If they destroy everything for surface parking then a probability becomes a certainty. If they left the buildings there and built the stadium as well I really don't see it as a stretch to imagine them being rehabbed, plus some new construction in Lacledes Landing, but the bones have to be there to build on.
- 8,155
^ right. The site plan put forth leaves little room for development in the project area so we really couldn't even get a long term Banks-type redevelopment. And it is too isolated to have any real impact on neighborhoods across the interstate or in the north riverfront warehouse district. Best we could hope for imo would be something really cool coming to the Union Electric building (but there don't seem to be any real plans for what that may be nor a cost estimate to make it happen) and maybe a bit of upgrade to Laclede's Landing and the few buildings on Broadway.
A slender hotel will be placed along one of the liner spots in front of one of the Wells Fargo towers being built as part of the mixed-use Vikings Downtown East project:
![]()
(the stadium is peeking behind the hotel)
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/m ... d-mix.html
Unfortunately I just don't see how dense development like this could go into the proposed North Riverfront site plan w/o moving the stadium further north. While it would be a bit misleading to show a bunch of fancy towers aka the Ballpark Village fiasco, it would be nice to see how planners might think some of those parking lots could be turned into productive use with a longer term plan. Aside from that triangular one by the casino I don't think there is a lot of opportunity, though.
(the stadium is peeking behind the hotel)
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/m ... d-mix.html
Unfortunately I just don't see how dense development like this could go into the proposed North Riverfront site plan w/o moving the stadium further north. While it would be a bit misleading to show a bunch of fancy towers aka the Ballpark Village fiasco, it would be nice to see how planners might think some of those parking lots could be turned into productive use with a longer term plan. Aside from that triangular one by the casino I don't think there is a lot of opportunity, though.
- 9,570
here is how this will end.
Task Force will have a plan and the funding ready in Oct, just needing the Rams to sign off
SD/Oakland Carson site is a year + away from being construction ready
NFL wont wait for that, Rams will apply for relocation and the owners will sign off on it with a statement about the arbitration process and how the was ruled in the Rams favor.
San Diego will be given another year to save the Chargers, if it doesnt the Chargers will go to LA to join the Rams in Inglewood- this is what Stan wants, he wants to be the first team in. Chargers probably dont want that but they will be rewarded somehow by the NFL by being the 2nd team in. If the Chargers do workout something in SD, they will stay and the Raiders will get a shot to join Stan.
If SD doesnt work something out, Chargers join the Rams as outlined
final move will be the Raiders- either join the 49ers in Santa Clara or move to St.Louis, because they wont get anything in Oakland.
Task Force will have a plan and the funding ready in Oct, just needing the Rams to sign off
SD/Oakland Carson site is a year + away from being construction ready
NFL wont wait for that, Rams will apply for relocation and the owners will sign off on it with a statement about the arbitration process and how the was ruled in the Rams favor.
San Diego will be given another year to save the Chargers, if it doesnt the Chargers will go to LA to join the Rams in Inglewood- this is what Stan wants, he wants to be the first team in. Chargers probably dont want that but they will be rewarded somehow by the NFL by being the 2nd team in. If the Chargers do workout something in SD, they will stay and the Raiders will get a shot to join Stan.
If SD doesnt work something out, Chargers join the Rams as outlined
final move will be the Raiders- either join the 49ers in Santa Clara or move to St.Louis, because they wont get anything in Oakland.
^ With that analysis, looks like St. Louis is screwed. No guarantee that Raiders will want to move to St. Louis. Will be a big blow to regional pride.
Don't forget the Raiders multiple flirtations with San Antonio and that city's renovations to the Alamodome. I still the Raiders outcome list is:dbInSouthCity wrote:here is how this will end.
Task Force will have a plan and the funding ready in Oct, just needing the Rams to sign off
SD/Oakland Carson site is a year + away from being construction ready
NFL wont wait for that, Rams will apply for relocation and the owners will sign off on it with a statement about the arbitration process and how the was ruled in the Rams favor.
San Diego will be given another year to save the Chargers, if it doesnt the Chargers will go to LA to join the Rams in Inglewood- this is what Stan wants, he wants to be the first team in. Chargers probably dont want that but they will be rewarded somehow by the NFL by being the 2nd team in. If the Chargers do workout something in SD, they will stay and the Raiders will get a shot to join Stan.
If SD doesnt work something out, Chargers join the Rams as outlined
final move will be the Raiders- either join the 49ers in Santa Clara or move to St.Louis, because they wont get anything in Oakland.
1)Santa Clara
2)San Antonio
3)Suck it up in Oakland
distant 4)St. Louis
I think Mark Davis has too much pride to be the sloppy seconds for the Rams.
