That would be cool to be able to do that.... but it is interesting to think about something like MLS moving forward on the riverfront even if the NFL hopes fall apart. Maybe some local ownership interests step up to help fill the void and a more modest site plan is pursued although following the general framework of a riverfront location and trail improvements. Throw in some direct backing of redevelopment of the warehouses for mixed-use residential and you could have a pretty cool district.dredger wrote: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?
- 8,155
- 1,299
Reconcile this....
Pittsburgh is a much heralded urban mecca, by all accounts far cooler than St. Louis. I've been there, and I'd agree!
On their riverfront (well, on ONE of their riverfronts), in the middle of their urban core, they built two, count 'em, two stadiums, one being Heinz Field, home to the Steelers. Heinz is surrounded by surface parking lots.
No doubt 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago, the site of Heinz held plenty of warehouses, flop houses, whorehouses, who knows. All gone now.
But they get major national TV exposure of their city on TV every Sunday, thanks to NFL football.
Would we rather those shots be of our downtown, granted, denuded of a dozen or so old warehouses, yet with a growing northside, new Mississippi River Bridge, improved DT, Arch, etc? Or ship 'dem bums to LA? Think people. Think!
BTW, Kim Tucci, vice chair of CVC, doesn't believe the NFL will approve a Rams move.
This stadium deal is part of the reason why. Or maybe he's just a senile, old man.
Pittsburgh is a much heralded urban mecca, by all accounts far cooler than St. Louis. I've been there, and I'd agree!
On their riverfront (well, on ONE of their riverfronts), in the middle of their urban core, they built two, count 'em, two stadiums, one being Heinz Field, home to the Steelers. Heinz is surrounded by surface parking lots.
No doubt 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago, the site of Heinz held plenty of warehouses, flop houses, whorehouses, who knows. All gone now.
But they get major national TV exposure of their city on TV every Sunday, thanks to NFL football.
Would we rather those shots be of our downtown, granted, denuded of a dozen or so old warehouses, yet with a growing northside, new Mississippi River Bridge, improved DT, Arch, etc? Or ship 'dem bums to LA? Think people. Think!
BTW, Kim Tucci, vice chair of CVC, doesn't believe the NFL will approve a Rams move.
This stadium deal is part of the reason why. Or maybe he's just a senile, old man.
- 1,868
I don't think this is worth doing without an MLS team. 8 days a year of tailgating isn't enough justification for creating a(nother) desert downtown.
Shady jacks is planning to fight the stadium
https://www.change.org/p/st-louis-rams- ... %3Acontrol
https://www.change.org/p/st-louis-rams- ... %3Acontrol
- 3,762
plenty of good suggestions on how to reorganize the site plan in a way that preserves the existing buildings—and some semblance of hope for a mixed-use district—in the comments over on NextSTL. do you really think tailgating justifies this type of land use in the heart of our city? if tailgating is so damn important then, yes, this belongs in an empty field out in the suburbs (as is the case in many other cities), not here.realclear wrote: 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.
there's nothing to reconcile. lots of cities do it, and it's sh*tty land use in all cases. the fact that it hasn't destroyed Pittsburgh doesn't change that. it sure as hell isn't factoring into their "cool" status. St. Louis, in contrast, has more of this type of parking blight than almost any other city in the US including Pittsburgh. we don't need another scar. in addition i would say that the location of Heinz is more akin to our east bank than our west bank—opposite side of the river from downtown. i'd be thrilled to stick this thing on the east bank as there's nothing there! for comparison, take a look at Cincy's "the Banks" project. take a look at Soldier Field in Chicago. football still works without acres and acres of surface parking.Northside Neighbor wrote:Reconcile this....
Pittsburgh is a much heralded urban mecca, by all accounts far cooler than St. Louis. I've been there, and I'd agree!
good. i hoped/expected they would.True_dope wrote:Shady jacks is planning to fight the stadium
https://www.change.org/p/st-louis-rams- ... %3Acontrol
- 2,772
If this doesn't get built, then in 15 years when it is still a blighted mess, everyone who fights it has to agree to purchase all of the buildings and turn them into lofts and retail. Then we have a deal!
