1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostJan 17, 2015#651

matguy70 wrote:I second that opinion above.

I remember when these boards started with STLrising years ago - back then most posters were very supportive for any "big league" growth in the city. Now, it seems like so many are anti-this and that and would strike down any "big league" to keep STL growing as a "big league" city to sacrifice a parking lot. :roll:
I would rather use the money to bribe some corporation into building an office tower and bring four or five thousand jobs to downtown. (But I won't lose any sleep if we keep the Rams.)

1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostJan 17, 2015#652

Yeah. For all the complaining I may do about this plan, my real hope would be to make it better. I'm going to be vocal about it's flaws. But if this exact plan is what goes through at the end of the day, I'm not going to dwell on it forever and ever. But until it's done, I think we should keep discussing our priorities and how things can be improved.

At this same time, if this plan doesn't happen nor an alternative, I'll shrug. I'll miss my Rams. I'll hate the NFL. But I already do hate the NFL, and I'll look forward to what we can do with freed up resources.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 17, 2015#653

Greatest St. Louis wrote:
roger wyoming II wrote:^ Investments have been made in the area, are being made in the area, and will continue to be made in the area. Let's not be distracted by the shiny object and concentrate on city building in our high-potential areas. Again, it might be possible to fit in a stadium and still get decent urban form (see Banks, etc.) but in general, look at where all these single-use NFL stadiums are being placed in more healthy cities in the past few years.... Boston, San Fran, D.C., Philadelphia, etc. That should tell us something.
Could you elaborate on the investments currently being made in the area, and the ones that are on the horizon?
Sure. First, this P-D article (with a pretty neat image feature at the bottom) focused on the infrastructure challenges in the area gives a pretty decent overview of some of the stuff going on but just skims the surface:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 3053f.html

P-D photos...




If we break it into zones, activity and plans go something like this...

Riverfront

As part of the Arch project, GRG currently is building the new Central Riverfront Trail from the Arch Grounds to the Biddle Street North Riverfront Trailhead at the foot of the Union Electric plant. It also is engaged in a master planning process to bring millions of more $$ of additional enhancements to the riverfront in the area in a reasonably short timeframe; the agency currently owns the Laclede Power Building and its re-use would almost be assured if left standing. There is high confidence that whatever happens with the improvements, the riverfront portion (which I would label from the river to Lewis) will be greened up, much more attractive, and serve as a stimulus for further redevelopment in the area.

Northern Edge

This area consists largely of the Cotton Belt and Stamping Lofts/FarmWorks., both of which are works-in-progress initiatives. The Cotton Belt area is site of the Artica Festival and the awesome mural called "Migrate" was just completed on the enormous building. The idea with future phases is to ultimately turn the building into a unique arts center/theme park with an outdoor green space and potentially even including lofts, etc. Think City Museum but more of an artists orientation. That loft part might be a serious challenge, but the type of bare-bones, Berlin/Brooklyn style arts center is more achievable and certainly would be an awesome asset for the city.... the type of creative asset that makes for great cities. To the west, the multi-block Stamping Lofts/FarmWorks project is a poster child of the type of holistic programs that the city is trying to adopt to end our chronic homeless problem. The Lofts already is filled up and successful and the urban farming portion is now taking shape, with I believe a methane production operation up first and things like gardens and aquaponics hopefully to come.

Together, the two projects will clean up this northern area and serve as a nice buffer from the jail and tank depot/heavily industrial area to the north.

North Broadway Strip

This area beginning just south of the recent Bissinger's investment is pretty much fine as is with decent occupancy and functioning businesses including the beloved Shady Jack's, the owner of which does not want to go if at all possible. It is likely that the Bissinger's investment will lead to additional interest in North Broadway buildings both to the north and south of our new chocolaty kingdome.

Southern Edge

This area just north of Lumiere already is part of the Landing TOD plans and is a target for mixed-use redevelopment.

North Riverfront Industrial Warehouse District

In addition to the smaller building that the Kerr Foundation already made into a state-of-the art sustainable building, the warehouses make for excellent conversions to commercial or residential use. Of the four, two are vacant and two have businesses in them but are underutilized. One is owned by McGowan Bros. and others have seen interest from developers but no deals quite yet. The two handsome warehouses on Ashley I believe are particularly fantastic opportunities and could work as part of infill to the south between Al's and the buildings. The rail splitting the two provide both a challenge and unique opportunity.

