UrbanReviewSTL - State & Local Leadership Have Failed To Learn From Mistakes Of The Last 75+ Years
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2015/01/s ... -75-years/
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2015/01/s ... -75-years/
- 8,155
^^ this is so painfully obvious that you could commit a lot fewer public $$ than contemplated for the stadium to alternative plans and get some significant results. One thing positive about the site selection is that does bring focus to the north riverfront and prompts what hopefully will be a good look at what its potential is and a consideration of various alternatives.
- 1,868
Is the new stadium going to be so much better than Busch for these purposes that we need to spend hundreds of millions and acres of new parking spaces on a new stadium? I don't get it.Greatest St. Louis wrote: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).
I'm all for a new stadium, but it needs more than a walking path to connect it to the surrounding urban fabric, if it's going to be in such a prominent location.
- 3,433
. Unlike suburban stadiums where there is no other place to park, fans may be ok to park downtown cheap and walk.roger wyoming II wrote: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 they plan on charging a fortune for those parking spaces, they may get surprised since folks could find cheaper parking in nearby downtown. May want to shrink the parking. This site isn't like the suburbs where you have no other parking options.
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.
That's a great point. Just think how this area or other areas in St. Louis would be if we invested $300 to $400 to incentivize new construction, infrastructure, transit etc.Bond extension $300M-$350m
MDFB support $15M-$25M
Brownfield tax credits $25M-$30M
Fine $340M - $405M
Point is that's it's not a fair comparison when one gets that much public money and the present condition gets none.
- 3,767
^ What is so prominent about this location?
It is not being utilized, has been very underutilized and probably was not going to be utilized. It is an area cut off from the city by I70.
It could have been an extension of the Landing, but nobody has rushed to develop the land. Same problem on the south riverfront. Let's be frank, our riverfront is not that scenic, in a natural sense. It floods, it is very fast flowing, making recreation boating a risky and difficult proposition, which is why is almost non-existent. This is not the Allegheny river. This is the Mighty Mississippi and it is called that for a reason. I look at the natural river in Memphis. It is much more scenic than ours. Our riverfront is really a victim of it's very nature. The point being, I just don't see anyone rushing to develop our riverfront.
Now, when talking about the use of public funds. The CVC was going to spend over $200 million to keep the Rams at the Dome for another 10 years. If you recall, the counteroffer was $200 million plus. Nobody flinched at that. Obviously, we knew the Rams would reject that offer, but what if they didn't.......
It is not being utilized, has been very underutilized and probably was not going to be utilized. It is an area cut off from the city by I70.
It could have been an extension of the Landing, but nobody has rushed to develop the land. Same problem on the south riverfront. Let's be frank, our riverfront is not that scenic, in a natural sense. It floods, it is very fast flowing, making recreation boating a risky and difficult proposition, which is why is almost non-existent. This is not the Allegheny river. This is the Mighty Mississippi and it is called that for a reason. I look at the natural river in Memphis. It is much more scenic than ours. Our riverfront is really a victim of it's very nature. The point being, I just don't see anyone rushing to develop our riverfront.
Now, when talking about the use of public funds. The CVC was going to spend over $200 million to keep the Rams at the Dome for another 10 years. If you recall, the counteroffer was $200 million plus. Nobody flinched at that. Obviously, we knew the Rams would reject that offer, but what if they didn't.......
- 1,868
If it's so cut-off that we don't care about a lack of design value, should we care that the area is currently blighted? What's the point of hosting a bunch of games or concerts there, if it doesn't feed back into the local area because it's so isolated?
I'm okay with building a big stadium and some amount of surface parking against the river, and I agree that up against an interstate and a river is as good a place as any, but it still needs to be connected substantially to the neighboring areas. Otherwise it's somewhat pointless, from a public policy perspective. Or at best, a $400mil advertising campaign.
I'm okay with building a big stadium and some amount of surface parking against the river, and I agree that up against an interstate and a river is as good a place as any, but it still needs to be connected substantially to the neighboring areas. Otherwise it's somewhat pointless, from a public policy perspective. Or at best, a $400mil advertising campaign.
^^That wasn't my point. I said nothing about the location's prominence.
$300 to $400 million can go a long way if it isn't used for the construction of one building. Think how much that money would accomplish if used as grants for new construction, building rehab, airport cargo incentives, school programs, relocation incentives, etc.
