Share
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJan 10, 2015#401

This proposal is a joke. If the goal is the create a stadium surrounded by surface parking, this is completely the wrong location. Choose a location already burdened by such poor uses like the area south of 40 near Busch, near Union Station, or some place in Illinois (like near the speedway or casino queen), or out in Maryland Heights. Even if they can make this happen, everyone should be dubious as to how much this will "help" downtown. This project is the nail in the coffin for the dream of great urban riverfront in St. Louis. Between one casino and a stadium, the area will never move beyond surface parking.

BTW, the obvious question for Mr. Blitz is about the location of his law firm. If he cares so much about revitalizing downtown, moving his firm downtown from Clayton would do far more for St. Louis than adding another 10,000 surface parking spots.*

*Note for reporters, this should be a standard question asked of each and every corporate leader in St. Louis when they wax poetic about improving our region and helping the City by volunteering time or giving grants for the next magic bullet project.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 10, 2015#402

jmedwick wrote: BTW, the obvious question for Mr. Blitz is about the location of his law firm. If he cares so much about revitalizing downtown, moving his firm downtown from Clayton would do far more for St. Louis than adding another 10,000 surface parking spots.*

*Note for reporters, this should be a standard question asked of each and every corporate leader in St. Louis when they wax poetic about improving our region and helping the City by volunteering time or giving grants for the next magic bullet project.
Slap me five, brother. That's one thing I've thought long about Danforth and Metcalfe, whatever you think about their plans for the riverfront, etc. over the years at least they weren't ensconsed in Clayton digs and view downtown as just a place for West Countians to play,

PostJan 10, 2015#403

dbInSouthCity wrote:I would imagine they've made contact will all land owners down there and feel confident this can be done
I'm sure they've been sniffing out folks but their time line seems very aggressive... site control by this summer, iirc. Human nature just doesn't seem to work that fast on something this complex. Also, that timeline is a counter to NN's point that it is too early to re-design things.... I agree that it is easier to draw up and release a blank slate of parking than to take the care to determine which buildings might be worth saving (other than the power building) but on the other hand they say they are ready to work at lightning speed.

edit.... the timeline is to finalize site plan by this summer and then begin site control purchases, but the question is still out there on getting general agreements with owners by the summer or whether the threat of eminent domain is out there.
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostJan 10, 2015#404

I think calling the project a joke is a little harsh. Our whole city is a joke in the eyes of most people across the country, and I give credit to Mr. Peacock for having the stones to look a room full and a nation full of naysayers and say hey, this is still our team that this city and team is worth supporting and investing in. Granted he may not spend every waking moment between the river and Skinker, but the guy is a credible big player and gives STL a pertinent (not to mention stylish....nice blazer, Dave), voice in the midst of countless PR nightmares over the last few months and years.

We are jaded by the lens of "urbanism" and the perfect project will never exist period much less on this forum where critics will throw a tantrum for some surface parking that encourages the region to come downtown and spend money, and (gasp) maybe even be proud of it, versus letting it sit ripe for decay and crime.

We sit around and wish that the people who are able to make things happen would. Somebody did and then we b**** about it. Let's be careful about making perfect the enemy of good. I'll take real ideas over fictitious photo shop any day of the week. Trying to make things better is one thing, but dismissing someone's genuine introductory effort in a place that many have written off is shortsighted.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJan 10, 2015#405

This is a transformative project on several levels. It would connect the arch grounds project and McKee project. If it were even 75% of what you envisioned for this area, why would you slam it? This would be absolutely momentous for the city. People that naysay drive me crazy. Do they live there lives doing everything 100% awesome every second of the day? Do they hold themselves to even half of the level that they expect others to operate at? Of course they don't. That's the joke.

We succeed in St. Louis when we get comfortable with taking 75% wins and stringing them together instead of waiting for eons for two or three complete 100% home runs, all the while asking people why their offices are in Clayton instead of downtown. Get real.

This rendering is balls ass cool. Let's run with it.

PostJan 10, 2015#406

Let's do this!
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJan 10, 2015#407

I stand by my opinion that the rest of the proposal is a joke. Maybe I would think differently if this didn't bear a sad resemblance to every other magic bullet project from the past 50 years: tear down old buildings, replace with a mega project that adds much needed parking downtown. St. Louis has been sold this same basic idea countless times. Has is ever lead to the desired outcome?

The sole benefit of the project is keeping the NFL in St. Louis. That is what should be sold to the voters and investors, nothing else. The idea that this will somehow further downtown in anyway is laughable.

PostJan 10, 2015#408

ttricamo wrote:We succeed in St. Louis when we get comfortable with taking 75% wins and stringing them together instead of waiting for eons for two or three complete 100% home runs, all the while asking people why their offices are in Clayton instead of downtown. Get real.

