I think it would if packaged right. and peacock has hired FlieshmanHillard for the PR work.roger wyoming II wrote:I don't know if it is that simple and it would be litigated. But again getting back to being a guage of the public will, do you think it would survive a public vote if it came to that?dbInSouthCity wrote:It can be done without a vote of the people....and that's the plan right now.
- 9,565
- 8,155
^ I think it would be a challenge but not out of the question if it continues to come from the hotel tax as I suspect it would.
Speaking of New Orleans, is the Super Dome considered "obsolete" the way our Dome is (which I don't agree with)? And if not, what features of the 20 years older Super Dome make it a better football atmosphere compared to the EJD. Size? No one complains of the size of the Dome that I know of.
- 8,155
I was not aware the Cotton Belt mural was completed:
![]()
somehow they need to incorporate the building into the stadium -- press box and club seats!
somehow they need to incorporate the building into the stadium -- press box and club seats!
- 3,766
^^ They also have the French Quarter and a lot of hurricanes (the drink) to make everyone forget how big of a dump that place is. I'm sure it was renovated after Katrina, but it has to be a dump. At least it looks that way on TV.
- 8,912
I'd like to see this the plan included replacing the jail with a lot/parking structure in return for keeping the Shady Jacks building and the two northern buildings along Broadway (1500 block) along with the new lofts? Also, there needs to be a mixed use component along Ashley, Biddle or Carr and improved connectivity between the Stadium, Landing and Wash ave.
- 3,766
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... 1421098085
This guy thinks STL would be overpaying to keep the Rams. . .I just wonder if EVERYTHING that could come (MLS, Dome redo, etc.) is being considered as he makes this assumption.
This guy thinks STL would be overpaying to keep the Rams. . .I just wonder if EVERYTHING that could come (MLS, Dome redo, etc.) is being considered as he makes this assumption.
- 8,912
Of course we're over paying. NFL teams and stadiums are a LOSS leader for cities, no question.DogtownBnR wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... 1421098085
This guy thinks STL would be overpaying to keep the Rams. . .I just wonder if EVERYTHING that could come (MLS, Dome redo, etc.) is being considered as he makes this assumption.
The Super Dome was almost destroyed during Katrina. The Saints almost had to move elsewhere permanently or get a new building done.blzhrpmd2 wrote:Speaking of New Orleans, is the Super Dome considered "obsolete" the way our Dome is (which I don't agree with)? And if not, what features of the 20 years older Super Dome make it a better football atmosphere compared to the EJD. Size? No one complains of the size of the Dome that I know of.
Instead New Orleans ponied up and heavily renovated the Super Dome. That's why it's not in the conversation. It was made "like new" in the last decade.
EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the Superdome underwent $185 million in renovations and refurbishing after Katrina. It then underwent an additional $320 million in renovations starting a little later.
And here's something that shouldn't be lost sight of: if the city hadn't allowed the first tier clause in the Rams lease, we'd also be talking about a public-partnership of renovations in the $200-400 million range to make the Dome a lot nicer. The lease wouldn't give the Rams an out, and the two parties likely would have come to terms on a nice renovation as a result.
But the lease gave the Rams all the leverage in the world, and that's why we're tasked with building a $1 billion stadium or losing them.
When we talk about how the Dome isn't necessarily the worst place in the world (and it's not) we have to remember the context. This isn't about having a building that is too bad to host football. It's about having a subpar building that gives the NFL team all the power.
- 3,762
if this were ANYTHING other than a football stadium, everybody here would think that the proposed surface parking is insane and completely unacceptable. but since it's football—and reason seems to get thrown out the window whenever sports are involved—the supporters are fine with it.
i'm not opposed to the stadium as long as it is integrated with what's already there. and for those suggesting that this area will forever be blighted, Roger already brought up recent investments and the potential for further investments. think of the potential for this area if the stadium were built without all the surface parking. moreover, MOST of the city has seen little investment over the past 70 years. it's just now picking up. once it reaches critical mass this area will begin to see substantial investment as well. it's one of the few parts of our riverfront that has room for development; it's a no brainer. so, yeah, lets squander that opportunity on more parking. parking parking parking parking parking parking parking.
i'm not opposed to the stadium as long as it is integrated with what's already there. and for those suggesting that this area will forever be blighted, Roger already brought up recent investments and the potential for further investments. think of the potential for this area if the stadium were built without all the surface parking. moreover, MOST of the city has seen little investment over the past 70 years. it's just now picking up. once it reaches critical mass this area will begin to see substantial investment as well. it's one of the few parts of our riverfront that has room for development; it's a no brainer. so, yeah, lets squander that opportunity on more parking. parking parking parking parking parking parking parking.