^Dweebe, I think your close but have no idea why you think the Raiders will end up in Santa Clara. 49er's built a one home team stadium period and headed south to expand their turf not share it. Everything I have seen and read suggests that Raiders going away is fine as far 49er's are concerned.
Instead
1) Oakland a few more years
2) San Antonio.
3) Two team expansion franchise talk for a few years.
And I agree, I think the Davis family has too much pride to go to St. Louis if Stan K & Rams gets the LA market. If anything, Raiders will use St. Louis stadium as bidding tool to get a new stadium out of Oakland or San Antonio
Instead
1) Oakland a few more years
2) San Antonio.
3) Two team expansion franchise talk for a few years.
And I agree, I think the Davis family has too much pride to go to St. Louis if Stan K & Rams gets the LA market. If anything, Raiders will use St. Louis stadium as bidding tool to get a new stadium out of Oakland or San Antonio
I just don't see it that way...the NFL has bylaws and I believe they will follow those bylaws that were put into placed following the Raiders fiasco back in the '90's. More importantly, if STL comes up with the funding, no way in the world would the NFL let public (free) money go to waste!
They built Levi's stadium with 2 "home" locker rooms and 2 owners suites. Now there are some big problems as the stadium seats are blazing red, there's no color conversion capability like MetLife and the York family would draw all the income.dredger wrote:^Dweebe, I think your close but have no idea why you think the Raiders will end up in Santa Clara. 49er's built a one home team stadium period and headed south to expand their turf not share it. Everything I have seen and read suggests that Raiders going away is fine as far 49er's are concerned.
Instead
1) Oakland a few more years
2) San Antonio.
3) Two team expansion franchise talk for a few years.
And I agree, I think the Davis family has too much pride to go to St. Louis if Stan K & Rams gets the LA market. If anything, Raiders will use St. Louis stadium as bidding tool to get a new stadium out of Oakland or San Antonio
The two "home team" locker room stuff was part of the Jim Harbaugh drama. Late in the construction Harbaugh flexed his muscles and moved the 49ers from the locker rooms meant for them to the other home team facilities.
Going to Santa Clara enables the Raiders to stay in the Bay Area and easily move back once they can secure a stadium in Oakland.
http://espn.go.com/blog/san-francisco-4 ... provements
^ Heck, can see Raiders easily playing a season or two in Cal's refurbished stadium just as I can see Rams playing a season in the Rose Bowl. Also, how do they leverage a new stadium if they go play in a new stadium?? S
Got the opportunity to take a tour of Levi's stadium last winter and walk though the other home room (they won't give tour of 49ers team locker but glad to tell you all the details). I can't explain it well but the idea of Levi's stadium being built with two home town locker rooms is a joke. What the 49er's have at their disposal and what is on the other side of stadium is night and day. Heck, they used some of room for the supposed second home locker room for a private 49er's cheerleader locker room & dance studio.
Got the opportunity to take a tour of Levi's stadium last winter and walk though the other home room (they won't give tour of 49ers team locker but glad to tell you all the details). I can't explain it well but the idea of Levi's stadium being built with two home town locker rooms is a joke. What the 49er's have at their disposal and what is on the other side of stadium is night and day. Heck, they used some of room for the supposed second home locker room for a private 49er's cheerleader locker room & dance studio.
I don't see how NFL could approve a Rams' move with funding in place siting the arbitration rulings of 2012. The new stadium gives the Rams more than what they proposed as a part of those proceedings.
Which begs the question......was Peacock involved in the arbitration process?
Some new input from Randy K via Keep the Rams in STL:
https://www.facebook.com/KeepTheRamsInStLouis
"Amazing stuff".....interesting choice of words.
Which begs the question......was Peacock involved in the arbitration process?
Some new input from Randy K via Keep the Rams in STL:
https://www.facebook.com/KeepTheRamsInStLouis
"Amazing stuff".....interesting choice of words.
- 8,155
I believe I had referenced this before, but this redevelopment project in KC's West Bottoms is something I could see happen in the proposed stadium site if that falters...
‘Artist funky’ lofts will rise in the West Bottoms
The Kansas City Council approved the View II, a five-building renovation plan in the West Bottoms for nearly 250 residential units in structures that have been vacant more than a decade. The residential loft experience should appeal to creative young people who already are attracted to the lower-cost warehouse and industrial area near Kemper Arena.
Mayer said rents are likely to range from $600 to $1,000 a month for the 800-square-foot to 1,000-square-foot apartments.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... rylink=cpy
Under a buck per sq. ft. living! If a combo of brownfields, historic and other tax credits along with not-fancy-at-all, build-to-code rehab would make such a price point feasible here I think that would be pretty cool for the collection of 4 warehouses around the Foundation building. The Cotton Belt I think is a bit of a different animal and would be awesome as an artists venue. With GRG reutilizing the Laclede Power Building as a trail amenity you'd have a pretty decent little district to build upon.
