urbanSTL

Would Lumiere Place have interest in throwing in some cash to this project? Obviously, they stand to gain a lot if this goes through. If anything, would they pitch in on a bridge or walkway from the Landing to the stadium site, something to connect their customers to the site, maybe some infrastructure improvements...
I wonder if they've been part of this discussion in any way, behind the scenes. Not only will their property value increase, they keep the game day revenues, possibly gain MLS fan revenue, but also be the centerpiece destination around the new stadium site. They stand to gain a lot. I bet they'd listen to Dave Peacock, if asked to assist in making sure this deal gets done. Just a thought. . . .

^ My bet is the Drury family has Peacock's ear.

Not sure what Tropicana thinks of this as their interest is protect their gambling revenues. The stadium simple moves from the west to the north of the casino and overall impact is maybe 8-=10 days out of the calendar if a NFL team is no longer. But I would assume that they would be more interested if it helps land a MSL team and therefore more event dates on top of the convention crowd which is probably the bread and butter that Tropicana is interested in maintaining.

Where are people reading about plans to keep more structures? I'd like to beleive it......

The NFL pumps the brakes on the St. Louis Rams move to Inglewood

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/2/ ... -inglewood

^ I think this paragraph below from the articly lays out the difference between what leverage Stan has vs. the Spanos/Chargers. Stan's wealth allows him to buy a prime piece of LA real estate (IMO, any real estate near LAX is prime), sign a sweat development deal and essentially build a stadium on spec without financial help from Inglewood/California/NFL while basically forcing a state governor from another state to essentially act on his behalf. Where as Spanos essentially has to give up a controlling interest and a big part of the family wealth for any hope on a serious stadium deal.

Further, this buys Spanos (and the NFL) more time to broker a deal with Anschutz Entertainment Group for the proposed Farmers Field project in downtown Los Angeles - which has been the NFL's preferred option. As has been the case since 2010, all that's held up the deal is the Spanos family giving up a controlling interest in the Chargers, which they've been loath to do. Further, because the Spanos family's greatest source of wealth is the Chargers (their estimated net worth is $1.2 billion, with the Chargers worth about $1 billion), they would be more likely to accept whatever terms the NFL laid out for them.

As a non-football fan, I still want to have a team in STL...and count me among those who thinks the open-air concept on the riverfront is gorgeous (massive parking footprint notwithstanding...) and potentially transformative for the North Riverfront area.

Here's how I'd like it all to shake out:
1) Kroenke sells his Rams interests to a local individual or group.
2) Kroenke successfully secures ownership of another team -- or expansion team -- for the Inglewood site.
3) New Rams ownership gets the riverfront stadium with some changes -- rehabbed Laclede Power Co., relocate minimum security work house and grainery/silos for parking, reduce parking footprint by building partially-buried 3-4 story garage for 1000s of attendees who don't give a hoot about tailgating, preserve a couple of structures and build new where possible (Bottle District highrises ftw!)
4) New ownership sells Rams name/trademark to Kroenke so LA can have their "original" team back.
5) New ownership re-introduces the "St. Louis Gunners" to the football-watching world.



6) Kroenke gets some comeuppance as St. Louis encroaches on the Gunners namesake of his precious Arsenel FC squad.

We get a team, we get a fresh/involved ownership group, we get a stadium, and we get some poetic justice. Perfect.

Gunners? You want a city associated with high crime to name their team the Gunners? Wait, What?

We'll never have a team named the gunners for the same reason the Washington Wizards changed their name from the Bullets.

The Raiders have not paid their rent in Oakland and still have not renewed a lease at Oakland Coliseum.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-n ... qus_thread

This situation keeps getting more weird.

moorlander wrote:Gunners? You want a city associated with high crime to name their team the Gunners? Wait, What?

We'll never have a team named the gunners for the same reason the Washington Wizards changed their name from the Bullets.

My exact thoughts while reading the suggestion.

But Gunners is a great team name that recalls St. Louis' importance to the Union in the Civil War.

