urbanSTL

imthewiz wrote:It looks like there IS a riverfront trail but it looks like a gravel road in this rendering.. Definitely a downgrade but it's there. I also don't like those big concrete walls by the parking lot. Blocks off your view from the stadium. Wonder if those changes are just due to the nature of being on the Mississippi.

I believe that may be the existing flood wall north of the stadium... so it looks like maybe around the power plant the trail mosey's on down to its regular course between the river and flood wall. So not as exciting as once hoped under what appeared under the earlier renderings.

Jim Thomas retweeted
VirginiaYoung ‏@VirginiaYoung 43m43 minutes ago
Fireworks over. Senate passes OA budget 26-8 with $ for Edward Jones Dome without provision restricting $ from going to new stadium. #rams

The bottom one is a screenshot of the video

dbInSouthCity wrote:

Jim Thomas retweeted
VirginiaYoung ‏@VirginiaYoung 43m43 minutes ago
Fireworks over. Senate passes OA budget 26-8 with $ for Edward Jones Dome without provision restricting $ from going to new stadium. #rams

I'm still trying to grasp exactly what this means.

It keeps open the option of extending the bonds, but doesn't guarantee it, right?

rep butler says deal was made to avoid a vote for new stadium bonds

This looks like it will be a "second tier" stadium the minute it opens. It whiffs on the site's potential. Strike 2. Oh well, at least its new. "An iconic stadium worthy of sharing the riverfront with the Gateway Arch" What is this, the 60's again? "An amphitheatre on the river" with virtually no connection to it. Oh wait, I can see the top of the Stan span. Oh wait, I can see that from 15 miles away. I don't know, it's just disappointing to me. Find another 500 million to do it up and then I'd gladly contribute my $30 a year.

Not a fan.

dbInSouthCity wrote:

rep butler says deal was made to avoid a vote for new stadium bonds

I suspect this only applies to the state (even though he says the people of St. Louis). There is still a city ordinance that requires a vote (at least until they get a court to take that bit of democracy away from the people).

Could it mean that they put in a provision in the budget to override the city ord.? Doesn't state law tramp local ?

Typically it's the owner that adds millions (or hundreds of millions, more to spruce it up to their liking. I think it a good start.

New Carson Stadium renderings. Wow....
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

Demoff was on espn101 at 5pm hour

- happy with the progress of the task force
- task force incorporating Rams input
- understands that it's hard for fans are the Rams are going down 2 paths.
2 thing going foward
1- need to improve the team
2.- need to resolve the stadium issue


He did confirm that a lot of people said- lack of action by slay admin and their thinking that Stan had no options in LA caused Stan to look at LA hard

dweebe wrote:

KerrytheKonstructor wrote:This looks like it will be a "second tier" stadium the minute it opens. It whiffs on the site's potential. Strike 2. Oh well, at least its new. "An iconic stadium worthy of sharing the riverfront with the Gateway Arch" What is this, the 60's again? "An amphitheatre on the river" with virtually no connection to it. Oh wait, I can see the top of the Stan span. Oh wait, I can see that from 15 miles away. I don't know, it's just disappointing to me. Find another 500 million to do it up and then I'd gladly contribute my $30 a year.

Not a fan.

We don't even have the money for this and you want to drop hundreds of millions more to build an iconic stadium?

Open air stadiums are going to be pretty similar. The Bengals stadium looks like the Browns stadium looks like the Eagles stadium looks like the Broncos stadium which looks like the Patriots stadium which looks like the Steelers stadium which....

I'll take this over the goofball Viking ship in Minnesota and the robot anus in Atlanta.

I was actually thinking that the extra money could be used to fix the site plan. I'm no critic of architecture. I think the stadium looks fine. The site plan is underwhelming to say the least.