How is this proposal any different from what the city has done over the past 50 years in terms of revitalizing downtown? What is different this time?
1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostJan 10, 2015#409

This is a transformative project on several levels. It would connect the arch grounds project and McKee project.
A foot bridge over the highway from one parking lot to connect to another parking lot at the bottle district (Mckee's area) is hardly transformative.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 10, 2015#410

ttricamo wrote:This is a transformative project on several levels. It would connect the arch grounds project and McKee project.
The only thing I see involving McKee is a "greenway" overpass connecting the Stadium site to the "Bottle District" site that would continue to be surface parking but maybe structured parking at some later date. Or did I miss something?
613
Senior MemberSenior Member
613

PostJan 10, 2015#411

blzhrpmd2 wrote:I think calling the project a joke is a little harsh. Our whole city is a joke in the eyes of most people across the country, and I give credit to Mr. Peacock for having the stones to look a room full and a nation full of naysayers and say hey, this is still our team that this city and team is worth supporting and investing in. Granted he may not spend every waking moment between the river and Skinker, but the guy is a credible big player and gives STL a pertinent (not to mention stylish....nice blazer, Dave), voice in the midst of countless PR nightmares over the last few months and years.

We are jaded by the lens of "urbanism" and the perfect project will never exist period much less on this forum where critics will throw a tantrum for some surface parking that encourages the region to come downtown and spend money, and (gasp) maybe even be proud of it, versus letting it sit ripe for decay and crime.

We sit around and wish that the people who are able to make things happen would. Somebody did and then we b**** about it. Let's be careful about making perfect the enemy of good. I'll take real ideas over fictitious photo shop any day of the week. Trying to make things better is one thing, but dismissing someone's genuine introductory effort in a place that many have written off is shortsighted.
Amen. I'm an urbanist and an amateur preservationist, but at its core I believe this effort is what is best for the region. I also believe Peacock is genuine in wanting what is best for our region. There will be a lot of alterations to this plan along the way. It is my hope that some of the buildings will be saved and integrated to give our stadium site some unique character. In the meantime I'm going to reserve judgement on these plans and be happy that someone is taking action.
118
Junior MemberJunior Member
118

PostJan 10, 2015#412

ttricamo wrote:This is a transformative project on several levels. It would connect the arch grounds project and McKee project. If it were even 75% of what you envisioned for this area, why would you slam it? This would be absolutely momentous for the city. People that naysay drive me crazy. Do they live there lives doing everything 100% awesome every second of the day? Do they hold themselves to even half of the level that they expect others to operate at? Of course they don't. That's the joke.

We succeed in St. Louis when we get comfortable with taking 75% wins and stringing them together instead of waiting for eons for two or three complete 100% home runs, all the while asking people why their offices are in Clayton instead of downtown. Get real.

This rendering is balls ass cool. Let's run with it.
Pretty well said. The alternatives to "silver bullet" projects like this are basically to either let market forces act, and that's ok too, if that's your particular preference, or to direct subsidy to force development in this area towards a different focus, besides a stadium project. Its just different outcomes from different perspectives on different timelines. None are wrong, per se, and none are perfect.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 10, 2015#413

Peacock's timeline is to have the final site plan by June and then begin site control so I doubt we'll see significant changes (other than those that might address what possibly could become clearer financial hurdles.... for example if it becomes clear that it would cost too much to include the power plant... and on that note I also see that its redevelopment does not appear to be included in the financial price tag so take that fwiw.)

In contrast, I think we have to take Nixon and Peacock at their word. This part of the Riverfront is blight and they intend to clear it. The old is to come down and the new is to rise. Thousands of parking spaces are needed for this project. These spaces are good for downtown. I'm also glad the renderings don't show new building development (except whatever those greenway lining buildings are) as that end of things is entirely speculative and would have to be paid for by someone else.

Perhaps the best we could hope for is the Farmworks complex and the Shady Jack's sliver remaining.
1,585
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,585

PostJan 10, 2015#414

I'm honestly quite shocked there's this much support for this project on this board. For years I've read hopes on this board about development of North Broadway and the North Riverfront area. This project says "Screw it, let's build a massive stadium and acres of parking over it." Really? We're falling for the "redevelop our downtown" phrase again? I know I'm in the minority here (perhaps the only one), but I still say build it in a field across the river.
283
Full MemberFull Member
283

PostJan 10, 2015#415

shimmy wrote:I'm honestly quite shocked there's this much support for this project on this board. For years I've read hopes on this board about development of North Broadway and the North Riverfront area. This project says "Screw it, let's build a massive stadium and acres of parking over it." Really? We're falling for the "redevelop our downtown" phrase again? I know I'm in the minority here (perhaps the only one), but I still say build it in a field across the river.
Totally agree. It's a complete about face. Look at the Bissinger's relocation thread for proof.