‘Artist funky’ lofts will rise in the West Bottoms
The Kansas City Council approved the View II, a five-building renovation plan in the West Bottoms for nearly 250 residential units in structures that have been vacant more than a decade. The residential loft experience should appeal to creative young people who already are attracted to the lower-cost warehouse and industrial area near Kemper Arena.
Mayer said rents are likely to range from $600 to $1,000 a month for the 800-square-foot to 1,000-square-foot apartments.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... rylink=cpy
Under a buck per sq. ft. living! If a combo of brownfields, historic and other tax credits along with not-fancy-at-all, build-to-code rehab would make such a price point feasible here I think that would be pretty cool for the collection of 4 warehouses around the Foundation building. The Cotton Belt I think is a bit of a different animal and would be awesome as an artists venue. With GRG reutilizing the Laclede Power Building as a trail amenity you'd have a pretty decent little district to build upon.
- 271
Kansas City ain't St. Louis. The north riverfront ain't the West Bottoms, and the people moving to Kansas City are not the same kinds of people moving to St. Louis.
Stadium or that area is still literally "dead-on-the-water" fifteen years from now.
Stadium or that area is still literally "dead-on-the-water" fifteen years from now.
That's kind of my point though. Let the new stadium exist as it is -- a shiny, new, lightly-used venue with an excess of parking and green space around it. Rather than force feed us yet another "entertainment district", let the stadium grounds just be stadium grounds (excepting what can be preserved along N. Broadway as an extension of the Bissingers investment).roger wyoming II wrote:^ right. The site plan put forth leaves little room for development in the project area so we really couldn't even get a long term Banks-type redevelopment. And it is too isolated to have any real impact on neighborhoods across the interstate or in the north riverfront warehouse district. Best we could hope for imo would be something really cool coming to the Union Electric building (but there don't seem to be any real plans for what that may be nor a cost estimate to make it happen) and maybe a bit of upgrade to Laclede's Landing and the few buildings on Broadway.
Instead, use the stadium as a jumping-off point for a renewed focus on improving services, connections and general quality-of-life in St. Louis' near north. Without meaningful growth and investment there, downtown will continue to falter and flop.
- 8,155
^ I'm not sure I follow as first paragraph sounds like you are saying just let the stadium be the stadium and not worry about redevelopment but in the second paragraph it sounds like you are saying redevelopment is needed.
Anyway, the Near North Riverfront is a natural area for redevelopment in due time and I believe failing to make a mixed-use district out of it would be a terrible mistake.
Anyway, the Near North Riverfront is a natural area for redevelopment in due time and I believe failing to make a mixed-use district out of it would be a terrible mistake.
Lots of stuff in this update from Peacock...
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... l?page=all
may have to use eminent domain on a couple parcels for parking, subsidy sources will change a bit, Kroenke is committed to LA, etc.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... l?page=all
may have to use eminent domain on a couple parcels for parking, subsidy sources will change a bit, Kroenke is committed to LA, etc.
- 9,570
interesting rumor and somewhat possible.
A rumor is floating around that Kronke will sell the Rams to new St Louis based ownership, Kronke will then go forward and build his new stadium and receive an expansion team for LA. Kronke will receive an expansion team for the same price he sells the RAMS, in other words he would save 500 million dollar relocation fee. The expectation is that San Diego will work something out in San Diego and the Raiders who don't have a lot of money will get more time to either make a deal in Oakland or move to San Antonio. The NFL will award the expansion team to Kronke he can name the team, market the team over the two to three years it takes to build their new stadium. Between those two to three years the NFL will also auction off a second expansive team presumably to London. In the process of all this the NFL owners pick up about 3 billion dollars in expansion dollars, new stadiums in St Louis, San Diego, and possibly Oakland or San Antonio and gain the LA market for Super Bowls, Retail, Draft site, etc. Everyone wins in this deal. This plan can't be THE plan until St Louis finalizes financing plans, and or San Diego agrees to pitch in to help the Chargers but once these two deals are etched into stone you'll see all the chips fall into place
EDIT: that's a rumor from a Facebook page. About as reliable as Sloan hearing that her best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night.dbInSouthCity wrote:interesting rumor and somewhat possible.