Where is the sense of urgency for other things in our city? We have terrible crime and schools and drag our feet to do anything about those problems. But when a multi-million dollar sports franchise with a billionaire owner threatens to leave town, we fork over money like its nothing. Do you see how counter-intuitive that sounds?
We could utilize these areas if our leaders had any sort of vision and did something to incentivize their use long ago. Its not that complicated. It just takes some guts and foresight.
$300 to $400 million can go a long way if it isn't used for the construction of one building. Think how much that money would accomplish if used as grants for new construction, building rehab, airport cargo incentives, school programs, relocation incentives, etc.
Where is the sense of urgency for other things in our city? We have terrible crime and schools and drag our feet to do anything about those problems. But when a multi-million dollar sports franchise with a billionaire owner threatens to leave town, we fork over money like its nothing. Do you see how counter-intuitive that sounds?
We could utilize these areas if our leaders had any sort of vision and did something to incentivize their use long ago. Its not that complicated. It just takes some guts and foresight.
- 3,767
Problem is, you will not see anyone step up and develop these types of areas in STL. Look at Powell Square. We lost that building. Many others have fallen. If development does not make sense, it will not get done. I can't imagine, at this time or in the past, developing that area of north RF, has ever been on too many developers radars. Regarding the tax dollars, aren't of lot of the tax dollars being used, being generated by tourist and tourist industry dollars that CVC related events bring here? If you can create tax revenue that will not be there without the project, bringing up better utilization of tax dollars for education, transportation, etc. is moot.
And you know why? Because our leaders have not done enough to make it attractive for people to invest in. When some areas are so blighted and underutilized, it can be too difficult a task for individual developers to take on. The city could be doing more to make that initial investment from a developer easier to stomach.Problem is, you will not see anyone step up and develop these types of areas.
Regarding taxes generated by the CVC, I don't know how much is actually generated. But the majority of public money for this project would come from extending the existing bond issue. It's the same concept as the $150 million bond issue the city wants to do for upgrading various city institutions and infrastructure. Its just the capitol for the stadium bond goes to primarily the stadium..
- 3,767
Not to mention, they estimate that an additional $20 million in convention business could be brought here, with the Rams out of the Dome. If that venue can be updated to compete for national events and conferences, there is more revenue to be had. Opening up the Dome for more events, is a win-win.
^^Has it been done in our lifetime? It is not just a political issue. It is an area cut off by the interstate, that has always been undesirable. I know this because it is a fact. Just go there. I'd rather see the south riverfront get fixed up first and see the stadium go in the north. The interstates are the reason these areas have always been cut off, underutilized and depressed. Those interstates aren't going anywhere. Connection to the landing seems possible with this project and will likely happen.
I just don't see an issue with putting up $400 mill. on a close to $1 bill. project in our city.
I just don't see an issue with putting up $400 mill. on a close to $1 bill. project in our city.
- 8,155
^ North Riverfront has much more potential than south riverfront. The recent investments show that. GRG is working on the area as a priority, Kerr Foundation put their investment in about a decade ago, Farmworks project already has brought a terrific housing component and the ag components are just beginning, and the Broadway corridor continues to see investment most recently with the Bissinger's investment.
If the stadium falls through, we'll still see continued, incremental investments... commit say $25-$50 million is special incentives beyond your normal TIF and historic housing credits, etc. and you could accelerate things even faster.
If the stadium falls through, we'll still see continued, incremental investments... commit say $25-$50 million is special incentives beyond your normal TIF and historic housing credits, etc. and you could accelerate things even faster.
- 9,566
Chargers are drawing the line in the sand... 'Rams not welcome in LA, already left once...if need be we will sue"
Some thoughts looking again:
-the video screens look smallish compared to the monsters they've recently installed in Jacksonville, Carolina etc.
-is there room in the upper deck endzones to add temporary seats for a Super Bowl?
-the video screens look smallish compared to the monsters they've recently installed in Jacksonville, Carolina etc.
-is there room in the upper deck endzones to add temporary seats for a Super Bowl?
This is part of the reason I've always pushed the Koskiusko location.roger wyoming II wrote:^ North Riverfront has much more potential than south riverfront. The recent investments show that. GRG is working on the area as a priority, Kerr Foundation put their investment in about a decade ago, Farmworks project already has brought a terrific housing component and the ag components are just beginning, and the Broadway corridor continues to see investment most recently with the Bissinger's investment.