But no, it's the same damn thing, every time. Ooooooh! The shiny! Must have the shiny! Eminent domain whoever is in the way, toss out whatever history we have left! Must have the shiny!

Too bad the shiny has never worked out. Time and time again. Probably because we go about getting it in all the wrong ways here.

With just a bit of tweaking, this plan can be made a hell of a lot better. But I'll bet they want those buildings demolished. Because West Countians view them as blight. And this is largely another playground for those people.

A stadium in Illinois, opening towards downtown, would be so much better. But we can't do that! :roll:
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 10, 2015#416

^ Not to mention that it forecloses mixed-use redevelopment of the Bottle District with the possible exception of the existing warehouse on the north end.

I'm also with you guys on ideally putting the stadium on the East Riverfront. A shiny stadium, some kind of C+A+R treatment for Arch project and possibly even that hope of a Cahokia Mounds National Heritage area with a visitor's center on the East Saint Louis Mounds Group would provide not only some life for an area in desperate need of it but also a visual stimulus that would help Saint Louis City side riverfront development.
2,037
Life MemberLife Member
2,037

PostJan 10, 2015#417

roger wyoming II wrote:^ Not to mention that it forecloses mixed-use redevelopment of the Bottle District with the possible exception of the existing warehouse on the north end.

I'm also with you guys on ideally putting the stadium on the East Riverfront. A shiny stadium, some kind of C+A+R treatment for Arch project and possibly even that hope of a Cahokia Mounds National Heritage area with a visitor's center on the East Saint Louis Mounds Group would provide not only some life for an area in desperate need of it but also a visual stimulus that would help Saint Louis City side riverfront development.
Never going to happen in a million billion years.
283
Full MemberFull Member
283

PostJan 10, 2015#418

Another thing: people keep saying this will bring "jobs and development".

1. Where? You're bulldozing it all.

2. Like what happened with Ballpark VIllage? Take jobs and development away from one area of Downtown, concentrate them in another? Downtown nightlife was on nothing but an upward tredn before BPV. Now look at what's happened. Do we really want to replicate that?

I just don't see any net gain in this at all. Not in terms of jobs, or re-development opportunity.
271
Full MemberFull Member
271

PostJan 10, 2015#419

Respectfully, I think the fact that people are not kidding when they bandy about the suggestion that the Bottle District will ever be developed for some shiny new mixed-use building, or that a proposal for a stadium in East St. Louis, IL would get off the ground, just shows how out-of-touch people are with reality with respect to this conversation.

No, this proposal is not urban-friendly, and if you don't like it, then I get it. The people getting on board with this proposal because "at least someone is stepping up with a vision and a serious plan for developing this land, which hasn't happened in decades," sound a lot to me like the people who defend Fr. Biondi/Saint Louis University, and what they've done to midtown with a suburban-style campus in the geographical center of a dense urban city. But, hey, a lot of people actually unironically really like how midtown looks today based on what SLU's done with the neighborhood compared to what it looked like back in the 80's.

And I really like how the north riverfront would look if this were built, compared to what it looks like today.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 10, 2015#420

Here's the TOD plan for part of the area:

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... ressed.pdf
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 10, 2015#421

^ Dude, take it easy and relax. I don't think anyone really believes that a stadium on the east riverfront would ever happen.
2,037
Life MemberLife Member
2,037

PostJan 10, 2015#422

I think in this particular situation urbanists should accept the things that they can't change and work towards the things that there might be wiggle room with. Moving the stadium one block north to spare Broadway should be the main priority, I would think.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 10, 2015#423

Fox2 - Couple with business in planned area for new stadium speaks out
What about the businesses and lives of people who have invested time and money to building successful businesses in the proposed area planned for the new stadium?
http://fox2now.com/2015/01/10/couple-wi ... peaks-out/
103
Junior MemberJunior Member
103

PostJan 11, 2015#424

I would love to see them save those couple of warehouse buildings. Turn them into residential, possibly a hotel, have some restaurants and bars on the ground floor. I also like the idea of the team store being in that power and light building. And all they would have to do is take two or so of those surface lots and put up a couple story parking garage. That would satisfy the parking needs and there would still be plenty of surface lot space to tailgate.
114
Junior MemberJunior Member
114

PostJan 11, 2015#425

Can someone answer a few questions for me?

1. What would happen to the riverfront trail and everything associated with that?

2. Are any of the plans final? or would many revisions be made?

3. Are any of the parking lots even open to any possible development plan? Or will they all be slated permanent parking til the end of time?

4.What chance will any of this actually actually be built, or is this just the state and region saving face? (I think its about a 40% chance this will be built)
Read more posts (5077 remaining)
Share