Assessment

It is highly likely that continued, incremental investment will occur over a reasonable time frame. I believe it is possible to adjust the site plan to avoid eliminating the entire area (most likely by moving the stadium north a bit) but the site plan as presented is a complete destruction of a high-potential area that already has more than what may meet the casual eye. Putting it elsewhere would be much better for the city if that is the end plan.

9,566
Life MemberLife Member
9,566

PostJan 17, 2015#654

Reading the title of that story and the actual story I had two different reactions

Title- people are going to fight it

Story- seems like all business' are on board, with the attitude of "may not by ideal but they will fall in line and take a check"

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 17, 2015#655

^ I think the obstacles alluded to are more of just being able to acquire the land and prep it in an economical manner. There are property owners that would like to stay but as you say probably would not fight it too hard. The Stamping Lofts might be a bit more problematic because of the federal tax credits recently contributed to the project, but if a solid plan is executed there probably is a work-around possible.

The article also revealed that the substation will be staying and utilizing the Trigen plant as an adaptive re-use is more of a fancy than a real part of the plan. I mentioned before that I think the only major adjustments to the site plan likely will be to overcome cost hurdles, and my bet is that if the stadium indeed moves forward, the best parts of the site plan will be stripped out. Good-bye, adaptive re-use of the Union Electric plant! Adios, floating trail and public space! Welcome back, my electrical substation friend!

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostJan 18, 2015#656

Greatest St. Louis wrote:Like I said, I don't begrudge the people who are okay with sacrificing the NFL/our shot at bringing the MLS here, in exchange for the potential of a handful of extra old abandoned buildings maybe getting some lofts/trendy restaurants/bars put in over the next 25 years. I get it.
i'm glad you don't begrudge those of us who actually want to live in a city rather than a sports amusement park. your attempt to reduce any potential urban development of the riverfront to "a handful of extra old abandoned buildings" is disingenuous and assumes that a football stadium surrounded by parking generates more value than those few lofts, restaurants, and bars would generate. it doesn't. those few lofts, restaurants and bars would enhance the likelihood of further development on the north riverfront. the stadium, as proposed, obliterates it.
Greatest St. Louis wrote:But big picture, St. Louis is gonna be what it is, whether or not this stadium proposal goes through, and whether or not the Rams stay. I'd rather it be what it is with an NFL (and possibly MLS) team, than what it is without.
well, it's sure as sh*t going to "be what it is" if we continue to tear sh*t down for parking lots like we've been doing for decades. no argument there.

2,427
Life MemberLife Member
2,427

PostJan 18, 2015#657

"A boost to downtown also was a factor." We are always fed the same BS. The original Busch Stadium promised to boost downtown. The TWA/Edward Jones Dome promised to boost downtown. The new Busch Stadium and Ballpark Village (if you call a couple bars surrounded by a parking lot a "village") promised to boost downtown, yet since it opened, Washington Avenue is deader than it has been in the last decade. The silver bullet projects never deliver, yet we somehow keep believing that THIS time will be different. If major league sports stadiums were the salvation of downtown, St. Louis whould be as bustling as Times Square.

941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJan 18, 2015#658

Are people saying because we've let sports venues build in DT, DT is in worse shape? That the sports venues took the only remaining developable land possibilities away from other developers? It seems that these other development opportunities and sports venues are not mutually exclusive, that both happen all the time in just about every place on the planet. Is St Louis in some sort special vacuum?

Please help me understand the point I'm clearly missing.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 18, 2015#659

^ Depending upon their site plan and draw, sports venues can be fine in a downtown area. But this site plan clear-cuts a large downtown-centric area with historic character and riverfront location.

In return it would return relatively few downtown-patronizing visitors... the dirty little secret of the NFL is that while it is the most watched, it is the least season attended of the major professional sports; even with an MLS franchise the stadium would deliver fewer than what Scottrade does in a much, much more limited footprint. I'd even venture to say that in less than 100,000 square feet the Blues Museum will deliver at least half of the annual attendance of the Rams.

The spatial commitment contemplated for this single (although there is a vague and probably unlikely re-use of the power station), low-performing venue is extraordinarily wasteful and anti-urban. I can't think of any other city that has NFL downtown that has has as much waste and lost opportunity cost as what this would bring.... look at what Detroit did with Ford Field or what Minnesota is doing with its new stadium, for example.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 18, 2015#660

matguy70 wrote:I second that opinion above.

