ridge paid for by the Raiders is being pretty much dismissed from what I've seen.)
- 3,433
Maybe we could suggest to the railroads that they not schedule those rolling bomb trains under the stadium for 3 hours on the 10 game days. Save them for a little earlier or later in the day.ricke002 wrote:If the Inglewood location is deemed "too close to LAX" and will be a terrorist target, wouldn't railroad tracks UNDER the stadium also be considered a terrorist target? I'd have to imagine some sort of flammable/explosive materials are transported by train, though I'm surely not going to Google that to confirm/deny.
They don't have problems running trains under Safeco and CenturyLink in Seattle.gary kreie wrote:Maybe we could suggest to the railroads that they not schedule those rolling bomb trains under the stadium for 3 hours on the 10 game days. Save them for a little earlier or later in the day.ricke002 wrote:If the Inglewood location is deemed "too close to LAX" and will be a terrorist target, wouldn't railroad tracks UNDER the stadium also be considered a terrorist target? I'd have to imagine some sort of flammable/explosive materials are transported by train, though I'm surely not going to Google that to confirm/deny.
- 3,433
Here is the HOK link for all 7 of the new renderings and an option to download hi-res version via dropbox.
http://www.hok.com/about/news/2015/03/0 ... -released/
http://www.hok.com/about/news/2015/03/0 ... -released/
- 1,610
I think those are adjacent to, not under, the Seattle fields.dweebe wrote:They don't have problems running trains under Safeco and CenturyLink in Seattle.gary kreie wrote:Maybe we could suggest to the railroads that they not schedule those rolling bomb trains under the stadium for 3 hours on the 10 game days. Save them for a little earlier or later in the day.ricke002 wrote:If the Inglewood location is deemed "too close to LAX" and will be a terrorist target, wouldn't railroad tracks UNDER the stadium also be considered a terrorist target? I'd have to imagine some sort of flammable/explosive materials are transported by train, though I'm surely not going to Google that to confirm/deny.
I'm just throwing that out as what someone could use as an argument against this, as stupid as it may be.
- 597
I really like the idea of having the practice facilities at the stadium site. I don't believe Earth City can hold a large crowd, last year they set a record average attendance of only somewhere around 1500. Compare that to Washington, which averaged 10,968 for roughly 165,000 last year. I wonder what kind of crowd downtown practices could hold and ultimately attract. The scrimmages at the dome the three years they had it usually brought in around 15,000. It's not 81 dates but Peacock is leaving no stone unturned.
- 1,320
It looks like the buildings along Broadway are now spared. Someone is listening.
- 3,433
Couple of comments.
1. Interesting that they show the replay screen as non-rectangular -- guess that's what it is.
2. Where is the press box?
3. I like the promenade bridge going from the high parking lot to the top of the lower bowl. You can park high and straight in.
4. What are those areas in the first row in the middle of the sides and ends? I'm hoping standing room only areas right in front, since studies show that those are the rows that get the crowd revved up.
5. In the last sketch of the 7, with the panorama, does it look like some concourses are enclosed in glass ? Can't quit tell.
6. I might have thought they would leave the South end more open, for a view of the Arch -- especially from the press box.
1. Interesting that they show the replay screen as non-rectangular -- guess that's what it is.
2. Where is the press box?
3. I like the promenade bridge going from the high parking lot to the top of the lower bowl. You can park high and straight in.
4. What are those areas in the first row in the middle of the sides and ends? I'm hoping standing room only areas right in front, since studies show that those are the rows that get the crowd revved up.
5. In the last sketch of the 7, with the panorama, does it look like some concourses are enclosed in glass ? Can't quit tell.
6. I might have thought they would leave the South end more open, for a view of the Arch -- especially from the press box.
^Gives a prompt to log in to twitter to see the link. What is it?
- 271
Just that Kevin Demoff "favorited" tweets containing photographs of the new renderings released today.blzhrpmd2 wrote:^Gives a prompt to log in to twitter to see the link. What is it?
