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?
BPV exists and isn't going away. This plan would actually increase use of the convention center, keep NFL games downtown, add some soccer friendlies and, hopefully, MLS games, thereby counteracting the losses caused by BPV at places like Washington Ave.
Instead of just throwing out the entire concept I think urbanstl should be trying to reach a consensus on how, specifically, the site can be improved.
i,Iive,to,draw wrote:Can someone answer a few questions for me?
1. What would happen to the riverfront trail and everything associated with that?
This would be an improvement to the Trail; probably the best feature of the whole project. From the Central Riverfront Trail it appears it would swing behind the power station and stadium right by the river as part of some significant engineering and then at some point transition to the existing trail,
2. Are any of the plans final? or would many revisions be made?
Final site plan is slated for June so I imagine there will be some revisions. And even after. But I wouldn't count on major changes if this picks up steam.
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?
I assume there would be some opportunity for infill but I wouldn't count on it... less chance there than in BPV which is struggling on its own.
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)
I don't know if this happens or not. Maybe they really will build it hinging on hope for getting a team in the future (NFL and MLS). But I'm far from convinced that the rams are interested in staying. 40/60 STL/LA. The Rams put out a passive aggressive statement after the stadium plan was unveiled. That was telling.
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.
Obviously you've said you don't believe the stadium you reference in this post is even possible, but this is the type of suggestion that I see "urbanists" and "preservationists" suggest all the time. This suggestion takes a proposed plan and somehow transmogrifies it into a development for Cahokia mounds. It has nothing to do with football. So often a plan comes along and people bash it then provide another plan that includes three or four other items they'd like to see addressed without any basis in reality. Then, we start lamenting how this plan might alter a pie in the sky rendering we saw a million years ago (the Bottle Works).
This is a football stadium. Tail-gating is necessary to complete the football experience. Part of the reason much of the region has a lack of commitment to the Rams is a lack of true experience when going to the games. This "experience" is constant at just about every football game across the U.S.
Please just accept the parking as needed, then think for a moment about how removing this parking need out of downtown proper actually sets the stage for all kinds of other development. Then, go rent a high-floor room at the Four Seasons and ask for a north facing view (bonus: they're cheaper than the arch view rooms) and take a look at this area. It's a wasteland. It would need several, highly unlikely independent developments to even begin to spur the idea of anyone moving there. This needs to happen.
ttricamo wrote: Obviously you've said you don't believe the stadium you reference in this post is even possible, but this is the type of suggestion that I see "urbanists" and "preservationists" suggest all the time. This suggestion takes a proposed plan and somehow transmogrifies it into a development for Cahokia mounds. It has nothing to do with football. So often a plan comes along and people bash it then provide another plan that includes three or four other items they'd like to see addressed without any basis in reality. Then, we start lamenting how this plan might alter a pie in the sky rendering we saw a million years ago (the Bottle Works).
If urbanist-minded people aren't allowed to play around a bit by re-imagining things at an urbanist-minded blog call urbanstl then something is really f'd up. Also, for the record, I don't think anyone mentioned lamenting the alteration of pie in the sky renderings of the Bottle District.
If urbanist-minded people aren't allowed to play around a bit by re-imagining things at an urbanist-minded blog call urbanstl then something is really f'd up. Also, for the record, I don't think anyone mentioned lamenting the alteration of pie in the sky renderings of the Bottle District.
It would be nice if people would get out of their "all things through my lens" approach to the city/local issues.
Whether it's historic preservation, the street grid, density, pro sports opinions, whatever, it seems there's some sort of orthodoxy/religion whereby if you don't agree with it, you're not a real urbanist. That's silly. I guess it's all thanks to the internet. Here people can be much more idealistic/harsh in expressing their opinions. It's not the same when you're face to face.
Show some empathy. Here's a thought: change!
Or not. Feel free to tell Kroenke, the Rams, the governor, and all fans of the NFL in St. Louis to go f$%& themselves if building a new riverfront stadium in St. Louis means demolishing a dozen or so 100 year old buildings. Some will do that. You see quite a bit of that sentiment out there on people's personal Facebook pages.
^ I get a kick out of this comment on the Union Station thread given his criticism of my alternative fantasy for an enlivened east riverfront...
Re: Union Station Redevelopment
by ttricamo » Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:20 am
^ Yep. I've said it for years in this thread. Make it a Train Station again. Any other " adaptive re-use" ultimately feels weird and then fails. What is that called in architecture?
so it's okay to pee all over the new owner's effort to bring Union Station back to relevancy by calling it destined to fail and instead suggesting bringing it back as an active train station when such an idea, while perhaps being ideal, is completely unrealistic in the foreseeable future. but imagining an enlivened east riverfront with a stadium gets thrown a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct!
This is a forum on urbanist issues and it is to be expected that a wide range of views will be expressed and that's great... the only thing that is a bit disappointing with the thread, and I think something that you predicted, is that it seems to have more comments attacking others rather than contributing to dialogue/exchange of ideas.