- 8,155
^ right... I do get a little disturbed when I hear all the talk from the Gov on down talking about how the North Riverfront is nothing but blight. There are a number of green shoots already in the area and with just a little imagination and patience it is not difficult at all to see a bright future for the area if the stadium plan is either adjusted a bit or falls through,
And on that note, can whoever had that link to the TOD plan for the Landing re-post it again?
And on that note, can whoever had that link to the TOD plan for the Landing re-post it again?
- 114
i think everyone should read this and his reason near the end why a stadium won't be built there.
http://stlouispatina.com/near-north-riverfront-3/
http://stlouispatina.com/near-north-riverfront-3/
Put me down as a "no" if extending the bonds are ever put up to a vote. And that is entirely due to the opportunity cost of what the region could do with $500M+ from the taxes that will be used to pay off the extended bonds and interest. Right now, I could care less about the design of the stadium.
When proponents talk about the benefits of this stadium proposal, all they talk about is image and PR. They say we need the national PR brought by having an NFL team, but more importantly, they worry about the negative image presented from losing an NFL team after the Ferguson chaos of the last four months. They worry that losing the Rams would make it appear like St. Louis was in decline.
My response is that St. Louis better get prepared for actual, serious, disastrous regional decline over the next twenty years unless real changes are made to address the real problems that were unveiled to the world for months during the Ferguson riots. St. Louis is and will remain on the blacklist for national and international private investment for the next two decades if St. Louis isn't able to show to the world in dramatic fashion that we are addressing the conditions that resulted in the Ferguson riots. As North county mirrors the images of the widespread, depressing decay of Detroit, the St. Louis region will become Detroit in 20 years unless serious changes are made.
I get that the tax revenue for the stadium bonds can't be just rolled over into other purposes or bonds. But that $500M+ in tax revenue that will be used to pay for the stadium bonds does represent a half billion dollars of the region's resources that cannot be used for other purposes over the next 30 critical years and will make it that much harder to find the funding to implement actually impactful changes in the region if it is wasted on a stadium at this point.
Right now, any honest economist will tell you that the future does not look bright right now for the St. Louis region. Six months ago, our long term economic projections did not look good. Today, an honest and off the record assessment would be bleak. An NFL team does not change that. This would be a massive waste of resources at a very critical time for the region. So my vote would be no.
When proponents talk about the benefits of this stadium proposal, all they talk about is image and PR. They say we need the national PR brought by having an NFL team, but more importantly, they worry about the negative image presented from losing an NFL team after the Ferguson chaos of the last four months. They worry that losing the Rams would make it appear like St. Louis was in decline.
My response is that St. Louis better get prepared for actual, serious, disastrous regional decline over the next twenty years unless real changes are made to address the real problems that were unveiled to the world for months during the Ferguson riots. St. Louis is and will remain on the blacklist for national and international private investment for the next two decades if St. Louis isn't able to show to the world in dramatic fashion that we are addressing the conditions that resulted in the Ferguson riots. As North county mirrors the images of the widespread, depressing decay of Detroit, the St. Louis region will become Detroit in 20 years unless serious changes are made.
I get that the tax revenue for the stadium bonds can't be just rolled over into other purposes or bonds. But that $500M+ in tax revenue that will be used to pay for the stadium bonds does represent a half billion dollars of the region's resources that cannot be used for other purposes over the next 30 critical years and will make it that much harder to find the funding to implement actually impactful changes in the region if it is wasted on a stadium at this point.
Right now, any honest economist will tell you that the future does not look bright right now for the St. Louis region. Six months ago, our long term economic projections did not look good. Today, an honest and off the record assessment would be bleak. An NFL team does not change that. This would be a massive waste of resources at a very critical time for the region. So my vote would be no.
Yeah, I'm not sure how much water that holds. I'm not sure what he's saying is accurate, but let's say it is. The problem can be easily solved by smoothing out the route. Really doesn't impact anything with the plan any except for where concrete goes.i,Iive,to,draw wrote:i think everyone should read this and his reason near the end why a stadium won't be built there.
http://stlouispatina.com/near-north-riverfront-3/
Does anyone recall if the Rams have exercised the year-to-year option in their lease yet? They've indicated they will, and the deadline is January 28, but does anyone know if it's happened?