That's just how I'll vote.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Demoff was on espn101 at 5pm hour

- happy with the progress of the task force
- task force incorporating Rams input
- understands that it's hard for fans are the Rams are going down 2 paths.
2 thing going foward
1- need to improve the team
2.- need to resolve the stadium issue


He did confirm that a lot of people said- lack of action by slay admin and their thinking that Stan had no options in LA caused Stan to look at LA hard

BS. Stan didn't look at LA as a reaction to something Mayor Slay did or didn't do. That's not how he works.

Stan looked at LA because he likes LA. Or he looked at LA because he truly does have a master plan to leverage all he can out of Missouri. I don't know. But he didn't do it as some reactionary response to anything.

And again, Mayor Slay and his administration should be applauded for their slow playing of the situation. He was really supposed to go out and trumpet public spending on a stadium to replace one that was WELL less than 20 years old and still had hundreds of millions to be paid off?

That's batspit insane. That'd be the worst kind of irresponsible.

Our leaders have played this situation about as well as anyone could have hoped. It's not like we'd have spent any less than this stadium will cost in public dollars if they'd have acted sooner. We'd probably have been roped into more and it would have meant starting the replacement of a young building even sooner.

St. Louis played this just fine.

Sorry about getting a bit off subject but since and time passed since January did anyone's belief that this stadium will actually get built?? Im going to say no since I believe the Kroneke and the NFL won't accept this proposes since with only 60,000 (needs about 80,000 seats) it won't meet their demand of a top tier stadium. Also I believe the NFL really wants a Team in LA and so does Kroneke. So the NFL might as well let him move would work out great with for both involved. So what do you about this stadium actually getting built???

I say 60/40 it gets built. 50/50 the Rams stay.

But I'm no great prognosticator.

Or here's my favorite:

"A gridiron in the park."

I guess the ending is implied: A gridiron in the park(ing lot we are building...with lots of trees.....that will probably never be planted)

Hey while we're at it, can we just make it the zoo/museum/& stadium district and make sure the next 3 stadiums are all in massive enough parking lots so that we can just bond them out and build the new ones every 20 years on the adjacent parking lot. Maybe have all 3 in a mega lot in McKee's near north.

i,Iive,to,draw wrote:Sorry about getting a bit off subject but since and time passed since January did anyone's belief that this stadium will actually get built?? Im going to say no since I believe the Kroneke and the NFL won't accept this proposes since with only 60,000 (needs about 80,000 seats) it won't meet their demand of a top tier stadium. Also I believe the NFL really wants a Team in LA and so does Kroneke. So the NFL might as well let him move would work out great with for both involved. So what do you about this stadium actually getting built???

Even if you are correct and the team leaves, I think we have to ply this out exactly as Dave Peacock is doing. If they leave let history record that St Louis played by their rules and deserves a team. So far their efforts have not cost you or me one dime.

There will not be 3 LA teams. The Carson deal will move forward and Stan will be odd man out. Boom.

i,Iive,to,draw wrote: Im going to say no since I believe the Kroneke and the NFL won't accept this proposes since with only 60,000 (needs about 80,000 seats) it won't meet their demand of a top tier stadium. Also I believe the NFL really wants a Team in LA and so does Kroneke. So the NFL might as well let him move would work out great with for both involved. So what do you about this stadium actually getting built???

what? it will have 64,000 seats. the new stadium doesn't have to be in a top tier but by default it will be. by the time it opens in 2019, at least 24 NFL stadiums will be older....much older....the top tier was part of the Dome lease, not some NFL stadium standard...and nobody is building 80,000 stadiums (other than LA)....Look at the new stadiums as of late..
Rams and the NFL have worked with Dave peacock on the stadium design, so i think by now someone would have said something about the seat count.


Colts- 62,000
new falcons stadium- 70,000
new vikings stadium- 70,000
updated Solider Field- 61,500

even Demoff said yesterday in the Espn101 interview, that this stadium doesnt have to match LA...its a different market.

also i guess you havent paid attention to the San Diego Chargers and their issue in SD or the Oakland issue...both have a better case for LA and their proposed stadium there than Stan does...