Shouldn't be that surprising, though, should it? I mean, he has literally been sitting in the room with Peacock, Blitz and Grubman offering input of what they should look like, after all
Starting to come around on this stadium. It's getting there.
- 8,155
^ the latest renderings were a mixed-bag for me.... good that they kept the Shady Jack's row but bad that it didn't keep Stamping Lofts. Also, it looks like the riverfront promenade may have been scaled back.
I'm also very skeptical about the extra field/tranining center or whatever it is.... what we really need on the riverfront is a dense mixed-use, "Banks" style development and this eats up even more land that would make such a project even more difficult... if it makes clear economic impact by say bringing in a $150 million payroll under the city's earnings tax that might be one thing (and that would only bring in $1.5 million) and other impacts depending on how much it is used, but in general we need people living and working on the Riverfront.
I'm also very skeptical about the extra field/tranining center or whatever it is.... what we really need on the riverfront is a dense mixed-use, "Banks" style development and this eats up even more land that would make such a project even more difficult... if it makes clear economic impact by say bringing in a $150 million payroll under the city's earnings tax that might be one thing (and that would only bring in $1.5 million) and other impacts depending on how much it is used, but in general we need people living and working on the Riverfront.
- 3,433
Agreed. The Stan Span is nice and all, but HOK should take a page out of the Busch Stadium playbook (which it wrote), and open up views of the Arch and skyline to the south and southeast, instead of that chunk they've taken out of the northeast corner.gary kreie wrote:6. I might have thought they would leave the South end more open, for a view of the Arch -- especially from the press box.
So this just occurred to me. And I doubt it's right.
But there's no chance that added field and facility has anything to do with a planned MLS club, is there?
But there's no chance that added field and facility has anything to do with a planned MLS club, is there?
- 109
Goldman Sachs to finance Chargers move to Los Angeles. Goldman Sachs wouldn't be apart of a bluff; this is moving fast.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... gers-move/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... gers-move/
I saw Goldman Sachs mentioned in passing a couple weeks ago when the Carson news broke, but not as clearly tied as this.
On that note, how about a cap tip to local reporter Andy Strickland who absolutely nailed this. He didn't make it a big report or anything, but he mentioned on the radio a couple months back that the Chargers were working with Goldman Sachs to finance an LA move. It was promptly denied, and he was ripped by non-STL people as knowing nothing.
But he got it quite right.
On that note, how about a cap tip to local reporter Andy Strickland who absolutely nailed this. He didn't make it a big report or anything, but he mentioned on the radio a couple months back that the Chargers were working with Goldman Sachs to finance an LA move. It was promptly denied, and he was ripped by non-STL people as knowing nothing.
But he got it quite right.
- 271
I can't substantiate this, but I think I read that Frank Cusamano said it's actually part of a planned football-themed recreational venue for fans. If I can find where I read that or if he said that, I'll post more later.jstriebel wrote:So this just occurred to me. And I doubt it's right.
But there's no chance that added field and facility has anything to do with a planned MLS club, is there?
In my opinion, this is actually the big news of the day, far bigger than anything released over on our end. The Carson stadium is clearly no joke, as GS has declared intentions to cover any operating losses and/or unforeseen stadium costs for the Chargers for the first few seasons. If the Chargers and Raiders don't get their way in their respective markets, the Carson Stadium has teeth. It can happen. And the NFL probably would want it to if solutions can't be reached in SD and OAK.WendellOPruitt wrote:Goldman Sachs to finance Chargers move to Los Angeles. Goldman Sachs wouldn't be apart of a bluff; this is moving fast.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... gers-move/
No joke. It also begs the question of whether or not that same source of his has anything more to say.jstriebel wrote: On that note, how about a cap tip to local reporter Andy Strickland who absolutely nailed this. He didn't make it a big report or anything, but he mentioned on the radio a couple months back that the Chargers were working with Goldman Sachs to finance an LA move. It was promptly denied, and he was ripped by non-STL people as knowing nothing.
But he got it quite right.
- 8,155
^ I see Cusamano had a tweet about a football themed park... I guess we'll hear more soon.