Don't know where this fits into the picture but it sure seems to be a tangled web.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... d-for.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... d-for.html
- 8,155
^ And what isn't mentioned in the article is that Heller also owns the Stamping Lofts and is the main force behind the legally-entangled Farmworks project. I mentioned on the Plan B thread that I'm not too keen on the powers-to-be seeing this area as a near-term priority, btw, even if the stadium falls through. I wish Downtown Now were more focused on our actual downtown. Long-term plans are fine but we have so much left to accomplish in our core.
Also of note, the fact that ZYMO Sculptures hasn't been approached about the property seems to indicate that they are not planning to take any of the Broadway buildings in the Shady Jack's vicinity.... (the Union Waste is a real keeper.)
Also of note, the fact that ZYMO Sculptures hasn't been approached about the property seems to indicate that they are not planning to take any of the Broadway buildings in the Shady Jack's vicinity.... (the Union Waste is a real keeper.)
Given that it's a technicality to fight back against a technicality, perhaps it's defensible, but to me the "adjacent" element of the statute is a technical thing to hang a lawsuit on.roger wyoming II wrote:^ What's the technicality the state legislators filing this law suit are relying on? (One of them, progressive Tracy McCreery, is from Olivette, btw.) I'm not going to make any predictions on how the cases turn out, but again it seems to me that there are strong arguments that the 1988 authorization for financing the Dome was intended to be limited in scope and does not authorize funding a replacement facility, especially one that arguably is not adjacent to a convention facility. There are solid arguments that funding a riverfront stadium is indeed valid when you take a broader interpretation.
Now, I also agree that using the statute as free reign to build a second statement is clearly a technicality that wasn't intended.
Like I said, I think the whole situation is just ugly.
I saw this last night:
Frank Cusumano @Frank_Cusumano · May 28
Just spent some time with an #STLNFL task force person. They are not at all worried about this law suit today by legislators. @KSDKSports
We've yet to see the taskforce worried about anything. It sure would be nice if in about 6-9 months we look back on their lack of worry throughout this mess as representative of their confidence instead of complacency.
Frank Cusumano @Frank_Cusumano · May 28
Just spent some time with an #STLNFL task force person. They are not at all worried about this law suit today by legislators. @KSDKSports
We've yet to see the taskforce worried about anything. It sure would be nice if in about 6-9 months we look back on their lack of worry throughout this mess as representative of their confidence instead of complacency.
- 1,864
Nixon hasn't talked to Kroenke in 1.5 years... Wow. Also, I love this quote:
“I don’t hear Sen. Schaaf complaining about us investing in the Kansas City Chiefs’ practice facility in St. Joseph or Rep. Parkinson upset about the Family Arena near his district,” Nixon said.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt
“I don’t hear Sen. Schaaf complaining about us investing in the Kansas City Chiefs’ practice facility in St. Joseph or Rep. Parkinson upset about the Family Arena near his district,” Nixon said.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt
- 3,767
Nixon did say that he has been in contact with other Rams officials. Stan is staying in the background and doing his LA thing I guess. 
I love the quote too. As long as it benefits Western Mo. , it's ok. God forbid Eastern Mo. (the major source of state revenue) get a piece of the pie....
I love the quote too. As long as it benefits Western Mo. , it's ok. God forbid Eastern Mo. (the major source of state revenue) get a piece of the pie....
Actually, most of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are either from the St. Louis area or have ties to St. Louis.
They are all idiots if you ask me. I bet they are all for "tort" reform too.
These dimwitted a**holes need to know that if St. Louis struggles, the whole State of Missouri struggles with it. It's because of buffoons like these plaintiffs metro St. Louis can't get its sh*t together.
Imagine the millions to be lost if there is no NFL team in St. Louis.
Rob Vescovo (Republican) reps St. Charles County
Mark Parkinson (Republican) reps St. Charles County
Tracy McCreery (Democrat) reps St. Louis County
Rob Schaaf (Republican) reps St. Joseph, but was born in St. Louis and received his MD from St. Louis University
Jay Barnes (Republican) reps Cole County.