^ LA seems to think the chances of it getting built are great and Saint Louis seems to be more jaded. I think Stan wants to move (their coded response to the plan was a tell I think) so imo its up to outside forces preventing Stan's move or one of those intriguing scenarios where Stan sells and gets another team in LA.
Anyway, I'm not sure what's next.... I know there is an aggressive timeline announced on our end, but is that really only triggered when NFL and whatever team says go for it? Or do they go ahead and continue on site plan final details, etc.?
^ And its unlike Northside Regen or Disney World where there are stealth purchasers keeping the price down. But I am curious, do you support the use of eminent domain for the project if needed?
To me, this is the porn shot (Gateway City would call it something more descriptive) of the whole project:
Still not sure on the specifics of the public space, but it actually would be floating on the river It also looks like there is even some kind of stage/ampitheater depicted. Very cool but complex although I heard that Army Corps has given some kind of preliminary approval for it. I think though that this would all be dependent upon the power plant being turned over. I think by far the potential for a year-round adaptive re-use of the power plant and extension of major treatments of the Central Riverfront Trail are the most exciting elements of the site plan. I imagine GRG has been involved in this and look forward to more details.
But I am curious, do you support the use of eminent domain for the project if needed?
Not at all. Talk about your poster child situation regarding the abuse of eminent domain. Buy out existing businesses to enrich billionaire sports team owners and their players, so rich West Countians can tailgate on Sundays?
Never gonna happen.
All the more reason I wish I owned land there. They are going to have to pay, Pay, PAY to acquire this property.
And the savvy owners would be lining up now to start negotiating options with cash payments beginning Monday.
Stltoday - Nicklaus: Stadium may sparkle, but it's not an investment
Most of us wouldn't make a big investment without expecting some kind of a return.
If St. Louis socks half a billion dollars into a new football stadium, however, the best it can hope for are some intangible benefits. An open-air sports palace can provide a spectacular riverfront vista, boost the region's image and make St. Louisans feel better about their city.
^^ I agree and the 90-110 million they have for site acquisition and demo seems low. Stamping Lofts/FarmWorks alone I think would be running $20 million+ and then you have numerous functioning businesses to deal with. And then there is the power plant which I'd think would be costly. (Dealing with rail and Ameren's electrical substation may be under infrastructure costs but I'm not sure.)
Also, with that many owners I think at least one or two would be hold-outs. So I think these potential cost issues will be the most likely to affect changes in the site plan, either by scaling back property acquisition or eliminating other elements such as the greenway overpass or grandiosity of the floating trails, etc. If this moves forward at all it'l be fun to follow!
^ There's a decent amount of not blight up there as well though and functioning businesses in buildings that may not look attractive but can be expensive to buy out and relocate.
Do you drop the top level seats for the moment and essentially go forward with one of the premier soccer stadiums in the Midwest that can be built out for a top tier NFL stadium with some creativity design? Peacock made a point of emphasizing the soccer point considering the audience was NFL. Could an MSL owners group happening behind the scenes?
The plus side is you need about half of the surface parking (which can be turned over future tailgaters) and therefore go forward with a site plan that has a significant less footprint and real estate issues. I think that would be a big win as well as give time for the structured parking coming to Laclede's to happen.
I agree on the stadium itself being situated literally on the waterfront with all new look for the power building and riverfront trail itself.
^ I'd love to know as well.... my understanding is that the housing portion went really well but the second phase/FarmWorks looks like it may be taking awhile to get going. I know that they broke ground on a reported $13 million anaerobic digester for methane production in February but I'm not sure what is going on with it now... it was supposed to be done in June but I don't think it is done yet:
Yea, I heard the housing went really well, just didn't know about the anaerobic part. I always thought it was a perfect project for the north riverfront area. I prefer building on that rather than building a stadium.
Northside Neighbor wrote:C'mon folks, demoeing 10-20 buildings to build a new, state of the art NFL stadium does not wipe out the historic character of STL.
well, it certainly wipes out whatever is left. here's how Richmond, VA reused its old, riverfront tobacco warehouses:
Northside Neighbor wrote:Can we please be a little less hyperbolic in these discussions?
If some can be saved, great. If the project can be improved, greater.
But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.
what is the forest here? that we'll lose any opportunity for urban development on the north riverfront for the next 20 years, at least, while retaining a team that produces little to no economic benefit for city? that we'll have a massive concrete desert encompassing the entire north-west portion of our downtown? did you happen to notice the amount of surface parking? i'm at a loss for words… this proposal honestly makes me want to f*cking cry. i just took a big step closer to having zero hope for this city. enjoy your tailgating, i guess.
urban_dilettante wrote:what is the forest here? that we'll lose any opportunity for urban development on the north riverfront for the next 20 years, at least, while retaining a team that produces little to no economic benefit for city? that we'll have a massive concrete desert encompassing the entire north-west portion of our downtown? did you happen to notice the amount of surface parking? i'm at a loss for words… this proposal honestly makes me want to f*cking cry. i just took a big step closer to having zero hope for this city. enjoy your tailgating, i guess.
So what would be your proposal for the stadium? I'm not being snarky, here - truly curious. Any other proposal would dump this thing outside of the city.