- 3,767
Just curious... This question is to those who do not want the new stadium. What is your MAIN issue? Issue of tax-dollars going to Kroenke? (ie..public dollars for stadium financing). Is this an issue of wish for 'better' utilization of that area? Do you not want this venue in the City at all? Are you 100% against it or just bringing up counterpoints? I'm just curious to what level, some of you oppose the Task Force stadium proposal.
If you oppose the location, what location would you prefer?
If you oppose the location, what location would you prefer?
Dweebe, wouldn't that require significant demo, some historic in nature? Would that not take away a ton from the atmosphere of Soulard and that area? I'd much rather have it North. I used to think south would be better, until I thought about that monstrous parking lot in front of Soulard. That would take a lot away from that area IMO. Soccer would be cool to attend right from the pubs, but I'm not sure that is a good idea for that area.
- 8,155
That is a big bonus with Rams moving out (to wherever). Convention and other event business will definitely increase and If the CVB can generate enough increased revenue to upgrade the Dome (maybe with a refinement of its earlier submission for arbitration) to keep it relevant in attracting marquee events for the coming years that would be great. I wonder how much of a life span the dome has with and without major upgrades.... certainly this should be part of the public discussion. It is interesting to that the proposal for NFL is not a retractable stadium as that ensures it will not be the site of these major indoor events but will still cost $1 billion or so.DogtownBnR wrote:Not to mention, they estimate that an additional $20 million in convention business could be brought here, with the Rams out of the Dome. If that venue can be updated to compete for national events and conferences, there is more revenue to be had. Opening up the Dome for more events, is a win-win.
I'm not against the stadium. I think the stadium concept is very cool. I'm against the parking lot. That's my biggest hang-up. Maybe the proposed parking lot is negotiable and is mostly there to entice the NFL.
I'm OK with some public money going to the project. I just don't like the idea of public dollars going towards destruction of existing/usable buildings. I also think public money for this project could be better used elsewhere. But, if the public would rather use money on a stadium deal, I can't argue with the vote.
I'm OK with some public money going to the project. I just don't like the idea of public dollars going towards destruction of existing/usable buildings. I also think public money for this project could be better used elsewhere. But, if the public would rather use money on a stadium deal, I can't argue with the vote.
- 9,566
its 11,000 less spots then required by the City Zoning Code for a stadium. its not to entice the NFL, its to generate revenue for the owner and have people park reasonably close by....i would never park there, even with 10,000 spots i bet it will be a pain to get out of there...i don't mind walking a mile but some folks rather not.pat wrote:I'm not against the stadium. I think the stadium concept is very cool. I'm against the parking lot. That's my biggest hang-up. Maybe the proposed parking lot is negotiable and is mostly there to entice the NFL.
.
- 8,155
I think most are saying with some site plan revision (the degree to which varies) they might be okay with it at least in terms of site plan leaving wisdom of public stadium funding aside. Again a common suggestion is put it one block north and avoid wholesale carnage of warehouses and existing businesses. Personally, if the region feels it is important enough to keep the NFL and that we need a sea of parking for it I'd rather move it out of downtown.... keep the costs lower and re-direct some of the public subsidy savings back to downtown reinvestments.DogtownBnR wrote:Just curious... This question is to those who do not want the new stadium. What is your MAIN issue? ....
If you oppose the location, what location would you prefer?
I'm not challenging you: but I've driven and biked around the area. I don't remember anything historic.DogtownBnR wrote:Dweebe, wouldn't that require significant demo, some historic in nature?
It's a swap. Empty lots and tractor trailer parking >>> empty lots and car parking.DogtownBnR wrote:Would that not take away a ton from the atmosphere of Soulard and that area?
Soulard wouldn't be happy and I wouldn't blame them.DogtownBnR wrote:That would take a lot away from that area IMO. Soccer would be cool to attend right from the pubs, but I'm not sure that is a good idea for that area.
11,000 spots sounds like what will be under Kronke (or someone else's) control and serve as income. They're not counting the lots and garages on the Landing plus elsewhere on the north side of downtown.dbInSouthCity wrote:its 11,000 less spots then required by the City Zoning Code for a stadium. its not to entice the NFL, its to generate revenue for the owner and have people park reasonably close by....i would never park there, even with 10,000 spots i bet it will be a pain to get out of there...i don't mind walking a mile but some folks rather not.pat wrote:I'm not against the stadium. I think the stadium concept is very cool. I'm against the parking lot. That's my biggest hang-up. Maybe the proposed parking lot is negotiable and is mostly there to entice the NFL.
.