Eric Burlison (Republican) reps Greene County (Springfield)
They are all idiots if you ask me. I bet they are all for "tort" reform too.
These dimwitted a**holes need to know that if St. Louis struggles, the whole State of Missouri struggles with it. It's because of buffoons like these plaintiffs metro St. Louis can't get its sh*t together.
Imagine the millions to be lost if there is no NFL team in St. Louis.
Rob Vescovo (Republican) reps St. Charles County
Mark Parkinson (Republican) reps St. Charles County
Tracy McCreery (Democrat) reps St. Louis County
Rob Schaaf (Republican) reps St. Joseph, but was born in St. Louis and received his MD from St. Louis University
Jay Barnes (Republican) reps Cole County.
Eric Burlison (Republican) reps Greene County (Springfield)
- 3,433
This is clearly being lead by KC-side legislators. They just needed some dupes from the St. Louis side to make their lawsuit look legit. And they found three. We should make the bridges to St. Charles toll bridges to get back some of the money we St. Louis side folks paid into them if St. Charles refuses to help fund state projects on the St. Louis side.
- 1,864
^He's not holding back at all. Calling them out for their political favors.
- 1,868
I'm starting to think Jay Nixon cares slightly about St. Louis. Quick, somebody talk me out of it.
- 3,767
Another move by Stan - The Silent Coward- Kroenke, to set the team up for relocation. There is NO doubt in my mind, he will apply for relocation and must feel somewhat confident, he can, in some way/ any way, get to LA. I think he will get to LA. The question remains, where does this leave STL. Nixon did make mention to 33 teams, when discussing things today, with Frank Cusamano.
I wonder if that was a slip/hint or nothing at all to read into. Could expansion be a possibility......
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1433363141
I wonder if that was a slip/hint or nothing at all to read into. Could expansion be a possibility......
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1433363141
Bob Blitz is keeping up the brave front. He addressed the Ed Jones Dome board about his recent trip to New York. Claimed it went well, the NFL liked what they saw but not to trumpet that.
- 403
I honestly praise Bob Blitz & Peacock for both their brave undertaking on a potential new football field however i'm now exhausted & completely happy if the Rams go. For one I'm not concerned about perception & our lack of not trying to keep them here. The lob monster has already made his presence known to Saint.Louisans he could careless about any of us so if he want's to go too L.A. bye bye go & don't let the door hit you on the way out. Yes i know some will say I'm the reasoning Saint.Louis is they way it is however that's not the person i am. I'm all about all positive things Saint.Louis has to offer can do & achieve. Do we really need a new district when we can't even get the rest of Ballpark Village off the ground. Saint.Louis has more important things to focus on & firmly believe our billion dollars could go further than a football field. MLS isn't even a slam dunk. City really needs to focus on the more important developments such as streetcar ballpark village the landing TOD & more. Austin Portland Seattle San Diego many other cities are doing perfectly fine without the big 4 Saint.Louis will be perfectly ok without the Rams. As for perception & the inability to get things done all that's self inflicted with the media & journalist rubbing it cause they know they'll get a reaction from us. Saint.Louis needs a new spirit thats my thoughts.
- 3,433
What, we can only focus on one thing at a time? Seattle has football. They almost lost the team to LA in 1996. But look how that city and that team love each other today. And they are so angry that their BB team went to OKC, they refuse to say the words OKC according to my relatives in Oklahoma. Seattle, Portland, and Austin are seen as ascending. Nobody will put us in their category if the Rams leave.
Can we? Of course not.gary kreie wrote:What, we can only focus on one thing at a time? Seattle has football. They almost lost the team to LA in 1996. But look how that city and that team love each other today. And they are so angry that their BB team went to OKC, they refuse to say the words OKC according to my relatives in Oklahoma. Seattle, Portland, and Austin are seen as ascending. Nobody will put us in their category if the Rams leave.