The reason I ask, is that if they haven't done it yet, you wonder why. Kroenke does always wait until the last minute with these things, and maybe that's all this is. OR maybe he's waiting until January 28 to announce that he's picking up and moving to LA. Immediately.
I wouldn't rule it out. Yes, he'd have a fight on his hands with the league, but he might be up for it. We'll see. That's the date to watch, I think.
The reason I ask, is that if they haven't done it yet, you wonder why. Kroenke does always wait until the last minute with these things, and maybe that's all this is. OR maybe he's waiting until January 28 to announce that he's picking up and moving to LA. Immediately.
I wouldn't rule it out. Yes, he'd have a fight on his hands with the league, but he might be up for it. We'll see. That's the date to watch, I think.
- 9,565
^ I think its a formality at this point, they emailed me saying 2015 season ticket prices will be the same as 2014 and more details to come next week.
- 8,155
I like Steve Patterson's very good overview of the area and l historic areas involved as well....i,Iive,to,draw wrote:i think everyone should read this and his reason near the end why a stadium won't be built there.
http://stlouispatina.com/near-north-riverfront-3/
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2015/01/s ... l-stadium/
It is a bit more comprehensive and he avoids some of Nafziger's all-knowingness commentary on why this will never happen because of x,y & z -- power supply needs, rail line radii, etc.. I agree with Steve that perhaps it is true that this is just a way to go through the motions of saying we tried (which was my immediate thought when I saw the site plan on the river) but we have to act like its intent is real.
- 3,766
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/sport ... share&_r=3
SO, Jerry basically says the Rams can move without approval from the NFL. THIS is coming from one of the league's most influential owner. Really?!!!! Seriously??? SO, basically, Stan is likely going rogue.
I've read that the league still would like to work with AEG and Farmers Field. That is their preferred site, but many issues persist with that site. Imagine if the NFL and AEG get Farmers Field going and Stan goes forward with his project. Then what?!
SO, Jerry basically says the Rams can move without approval from the NFL. THIS is coming from one of the league's most influential owner. Really?!!!! Seriously??? SO, basically, Stan is likely going rogue.
I've read that the league still would like to work with AEG and Farmers Field. That is their preferred site, but many issues persist with that site. Imagine if the NFL and AEG get Farmers Field going and Stan goes forward with his project. Then what?!
- 8,155
^ That's always been the case that they can move without approval but the issue would be what would be the cost... under league rules the penalty would be pretty high but of course that could be negotiated or what not. Looks like both city's have issues to work through and the coming months will be pretty brutal with pr and speculation.
Whether they stay or go, hopefully a decision becomes clear relatively soon.
Whether they stay or go, hopefully a decision becomes clear relatively soon.
- 9,565
Wouldnt put too much stock into his comments....its pretty clear that Rams cannot just move. NFL holds WAY too many cards ....TV revenue sharing ect.DogtownBnR wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/sport ... share&_r=3
SO, Jerry basically says the Rams can move without approval from the NFL. THIS is coming from one of the league's most influential owner. Really?!!!! Seriously??? SO, basically, Stan is likely going rogue.
I've read that the league still would like to work with AEG and Farmers Field. That is their preferred site, but many issues persist with that site. Imagine if the NFL and AEG get Farmers Field going and Stan goes forward with his project. Then what?!
KSDK - What needs to go to make room for new stadium
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/20 ... /21664937/
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/20 ... /21664937/
- 8,155
^ Very broad but good to see the start of a closer look at what's involved. I hope a story comes up soon on the power plant and rail... how feasible are those issues to deal with? And of course the floating riverfront trail. At this point there seems to be more questions than answers.
- 3,766
What concerns me most is the possibility that litigation drags on forever, leaving us in limbo. I always thought Stan going rogue was a distinct possibility. I do not want to be, as a fan, a City and region, caught in the middle of endless litigation and bickering. I do not want to be a lame-duck city for an indefinite period. If Stan is going to achieve a move, just get it over with and let him move as soon as possible. If there is a good chance he does not achieve a move, I think I can stomach limbo for extended period of time. Nothing is clear at this point and that bothers me. Most of these scenarios have much more clarity...ie...an owner that speaks. . .
- 9,565