I support this plan with hesitation, but I echo those that want to improve it. A business like Shady Jack's needs to be preserved. It'd be great to preserve all the existing businesses around this plan, actually. As many as possible.
Shady Jack's is interesting because it could absolutely be an asset to tailgating, not a detriment. It's concept is so perfect for that.
As far as the rest of the plan goes, I think it's a couple hundred million more than I'd like to see paid publicly. And that's also a big issue. But I begrudgingly still support it.
I hope there's a chance to improve it, though. At this point, I understand they're trying to paint a reasonable ideal for the NFL (which loves parking and tailgating). Perhaps if this moves forward tweaks can be made.
Shady Jack's is interesting because it could absolutely be an asset to tailgating, not a detriment. It's concept is so perfect for that.
As far as the rest of the plan goes, I think it's a couple hundred million more than I'd like to see paid publicly. And that's also a big issue. But I begrudgingly still support it.
I hope there's a chance to improve it, though. At this point, I understand they're trying to paint a reasonable ideal for the NFL (which loves parking and tailgating). Perhaps if this moves forward tweaks can be made.
Excellent. Signed.True_dope wrote:Shady jacks is planning to fight the stadium
https://www.change.org/p/st-louis-rams- ... %3Acontrol
The impression I get isn't that Shady Jack's is necessarily against the stadium, they just want to save their business. Which is obviously understandable. And I hope they're successful in that.
- 9,560
From the interview they did on channel 2, didnt seem there were really opposed or going to fight it...wonder how much of this is someone doing it on their behalf (without them knowing) or them actually involved.
- 1,868
If it does get built, will you agree to hang out around the stadium every week, not just when the Rams are home? Then we have a deal! (Probably a drug deal, in a vast, empty parking lot.)juiceinkirkwood wrote:If this doesn't get built, then in 15 years when it is still a blighted mess, everyone who fights it has to agree to purchase all of the buildings and turn them into lofts and retail. Then we have a deal!
- 8,155
Saw on the morning news that actually taxpayers in Inglewood/LA actually most likely would be on the hook for $100 million in tax reimbursement from the Rams in the first 5 years if the increase in tax revenues exceeds$25 million a year as expected. So basically they'd pay for all the infrastructure improvements related to the stadium. Could complicate things by raising taxpayer ire, although I believe local leaders themselves were aware of this.
- 3,766
First off, I am 100% for preservation of our existing building stock. I would love to see every building on the site preserved. As we know, that is not possible.
I am very skeptical as to the possibilities of this area where the stadium is proposed, ever being a thriving area within our fine city. First off, it is currently a "blighted area" IMO, with scattered buildings at best. I like the warehouses, but how likely is it, that anyone would EVER rehab them. We let a building in Cupples fall to the ground, in the heart of Downtown, for God's sake! Someone would have to come in with a massive plan for NEW development, to save the old buildings being threatened and create infill. There is way too much vacant space. 2nd, this area is very close to a lot of industry up the river and not the safest area. Good luck finding people to rent or buy high-end lofts there. For those asking if you'd hang out there the other 300 some-odd days a year when it is silent, I'd ask who is hanging out there 365 days a year now......Nobody outside of a few trail riders and bikers to Shady Jack's! If the stadium would have been proposed in Fenton, Chesterfield or off 364, we'd have the same level of complaining as to why this is not in the City somewhere. This structure has to get built. Nothing is or has gone in a positive direction, for the North Riverfront or Northside, for that matter and the Stan Span is was not going to change that. Obviously, Old North and their efforts cannot be overlooked, but major development was not in the works for that area. I am not oblivious to the fact that stadiums are not saviors, but I think if this gets built, which it must, it will do WAY more good for St. Louis, the Landing and Downtown than bad. Looking past keeping the Rams, tax revenues generated from NFL and MLS teams, etc... the perception that St. Louis can build something of this magnitude would be big nationally. We lose the Rams and do nothing, the national perception will continue to go downhill. Unfortunately, losing an NFL football team on the heels of the Mike Brown fiasco, would take STL's stock to an all-time low. We've also lost a lot of corporate HQs, which hurts our perception. Regarding Shady Jacks, I watched the clip and he seemed down about working so hard to build his biz, but I'm sure he will be happy when he is paid a fortune to move his business. I would love to see him and his wife stay, but if not, he will get an plenty in return. He could even reopen in one of the many vacant spots around town and keep a similar vibe. Jack did not ever say he was against the stadium, if I recall correctly. If this project gets done, the hope would be that the surrounding areas, at least to the bridge, could see some redevelopment. At the very least, I'm sure the City would push to get a lot of the buildings and sludge cleaned up. This stadium would also be a nice welcome to Downtown for drivers coming down 70. Right now, driver's get a pretty bleak feel from the drive into STL down 70. This project must happen!
