urbanSTL

stlien wrote:

Mound City wrote:Select quotes:

The study projected that the Rams would generate more than $204 million in personal seat license revenue in a new stadium.

$204 million seems high. What did the Vikings and Falcons project? Like $100 million?

$100 mil in Minnesota. Couldn't find anything for Atlanta.
http://www.startribune.com/seat-license ... 244270481/

Sure, STL isn't tenable if you totally ignore it. Gold dig right in front of our nose. Spit in the face of fans, civic leaders and the taskforce. Offer you're own money to another market AND offer to give it to other teams while your own are starving to hear your thoughts. What a complete farce.

I would simply ask that the survey go out to all NFL markets to see what the responses would be. Fans in Cincinnati: we want to threaten to take away your team unless you start paying more money for your seats and PSLs in a new stadium. So now someone's tickets go up exponentially and the NFL is going to freak out if a percentage of them are no longer interested? Where is this robust demographic to vill the void in the other NFL markets? If we are the 21st market in the country with the list of regionally based Fortune Companies on our resume, how can the results of market surveys not be relatively commensurate with people in similar markets throughout the country? I can't believe that the economic tendencies and entertainment budgets of those in STL are vastly different than most peoples'. This is the same region that overachieves in MLB support because the ownership gets off it's a$$ and does something to engage the fans....and the team occassionally wins a few games without a trick play and a prayer.

The NFL should get down on their knees and thank STL for even playing this survey game. Our level of support can't be compared to because their is no precedent for asking the same market to buy PSLs twice in 22 years. We are the new gold-standard for support given our circumstances, NFL. We don't get to be compared to a benchmark, because we are the benchmark for repeated abuse, yet continued support. We are the Rocky market of your little club, Goodell. Apollo Creed just has a bad mustache and a spread collar shirt.

Grow up, NFL.....or as long as you're trying to set a precedent, relocate every other midwest mid- market team in NFL with a competing sport in town to somewhere else with higher land values and population.

^ i agree.... if STL puts together a reasonable financing plan for a stadium but a move to LA is still allowed under the pretext of concerns over long-term profitability then that is pretty low. I don't know if it necessarily would be a given that Kroenke or others would come to terms with the RSA but that would be a bridge to cross for later.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Sure, STL isn't tenable if you totally ignore it. Gold dig right in front of our nose. Spit in the face of fans, civic leaders and the taskforce. Offer you're own money to another market AND offer to give it to other teams while your own are starving to hear your thoughts. What a complete farce.

I would simply ask that the survey go out to all NFL markets to see what the responses would be. Fans in Cincinnati: we want to threaten to take away your team unless you start paying more money for your seats and PSLs in a new stadium. So now someone's tickets go up exponentially and the NFL is going to freak out if a percentage of them are no longer interested? Where is this robust demographic to vill the void in the other NFL markets? If we are the 21st market in the country with the list of regionally based Fortune Companies on our resume, how can the results of market surveys not be relatively commensurate with people in similar markets throughout the country? I can't believe that the economic tendencies and entertainment budgets of those in STL are vastly different than most peoples'. This is the same region that overachieves in MLB support because the ownership gets off it's a$$ and does something to engage the fans....and the team occassionally wins a few games without a trick play and a prayer.

The NFL should get down on their knees and thank STL for even playing this survey game. Our level of support can't be compared to because their is no precedent for asking the same market to buy PSLs twice in 22 years. We are the new gold-standard for support given our circumstances, NFL. We don't get to be compared to a benchmark, because we are the benchmark for repeated abuse, yet continued support. We are the Rocky market of your little club, Goodell. Apollo Creed just has a bad mustache and a spread collar shirt.

Grow up, NFL.....or as long as you're trying to set a precedent, relocate every other midwest mid- market team in NFL with a competing sport in town to somewhere else with higher land values and population.

After the Rams leave, St. Louis will be used (like Los Angeles was) for a few decades to shake down other cities for money to renovate current NFL stadiums and build new ones.