I remember when these boards started with STLrising years ago - back then most posters were very supportive for any "big league" growth in the city. Now, it seems like so many are anti-this and that and would strike down any "big league" to keep STL growing as a "big league" city to sacrifice a parking lot. :roll:
Cargo Air Hub, building the boulevard, more metrolink, building this at the Pruitt-Igoe site, gov't consolidations aren't big enough for you? And all those ideas would have a higher ROI for the metro than a stadium.

1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostJan 18, 2015#661

In return it would return relatively few downtown-patronizing visitors... the dirty little secret of the NFL is that while it is the most watched, it is the least season attended of the major professional sports; even with an MLS franchise the stadium would deliver fewer than what Scottrade does in a much, much more limited footprint. I'd even venture to say that in less than 100,000 square feet the Blues Museum will deliver at least half of the annual attendance of the Rams.
Put another way, with a 64000 capacity crowd a stadium used 10 to 15 times per year would deliver the economic equivalent of roughly 2500 people downtown daily. So lofts and bars COULD deliver the economic impact of a stadium. Renovating the current warehouses could probably have 1000 or so apartments. A couple new building could close the gap all for less than 500m.

597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostJan 18, 2015#662

quincunx wrote:
matguy70 wrote:I second that opinion above.

I remember when these boards started with STLrising years ago - back then most posters were very supportive for any "big league" growth in the city. Now, it seems like so many are anti-this and that and would strike down any "big league" to keep STL growing as a "big league" city to sacrifice a parking lot. :roll:
Cargo Air Hub, building the boulevard, more metrolink, building this at the Pruitt-Igoe site, gov't consolidations aren't big enough for you? And all those ideas would have a higher ROI for the metro than a stadium.
We've done absolutely none of these things and not because of NFL football. St. Louis simply lacks the will to get these things done. That's it. I understand not wanting to spend money on a new stadium and I understand a stadium isn't a silver bullet but by the same token it's not what's holding St. Louis back. The 6 million a year St. Louis City pays on the Dome is less than 1% of its annual budget.

Why can't we have both if the ROI on the aforementioned item list is so big? We can grow the pie and keep the Rams. St. Louis just needs to decide to do it. Easier said than done, clearly, and the stadium/Rams are being made the scapegoat. There is a legitimate gripe about the parking lots, but if regionalism were the order of the day the stadium would be on the Illinois riverfront.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostJan 19, 2015#663

ttricamo wrote:Are people saying because we've let sports venues build in DT, DT is in worse shape?
i think we're saying "where's the revitalization that's promised every time a bunch of buildings get plowed for a new stadium?" if downtown is not in worse shape due to all the stadiums and associated parking garages, they've certainly done nothing to improve it. while a few bars and restaurants vie (unsuccessfully it seems) with BPV for fans that drive in from the suburbs and then leave, all the substantial downtown improvement over the last 10-15 years is due to rehabs (particularly Wash. Ave.) and residential conversions.

3,767
Life MemberLife Member
3,767

PostJan 19, 2015#664

Rooney, Steelers owner, disagrees with Jerry Jones regarding Stan being able to 'go rogue'.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... t-kroenke/

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 19, 2015#665

^^ more than anything what greater downtown needs is more professional jobs and more residents.... dedicating 90-some acres of downtown riverfront property with historic character and good redevelopment potential to a stadium and parking is crazy.

209
Junior MemberJunior Member
209

PostJan 19, 2015#666

One of the things that interests me most about this project is how they are trying to sell it (at least partially) as a "downtown revitalization" project. I'm not seeing that. I see this having little positive revitalization impact on downtown. Downtown has got it's own set of struggles and this stadium really doesn't seem to have anything to do with those struggles.

The thought that the average regional fan is going to possibly walk from the proposed stadium location to downtown (even if it were gussied up with a palatially plastic suburban design) is pie in the sky. Drive downtown after the game to spend time anywhere? Possibly a small percentage to BPV but doubtful anywhere else.

Just my opinion.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostJan 19, 2015#667

^ yeah; I think a move to the north riverfront likely would shift game-day business around a bit -- e.g. it would give the Landing an advantage over Wash Ave., etc. even though the stadium would be further away from what the Dome is -- but it wouldn't be a downtown revitalization project. Some would win, some would lose. And as a whole I bet there would be more tailgaters and less downtown patronage.