I am very skeptical as to the possibilities of this area where the stadium is proposed, ever being a thriving area within our fine city. First off, it is currently a "blighted area" IMO, with scattered buildings at best. I like the warehouses, but how likely is it, that anyone would EVER rehab them. We let a building in Cupples fall to the ground, in the heart of Downtown, for God's sake! Someone would have to come in with a massive plan for NEW development, to save the old buildings being threatened and create infill. There is way too much vacant space. 2nd, this area is very close to a lot of industry up the river and not the safest area. Good luck finding people to rent or buy high-end lofts there. For those asking if you'd hang out there the other 300 some-odd days a year when it is silent, I'd ask who is hanging out there 365 days a year now......Nobody outside of a few trail riders and bikers to Shady Jack's! If the stadium would have been proposed in Fenton, Chesterfield or off 364, we'd have the same level of complaining as to why this is not in the City somewhere. This structure has to get built. Nothing is or has gone in a positive direction, for the North Riverfront or Northside, for that matter and the Stan Span is was not going to change that. Obviously, Old North and their efforts cannot be overlooked, but major development was not in the works for that area. I am not oblivious to the fact that stadiums are not saviors, but I think if this gets built, which it must, it will do WAY more good for St. Louis, the Landing and Downtown than bad. Looking past keeping the Rams, tax revenues generated from NFL and MLS teams, etc... the perception that St. Louis can build something of this magnitude would be big nationally. We lose the Rams and do nothing, the national perception will continue to go downhill. Unfortunately, losing an NFL football team on the heels of the Mike Brown fiasco, would take STL's stock to an all-time low. We've also lost a lot of corporate HQs, which hurts our perception. Regarding Shady Jacks, I watched the clip and he seemed down about working so hard to build his biz, but I'm sure he will be happy when he is paid a fortune to move his business. I would love to see him and his wife stay, but if not, he will get an plenty in return. He could even reopen in one of the many vacant spots around town and keep a similar vibe. Jack did not ever say he was against the stadium, if I recall correctly. If this project gets done, the hope would be that the surrounding areas, at least to the bridge, could see some redevelopment. At the very least, I'm sure the City would push to get a lot of the buildings and sludge cleaned up. This stadium would also be a nice welcome to Downtown for drivers coming down 70. Right now, driver's get a pretty bleak feel from the drive into STL down 70. This project must happen!
^ Note that in Inglewood they get to charge property taxes on the stadium whereas here it would be exempt.
Do we get $400M to work with?juiceinkirkwood wrote:If this doesn't get built, then in 15 years when it is still a blighted mess, everyone who fights it has to agree to purchase all of the buildings and turn them into lofts and retail. Then we have a deal!
- 8,155
^ I think you lose big on that one.... the PSL's account for about $125M of the public support and you probably couldn't get a $300 million bonding issue for the area so the $400M is unrealistic, however, the point is well taken that you could vastly improve the area if you were willing to utilize just a fraction of what is contemplated in public subsidy for the stadium on alternative enhancements.
It's all good, Roge! Civil discourse and witty repartee are my flavors. I'm just providing some counter-points on this thread. The Union Station issue, I feel, is completely different. But then again, I'm a walking contradiction. Sit down for this paradox: I bought and sold at least ten homes in the city last year, i own rentals in the city, BUT my office is in Clayton, YET i live in Florissant.roger wyoming II wrote:^ 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.
As long as we both love St. Louis, and approach the discussion from that perspective, we're going to be ok. Hows about we get your stadium in ESTL, i'll throw in the Cahokia mounds deal, but we get Union Station back to accepting trains? That's a triple win, my dude.
