urbanSTL

^ sorry, I can't quite tell where that is.

blzhrpmd2 wrote: Is the argument that none of our sports venues provide any economic benefit to downtown?

Sports venues provide economic activity for downtown most certainly. I don't think this plan though of a dedicated football stadium in that area would bring much if any net economic benefit to downtown or the city even if there is MLS . And as I mentioned earlier, I think there eventually will be a gain for downtown when the Rams leave the Dome.

If some other group or individual would propose the vision, money, and plan to make that decrepit plot of land compete for the most vibrant area in our city I would be all for it.

I don't think the main goal is to appease tailgaters. I think the main goal is to appease public enemy number one right now which is Mr. Kroenke for parking revenue. Again, the football fan in me wins that debate: worth it if they stay given the urban features of the project: mass transit, proximity to other downtown businesses and hotels, views from the stadium inclusive of the Arch, bridge, and downtown, etc.

I'd worry about developments for surface lots littered all throughout our CBD before I go worrying about this area. Higher density surrounding a stadium and surface parking would alleviate some of that anxiety most likely. Just like more density and height around the Arch grounds would be a plus in my opinion.

With downtown business, jobs and general morale trending down, I'd hate to see what is was like without our sports teams bringing people there.

Which similarly positioned stadiums are better planned in the NFL in your opinion?

blzhrpmd2 wrote: Which similarly positioned stadiums are better planned in the NFL in your opinion?

I think near downtown can be okay at the right site and if mixed-use development and historic preservation were introduced as elements in a revised plan the general area proposed here could work decently. If we had a Banks-type development with mixed-uses including residential and maybe have another large attraction (such as an aquarium, perhaps as an adaptive re-use of the power plant building) things would be greatly improved. If Peacock/Blitz continue their work and come back in a few months with an announcement that, after consulting with local stakeholders. etc., they have a final site plan that will advance the TOD plans for the Landing and include some historic rehab then we'd have a much better outcome than this initial vision.

dweebe wrote:

urban_dilettante wrote:it's not that the stadium itself stands in the way of anything. i'm totally fine with the stadium itself. but we CANNOT keep adding more and more surface parking downtown.

Outside of the McGwire/Bottle District lot, none of the parking is what I'd consider downtown. Plus there are dozens of lots actually downtown that we should battle for development.

iirc, the Landing station TOD plan pretty much stops at Biddle (one block north of Lumiere) and I think if those blocks had mixed-use infill that would be a big improvement along with saving some of the existing buildings in the footprint.

Finally, a second picture of the LA proposal.



They're really dropping some density in there.

gary kreie wrote:

dweebe wrote:Finally, a second picture of the LA proposal.



They're really dropping some density in there.

I guess a picture that shows an actual football field is too much to expect.

That's the odd part. We're almost 2 weeks into this and no "meat" of the stadium. Kinda suspect.

^ they were chumped by Atlanta's futuristic stadium and are now hustling trying to figure out if they can design a landing strip for alien life forms as part of theirs. they got to totally blow people's minds as its LA.

To really analyze this thing ad nauseaum, I agree it is interesting that each push of the envelope from Kroenke says more and more without saying "I'm going to try and move the Rams in 2016." Each play here is effective on our end given that Dogtown's reaction is how most of us view it. It is also effective to continue to show the NFL and other LA developers he's not messing around. The optimist in someone could say these tactics are proportional to previous owner tactics in the context of the league's second richest owner with more to spend on such an endeavor. I also agree not showing an actual football field with a logo or even a abstract suggestive logo means something. Especially with the conjecture that this has something to do with the Olympics....not that there won't be plenty of time for such renderings later this year. It is slated to be "domed" right? Not retractable? I find that to be an interesting choice given that LA loves to dangle their weather over everyone's heads as yet another piece of evidence of superiority.

I can't defend Stan here because he has put us through the ringer and is taking the game of relocation threats to uncharted terrain, however, given his penchant for sticking it to the media with his 2012 "jack" comments, I feel like he would absolutely love for his next words to the St. Louis media at the unveiling of the news the Rams are staying to be, "I told you last time I can be trusted." Longshot, but it would be fun to watch the reaction.

Going back to our proposal, I don't know much about the Banks project, but from the looks it does appear to be something to try to emulate. Granted, it looks tough to do given how much industrial and transit structures tangle the area. The Ohio river is also no Mississippi.