But I can't remember any efforts with the urgency of this one being put towards any of the many, many other important things we need to be doing in St. Louis. Governor needs to put Dave Peacock on a public transit initiative after this is all over.
No one who is hoping, arguing for, or defending the stadium movement is not saying we don't have other problems that warrant attention. The idea that it is either have the NFL and a crime ridden poorly developed city or let the NFL go and a strong education system, transit system, and crime-free city will emerge is ridiculous. A city of our size, stature, and heritage should be actively trying to fix all the problems all the time; stepping up for a certain cause (in this case the stadium) shouldn't signify we don't care about other things. Nor should not stepping up for it signify that we do.
I wish opponents to the stadium would stop challenging it saying "we have more important things to do." Instead, why not actively make an effort to improve those other things, whatever they are in your particular case, instead of tearing down another largely positive cause. As I said a few weeks ago, a lot of people throw around this phrase that "STL will be fine if the Rams go," and it is very true. However, it is also true that STL will still have the opportunity to better itself in other ways if the Rams stay.
I agree that someone like Peacock should be in the public eye championing smart urban design, crime reduction, centralization of our regional corporate identity, bettering our schools, and emphasizing the transit and TOD. But for right now, the emphasis is retaining the NFL. I think deep down, even opponents to this want to see STL come out on top. That momentum will hopefully push other would be Peacock-esque figures to make their efforts more public.
I wish opponents to the stadium would stop challenging it saying "we have more important things to do." Instead, why not actively make an effort to improve those other things, whatever they are in your particular case, instead of tearing down another largely positive cause. As I said a few weeks ago, a lot of people throw around this phrase that "STL will be fine if the Rams go," and it is very true. However, it is also true that STL will still have the opportunity to better itself in other ways if the Rams stay.
I agree that someone like Peacock should be in the public eye championing smart urban design, crime reduction, centralization of our regional corporate identity, bettering our schools, and emphasizing the transit and TOD. But for right now, the emphasis is retaining the NFL. I think deep down, even opponents to this want to see STL come out on top. That momentum will hopefully push other would be Peacock-esque figures to make their efforts more public.
- 3,433
I think the stadium exercise shows the type of REGIONAL leadership that can step up in our metro area to solve problems, if we were to merge the city into the county and start thinking of St. Louis as our city, rather than just thinking we live in Webster, or St. Peters, or Florissant. The biggest benefit from merger will be recruitment of leadership from a wider area, and their ability to marshal funds and people to rebuild the core of our metro area.
FWIW, I'm not an opponent, and I didn't say we can only do one or the other.
I just said in reality we haven't given nearly the focus or urgency to our other causes that we've given to this stadium. And THAT is disappointing. It doesn't mean the stadium is undeserving, but it does mean our priorities are screwed up.
Do you think that, in reality, when this stadium effort is over, that we'll see a task force working at a rapid pace to lure businesses downtown or build Metrolink expansion or even aggressively seek a solution to crime?
I wish, but I don't believe it.
I still think the NFL stadium is questionable, but I don't think it's down right bad. I think I'll be satisfied with either outcome at this point. But I'm not mad that they're fighting for it.
I'm mad that they've never fought this hard for anything else.
I just said in reality we haven't given nearly the focus or urgency to our other causes that we've given to this stadium. And THAT is disappointing. It doesn't mean the stadium is undeserving, but it does mean our priorities are screwed up.
Do you think that, in reality, when this stadium effort is over, that we'll see a task force working at a rapid pace to lure businesses downtown or build Metrolink expansion or even aggressively seek a solution to crime?
I wish, but I don't believe it.
I still think the NFL stadium is questionable, but I don't think it's down right bad. I think I'll be satisfied with either outcome at this point. But I'm not mad that they're fighting for it.
I'm mad that they've never fought this hard for anything else.