1,364
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,364

PostJan 20, 2015#668

Kroenke doesn't care about St. Louis. He will either move the team or milk every last cent that he can out of St. Louis tax payers. I don't want to lose the Rams, but economically it probably makes more sense to let the Rams go than to give in to Kroenke's demands.

1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostJan 20, 2015#669

stlcardsblues1989 wrote:Kroenke doesn't care about St. Louis. He will either move the team or milk every last cent that he can out of St. Louis tax payers. I don't want to lose the Rams, but economically it probably makes more sense to let the Rams go than to give in to Kroenke's demands.
This is pretty much how I feel. If you look at every other owner in every other city that's faced a stadium issue—even the ones that ultimately benefited dramatically from taxpayer dollars—they ALL played ball with the city. They talked to them. They made suggestions. Some even led the proposals. They negotiated the share of the bill.

Kroenke hasn't done one damn thing to get this done in St. Louis. Thus, I'm afraid that even if he somehow stays it will only come with us being swindled again. I'm not really up for that.

7,810
Life MemberLife Member
7,810

PostJan 20, 2015#670

Despite the Rooney statement and other recent happenings, I still think Kronke and the Rams are gone. But I hope the NFL slams him with some huge relocation fee. I'm talking hundreds of millions, if not the nice round number of $1 billion.

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJan 20, 2015#671

Does anyone actually want Kroenke to stay after what he's put us through? He can't leave soon enough as far as I am concerned.

1,864
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,864

PostJan 20, 2015#672

My dream scenario... the NFL forces Kroenke to sell the Rams to save face; but letting him own an expansion team at a discounted fee in return for no league assistance in building a new stadium in Los Angeles. Since all of the league revenues are shared, the league gains a ton of money while avoiding the reality of having a lame duck team.

St. Louis gets to keep the Rams, receive a new owner, and the NFL escapes without having to face a ton of legal litigation/antitrust suits surrounding it's rules on relocation.

1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostJan 20, 2015#673

chaifetz10 wrote:My dream scenario... the NFL forces Kroenke to sell the Rams to save face; but letting him own an expansion team at a discounted fee in return for no league assistance in building a new stadium in Los Angeles. Since all of the league revenues are shared, the league gains a ton of money while avoiding the reality of having a lame duck team.

St. Louis gets to keep the Rams, receive a new owner, and the NFL escapes without having to face a ton of legal litigation/antitrust suits surrounding it's rules on relocation.
The only problem is buried within what you stated. The league shares it's money. A ton of money split 33 (or 34 in the more likely case) is a little less money than a ton of money split 32 ways.

Monetarily, the league probably does better, at least in the short- to mid-term by having no team in St. Louis and a team in LA rather than having a team in both. Just the unfortunate reality.

There's a small possibility that they'd do that. But we can't count on money being the motivating factor. (Which in turn means it probably won't happen, because that's about all these people are motivated by.)

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJan 20, 2015#674

chaifetz10 wrote: St. Louis gets to keep the Rams, receive a new owner, and the NFL escapes without having to face a ton of legal litigation/antitrust suits surrounding it's rules on relocation.

The Rams are worth approx $1billion. Gonna take some work to "receive" a new owner.

194
Junior MemberJunior Member
194

PostJan 20, 2015#675

roger wyoming II wrote:^ yeah; I think a move to the north riverfront likely would shift game-day business around a bit -- e.g. it would give the Landing an advantage over Wash Ave., etc. even though the stadium would be further away from what the Dome is -- but it wouldn't be a downtown revitalization project. Some would win, some would lose. And as a whole I bet there would be more tailgaters and less downtown patronage.
It's not exactly a zero-sum proposal, though, because while moving the Rams stadium to the riverfront alone will probably just move around football-related business patronage, the extra conventions during the fall season would bring in net positive traffic. Better yet, this traffic will be from out of town and be spending money on hotels, restaurants, etc. instead of just filling up the gas tank and bringing in their own food/beer to tailgate.

Let's be honest. Minus the stadium proposal, I can't see this North Riverfront area being developed for another 20-30 years...maybe well into McKee's Northside Regeneration. In that time, a lot of the historic buildings sitting around there are likely to decay further and become unsalvageable. I mean, I'd like to see maybe a better plan on the same site where more of the historic buildings on the northwest corner of the parcel are integrated into a more urban fabric instead of being razed for an extra parking lot. But I'm a fan of using that site for a stadium in general.

Read more posts (4827 remaining)