A rumor is floating around that Kronke will sell the Rams to new St Louis based ownership, Kronke will then go forward and build his new stadium and receive an expansion team for LA. Kronke will receive an expansion team for the same price he sells the RAMS, in other words he would save 500 million dollar relocation fee. The expectation is that San Diego will work something out in San Diego and the Raiders who don't have a lot of money will get more time to either make a deal in Oakland or move to San Antonio. The NFL will award the expansion team to Kronke he can name the team, market the team over the two to three years it takes to build their new stadium. Between those two to three years the NFL will also auction off a second expansive team presumably to London. In the process of all this the NFL owners pick up about 3 billion dollars in expansion dollars, new stadiums in St Louis, San Diego, and possibly Oakland or San Antonio and gain the LA market for Super Bowls, Retail, Draft site, etc. Everyone wins in this deal. This plan can't be THE plan until St Louis finalizes financing plans, and or San Diego agrees to pitch in to help the Chargers but once these two deals are etched into stone you'll see all the chips fall into place
- 8,155
From the Peacock update, here is a little bit more about the Union Electric building...
Peacock said the Union Electric Light and Power Company building, built in 1904, would be refurbished and used as an entertainment facility, with restaurants and potentially an amphitheater and National Soccer Hall of Fame — if a Major League Soccer team locates here.
Peacock said the Union Electric Light and Power Company building, built in 1904, would be refurbished and used as an entertainment facility, with restaurants and potentially an amphitheater and National Soccer Hall of Fame — if a Major League Soccer team locates here.
I think the saddest part of all this is Peacock is telling as it is where as the Rams owner doesn't have the gumption to say it to anyone's face.
Any ideas on what properties they are talking about? Would this be Shady's Jacks?roger wyoming II wrote:Lots of stuff in this update from Peacock...
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... l?page=all
may have to use eminent domain on a couple parcels for parking, subsidy sources will change a bit, Kroenke is committed to LA, etc.
- 3,767
THIS, basically says that Stan will have a franchise in LA and hopefully, a group from STL will own the Rams (another team) in STL.
That would be the best case... We get a new stadium, get rid of Stan & keep the Rams logo/team name. Then as the cherry on top, hopefully get an MLS team, along with a soccer hall of fame.
That would be the best case... We get a new stadium, get rid of Stan & keep the Rams logo/team name. Then as the cherry on top, hopefully get an MLS team, along with a soccer hall of fame.
“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”
I am suggesting exactly that -- let the Near North Riverfront immediately surrounding the new stadium (again, excepting a few N. Broadway properties and, hopefully, Laclede Power Co.) just be stadium grounds. A spiffy new stadium, (overly) sufficient parking, connected trails/greenspace -- that's it. I am entirely confident that a planned mixed-use (Banks-type, in your words) development on the near north riverfront would be a disappointment. And whatever quantitative success it does receive would be 95% at the expense of current St. Louis businesses.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm not sure I follow as first paragraph sounds like you are saying just let the stadium be the stadium and not worry about redevelopment but in the second paragraph it sounds like you are saying redevelopment is needed.
Anyway, the Near North Riverfront is a natural area for redevelopment in due time and I believe failing to make a mixed-use district out of it would be a terrible mistake.
Instead of forcing development within this thin sliver of utility-heavy industrial riverfront snuggled up against an interstate and a low-use stadium, I'd prefer regional dollars/efforts be spent on improving and diversifying (both demographically and in purpose) the near north neighborhoods immediately west and north west. Without an improved, accessible and safe near north (both real and perceived), downtown won't recover its status as the region's cultural and business center.
So yes, I would say that forcing development around the new stadium is unnecessary and ill-fitting. If there's a market for it, I'm sure the properties immediately north will get bought out and built up naturally. Reactivating and reinvesting the near north, however, is crucial to improving the perception of St. Louis as a viable, modern city. If you're not growing, as they say, you're dying.
- 8,155
^ I don't agree with that at all.... if we make a billion dollar investment for a stadium we very well should have parcels available as part of the site plan to bring office and residential in when investors/developers think the demand is there. The area is prime for eventual redevelopment and it is just a matter of when. And the Banks project is a good example of good things happening with a solid site plan awaiting the right time.... it has been around for about 15 years but is really only coming into its own the past few. But again my worry is that flaws in this site plan won't allow for the benefits of increased density even when the demand in greater downtown justifies it.... moving the stadium a bit north would improve things a lot.
I do agree with you that the Near North needs a lot of help, but I don't see how designing the stadium site plan to allow for parking lots to become future mixed-use office/residential/hotel/commercial sites impedes assisting Carr Square, etc.... in fact it helps our ability. And if those neighborhoods demand our full attention then we should redirect the substantial brownfields and other economic development tax credits slated for the stadium to the area more in need.
I do agree with you that the Near North needs a lot of help, but I don't see how designing the stadium site plan to allow for parking lots to become future mixed-use office/residential/hotel/commercial sites impedes assisting Carr Square, etc.... in fact it helps our ability. And if those neighborhoods demand our full attention then we should redirect the substantial brownfields and other economic development tax credits slated for the stadium to the area more in need.