- 8,155
Proposed stadium plans would destroy several historic buildings on the national register
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pro ... l-register
Paul Hohmann, an architect that specializes in historical restoration, suggested incorporating the historic buildings into the stadium construction as San Diego did when it built the Petco Park baseball stadium.
“They literally built their modern stadium around this building. It basically sits in the corner of the stadium,” Hohmann said. “They put balconies off of it and made luxury boxes out of this historic building.”
Hohmann drew up renderings of a more southern location for the new NFL stadium in February and posted them to his blog, Vanishing STL. But he said shifting the stadium location a little further north would also preserve most of the historic buildings.
“We would lose the Cotton Belt building, but that would probably be the only building we would lose,” Hohmann said, adding that the Cotton Belt’s odd shape (750 feet long and 30 feet wide) and concrete structure made it a hard sell to renovate....
Hohmann sees an opportunity for the stadium and the historic buildings to co-exist in a positive way, with the stadium bringing business to the area and the buildings providing structures to house restaurants and stores.
“One of the problems with this area is no one comes here. You build a stadium with all these people who come here, and suddenly you have a need for a Ballpark Village, and by the way, the buildings are already here for that,” Hohmann explained.
Seems like a no-brainer to me; the sad thing is HOK didn't want to save the buildings as they'd already done that sort of thing before.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pro ... l-register
Paul Hohmann, an architect that specializes in historical restoration, suggested incorporating the historic buildings into the stadium construction as San Diego did when it built the Petco Park baseball stadium.
“They literally built their modern stadium around this building. It basically sits in the corner of the stadium,” Hohmann said. “They put balconies off of it and made luxury boxes out of this historic building.”
Hohmann drew up renderings of a more southern location for the new NFL stadium in February and posted them to his blog, Vanishing STL. But he said shifting the stadium location a little further north would also preserve most of the historic buildings.
“We would lose the Cotton Belt building, but that would probably be the only building we would lose,” Hohmann said, adding that the Cotton Belt’s odd shape (750 feet long and 30 feet wide) and concrete structure made it a hard sell to renovate....
Hohmann sees an opportunity for the stadium and the historic buildings to co-exist in a positive way, with the stadium bringing business to the area and the buildings providing structures to house restaurants and stores.
“One of the problems with this area is no one comes here. You build a stadium with all these people who come here, and suddenly you have a need for a Ballpark Village, and by the way, the buildings are already here for that,” Hohmann explained.
Seems like a no-brainer to me; the sad thing is HOK didn't want to save the buildings as they'd already done that sort of thing before.
- 403
I don't understand why people always refer to the next projects as ballpark village for one its not even a village its just one 120,000 sq foot stand alone building across the stadium until other to all phases are completed then we can't call it a village. I'm not against the Rams staying I'm just stating why are we putting all our eggs in the basket for a team when that money could be allocated for better sources? Some may not like that fact that most such as myself will say we're better off without them the truth is St.Louis was here before the Rams were ever thought of & likely will still be here afterwords. I was really for the whole stadium development & am a bit however i need more facts on how this will all work out without putting our city in further disadvantage. What are we going to gain from it all? If we're promised with hosting a super bowl then i'm more likely to support this development.
- 3,433
This is old news -- Hohmann proposed this months ago. I like his plan. If the NFL will make a decision to keep the Rams in St. Louis soon once and for all, then we can re-examine the whole plan along with the Rams -- out from under the NFL's frenetic timeline -- and build the right thing in the right place for the whole region.roger wyoming II wrote:Proposed stadium plans would destroy several historic buildings on the national register
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pro ... l-register
Paul Hohmann, an architect that specializes in historical restoration, suggested incorporating the historic buildings into the stadium construction as San Diego did when it built the Petco Park baseball stadium.
“They literally built their modern stadium around this building. It basically sits in the corner of the stadium,” Hohmann said. “They put balconies off of it and made luxury boxes out of this historic building.”