- 8,155
^ that would be cool, but only if we can take those trains to Webster, Kirkwood and Eureka/Six Flags!
- 1,868
At the very least, there could be some buildings along the main road to hide the parking lots.
- 271
And if they were creating a desert, I think I'd agree.MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think this is worth doing without an MLS team. 8 days a year of tailgating isn't enough justification for creating a(nother) desert downtown.
The truth is, that area currently is a desert. It's been a desert for decades, and, absent this plan, will remain a desert for decades more into the future.
At the very worst, this plan maintains its desert nature while at least putting things there that we can use, and keeping an NFL team here. And it's not just for 8 days a year. Even with no MLS (which I do agree with you makes this plan far more viable), there are major-ticket country music shows that only play at venues like Arrowhead, pro soccer friendlies, college football games, etc.
We have a new USL pro soccer team starting this year in St. Louis. I know Seattle's USL pro team played at CenturyLink Field before being upgraded to MLS status, and they still play at CenturyLink Field.
I know I would be way more likely to attend an FC St. Louis game if they played downtown vs. where they are set to play now (in Fenton).
- 3,766
^ I think that is the major thing detractors cling to. The thought that this venue can only be used for NFL pre-season, regular season & maybe the playoffs. Obviously, if we get an MLS team (which is no guarantee because you need an owner(s) ) you get 17 of 34 regular season games at home. Then you throw in the X-factor, which is the St. Louis Sports Commission. They have been awesome at getting major events here in STL. I would expect major exhibition soccer events bringing English teams, World Cup qualifiers, other UEFA or FIFA games etc. STL will be a major player if the US ever gets the World Cup again, as well an Olympic bid in a city like Chicago. We can also make a play for the SEC Championship, Mizzou (& /or Illinois) football and other major college sporting events. Not too sure if we'd grab a Super Bowl, but that is always possible. Also, the concert potential is also amazing. This could lead to some further development of business, retail and entertainment to the Landing, breathing some much needed life into that area. This along with the Arch ground renovations, Stan Span etc, make the riverfront something to be proud of. This stadium can bring so much to the City and utilize an under-utilized area. It is so much more than a place to play football. ALSO, let's not forget what this does for the Dome. It will open it up for conventions, allow for a redo, that will hopefully get it up to snub, with the cities we compete with for conventions. The CVC can redo the Dome away from a football venue and make it more of a true multi-use, non-football venue. That will be huge for our city! This kills 2 birds with one stone, while creating jobs, cleaning up the North Riverfront and adding a gem to our city.
This is a no-brainer!
This is a no-brainer!
- 8,155
I think that is an important thing to underscore.... Pittsburgh is similar to Manhattan in that it has a public (state) park at the tip of the peninsula and then a very dense and active CBD. The stadiums in turn are located on the transit accessible North Shore along with a casino, science center, museums, mixed-use office/residential/entertainment, nice riverfront park/trail and yes, some significant parking to serve all those uses. And those spaces are continuing to be infilled. Perfect for something across the river.urban_dilettante wrote:there's nothing to reconcile. lots of cities do it, and it's sh*tty land use in all cases. the fact that it hasn't destroyed Pittsburgh doesn't change that. it sure as hell isn't factoring into their "cool" status. St. Louis, in contrast, has more of this type of parking blight than almost any other city in the US including Pittsburgh. we don't need another scar. in addition i would say that the location of Heinz is more akin to our east bank than our west bank—opposite side of the river from downtown. i'd be thrilled to stick this thing on the east bank as there's nothing there! for comparison, take a look at Cincy's "the Banks" project. take a look at Soldier Field in Chicago. football still works without acres and acres of surface parking.Northside Neighbor wrote:Reconcile this....
Pittsburgh is a much heralded urban mecca, by all accounts far cooler than St. Louis. I've been there, and I'd agree!
Cincy's downtown riverfront is more similar to Saint Louis riverfront, but again they have three stadiums/arenas down there, museums, mixed-use office/residential/hotel/entertainment Banks project and nice riverfront park again with less surface parking than what we are contemplating for just our stadium.
If we go ahead with this, the amount of surface parking dedicated downtown to our scattered stadiums/arenas would be insane compared to what others have tied up to that unproductive use.