^ makes sense whether its STL or San Diego or Oakland.... you see a bit of that today with the news that San Diego is going full blast with the Environmental Review and intention to have a January vote:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... iani-vote/

City officials said they plan to continue work on a new stadium without cooperation from the Chargers based on conversations two weeks ago with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and other league officials.

“Basically they said ‘it looks like you’re on a good track and we’ll discuss it further in late July,’” said Mike Hansen, the city’s director of land use and environmental policy...

Trying to make sure everyone is on the right track is a major goal for the NFL so as to be able to use the loser(s) as bait for the next city that needs to step up to keep their team.

mgbgt wrote:Is anyone going to this - http://greatriversgreenway.org/event/op ... ment-plan/ ?

Just came from this. Lots of flashy renderings, lots of key words like:
Mixed use,
Innovation district,
Revitalized urban grid,
Connectivity,
Live work and play,
Programming,
Riverfront access,
Pavilions,
New front door
etc etc
I think I have been to too many of these open houses. Can't tell them apart.

They did revise their initial design to include the stadium and surrounded it with density.

goat314 wrote:Looks like a 10 pg pdf was upload online.....I dont know how updated this is.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... 16.pdf.pdf

The presentations today were improved versions of many of these renderings + additions.

It was super crowded ( a good thing of course) and they had large scale images which made it hard to photograph in a meaningful way. There was also a video in the auditorium. I didn't ask about online availability but I imagine it would be coming soon

Here is the 10 minute open house video:
http://greatriversgreenway.org/great-ri ... l-library/

and here are some renderings:
http://www.stltoday.com/north-riverfron ... 8e596.html

^ I also like the Eads Bridge Shopping Alley. I think there might be too much green space though for the Landing as a whole though.

^^ I'm pretty sure you could build residential w/o much problem on south side of Commercial backing up to the railroad tracks but I don't think you need even residential to make it more activated.... even something like the glass pavilion building with event space, public restrooms and even a merry-go-round that they just added in Cincy's Smale Riverfront Park would be cool.



I can just imagine something like that building going in where the garage is now... great view of the elevated rail and Eads & Stan Span and the Mighty Mo, etc.

roger wyoming II wrote:^^ I'm pretty sure you could build residential w/o much problem on south side of Commercial backing up to the railroad tracks but I don't think you need even residential to make it more activated.... even something like the glass pavilion building with event space, public restrooms and even a merry-go-round that they just added in Cincy's Smale Riverfront Park would be cool.



I can just imagine something like that building going in where the garage is now... great view of the elevated rail and Eads & Stan Span and the Mighty Mo, etc.

Actually I see now something like this called the "River Pavilion" is located in the "Lumiere Place District" between the Beer Garden Barge and elevated tracks.... I think in the area where the old casino boarding area is.

Long term vision including the stadium looks great in terms of density.

One has to wonder, however, why this swath of land is causing so much buzz when our CBD/Gateway Mall should be the most acute focus for improved design and infrastructure. These steps are positive as a whole, but I hope it is not at the expense of the core of Downtown. While extension of pedestrian-friendly structures and amenities from The Arch to The Stan is desirable, I'd like to see as much effort west from The Arch out to Jefferson. Maybe I'm being a little greedy.

^ I agree to a certain extent and really question Downtown Now's involvement in the stadium land acquisition when it has so much left to do in developing our actual downtown.

However, GRG has its own tax revenue stream and the Riverfront Trail should be a priority.... and the nice thing about their work along the river is that it helps prime the area for eventual redevelopment but doesn't necessarily make it the focus of the lead Econ Devo agencies.

^ Once the Arch work gets done -- which still includes a revamp of the Keiner Plaza? Yes? No? Anyone? -- it will be interesting to see if the Gateway Mall Conservancy becomes active again to reactivate other blocks of the Mall. Those efforts would inject philanthropic money into downtown and can help boost redevelopment plans.

But GRG also will be taking on a larger fundraising initiative moving forward for its project; assuming proposed projects in the Riverfront and Gateway Mall are of equal quality, I'm rather torn on which area I'd more likely support.