Hohmann drew up renderings of a more southern location for the new NFL stadium in February and posted them to his blog, Vanishing STL. But he said shifting the stadium location a little further north would also preserve most of the historic buildings.
“We would lose the Cotton Belt building, but that would probably be the only building we would lose,” Hohmann said, adding that the Cotton Belt’s odd shape (750 feet long and 30 feet wide) and concrete structure made it a hard sell to renovate....
Hohmann sees an opportunity for the stadium and the historic buildings to co-exist in a positive way, with the stadium bringing business to the area and the buildings providing structures to house restaurants and stores.
“One of the problems with this area is no one comes here. You build a stadium with all these people who come here, and suddenly you have a need for a Ballpark Village, and by the way, the buildings are already here for that,” Hohmann explained.
Seems like a no-brainer to me; the sad thing is HOK didn't want to save the buildings as they'd already done that sort of thing before.
What money are you referring to that can be allocated to better sources than the stadium? Where is your money coming from? Nearly all of the new stadium money is coming from the NFL, the users, and taxes on players, which will all go away if the Rams leave. The only funding part left is the $6M per year hotel tax on visitors, which will either stop when the dome is paid off in 2021, or it will continue and will be used to improve the convention center for visitors.St.Louis1764 wrote:I don't understand why people always refer to the next projects as ballpark village for one its not even a village its just one 120,000 sq foot stand alone building across the stadium until other to all phases are completed then we can't call it a village. I'm not against the Rams staying I'm just stating why are we putting all our eggs in the basket for a team when that money could be allocated for better sources? Some may not like that fact that most such as myself will say we're better off without them the truth is St.Louis was here before the Rams were ever thought of & likely will still be here afterwords. I was really for the whole stadium development & am a bit however i need more facts on how this will all work out without putting our city in further disadvantage. What are we going to gain from it all? If we're promised with hosting a super bowl then i'm more likely to support this development.
My frustration with this call for creating another Ballpark Village (which, itself, is just a Hail Mary to save some buildings) is that it isn't necessary. There's no rule that every stadium needs a site-adjacent entertainment complex occupied with a mechanical bull, team store and themed bars/restaurants. Look at Soldier Field in Chicago -- there isn't anything remotely close to that within half a mile, just parking, train yards and grassland (and a couple of museums slightly north). Now just outside that half-mile, well, the S. Michigan area has never seen more growth/investment and popularity, both publicly and privately.
I want this stadium to happen and St. Louis to have a team for the next 50+ years. TO do that, I'd recommend:
1) Push the primary footprint north a bit to save the Laclede Power Station and William Kerr building.
2) To do this, remove the north riverfront workhouse and work with the granary on a relocation strategy.
3) Consider the actual interest in tailgating since not everybody wants to. Rather than having 15,000 parking spots spread out on lots, instead pull -- say -- 40% of those into multi-level garages. Partially buried, preferably.
4) In this way, there's more opportunity to preserve/revitalize some of those S. Broadway buildings. With that said, let it occur organically. If someone wants to invest in updating the stretch, great! Some buildings may get chopped, and that's fine too. But a forced Ballpark Village situation should be avoided at all costs.
I want this stadium to happen and St. Louis to have a team for the next 50+ years. TO do that, I'd recommend:
1) Push the primary footprint north a bit to save the Laclede Power Station and William Kerr building.
2) To do this, remove the north riverfront workhouse and work with the granary on a relocation strategy.
3) Consider the actual interest in tailgating since not everybody wants to. Rather than having 15,000 parking spots spread out on lots, instead pull -- say -- 40% of those into multi-level garages. Partially buried, preferably.
4) In this way, there's more opportunity to preserve/revitalize some of those S. Broadway buildings. With that said, let it occur organically. If someone wants to invest in updating the stretch, great! Some buildings may get chopped, and that's fine too. But a forced Ballpark Village situation should be avoided at all costs.