MarkHaversham wrote:But Gunners is a great team name that recalls St. Louis' importance to the Union in the Civil War.

I'm really fond of the name too for a football team. It just sounds right.

Never even considered the connective implications with handgun violence and still really can't.

But hey, the new St. Louis Gunners will quickly out Google-rank the news articles associated with "St. Louis" and "gun" search terms!

From VanishingStL...

http://vanishingstl.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... north.html

Exactly what i had started sketching out with a few exceptions. My vision had more infill in the Landing and around the historic buildings, to the North and I had an additional mixed use garage constructed in the Landing between 1st and 2nd.

This proposal saves money. Tracks rerouting would get more expensive but i'd think it would be offsetting considering demolition and Ameren costs are reduced. Better access to metrolink. And I think it makes for greater potential integration with the Landing and Casino districts. This picture needs to be forwarded to the power brokers like yesterday.

We're playing for keeps, enough with changing the name of the team. You don't rip the 4 greatest years any St. Louis football fan has ever had away from them after you've already won the right to keep the damn team in the first place.

Parking lots, buildings, uniforms, everything else is negotiable. The name is not. If we lose the Rams, we lose the Rams, you don't give history away. It's historical preservation of a different variety.

I do share the hope that Kroenke sells the St. Louis Rams to local ownership though, that poison has to go.

Raiders and Chargers to LA. Chargers get re-branded the SoCal Chargers. Raiders get re-branded the California Raiders.

A mini re-alignment happens.

NFC West - Chargers, 49ers, Seahawks, Arizona
AFC West - Texans, Chiefs, Raiders, Broncos
AFC South - St. Louis Rams, Colts, Titans, Bengals
AFC North - Browns, Steelers, Ravens, Bills
AFC East - Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Jags

Oakland is a mess, between the shared sport stadium with an overpriced renovation cost that didn't correct sewage overflow problem, the shared stadium ownership political mess between City of Oakland and County of Alameda, between the Coliseum City development deal that goes nowhere with no money in sight that actually makes McKee look good (tough to imagine considering the Bay area is one of the hottest real estate markets in the US and St. Louis is one of the flattest) and owners with no money or any desire to put cash back into better facilities. The worst part, both Oakland A and more importantly the Raiders owners are too smart to sell. Heck, Raiders pay an annual fee of 425k and 400k for respective training and stadium leases. Anyone getting a $190 million pay out in NFL revenue share and has facility payments of less than $1 million a year is not going to sell let alone reinvest in the franchise unless NFL grows a pair. Which gets to my last point. Oakland has the distinction of both NFL and MLB having no desire to help or challenge the respective ownership which is probably the biggest reason why nothing changes and Stan K has a big time opening in LA.

Otherwise, I think you would see Raiders headed to Farmers Field in a heartbeat and the A's possibly getting new locally owned ownership with a stand alone waterfront park near Jack London square as proposed by Chlorox CEO led group last year, Which I think is by far the best outcome for the A's. Screw San Jose, I would love to see an A's owner embrace Oakland and its waterfront history next to Jack London Square. Simple put, hated the A's growing up a Twin's fan during the Puckett years but would take my son to the A's in a heartbeat if they would put up a field comparable to ATT park across the bay.

STLEnginerd wrote:From VanishingStL...

http://vanishingstl.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... north.html

Exactly what i had started sketching out with a few exceptions. My vision had more infill in the Landing and around the historic buildings, to the North and I had an additional mixed use garage constructed in the Landing between 1st and 2nd.

This proposal saves money. Tracks rerouting would get more expensive but i'd think it would be offsetting considering demolition and Ameren costs are reduced. Better access to metrolink. And I think it makes for greater potential integration with the Landing and Casino districts. This picture needs to be forwarded to the power brokers like yesterday.

This is pretty much the perfect scenario in my opinion. There seems to be plenty of anti-urban surface parking and yet not one more piece of "vanishing St. Louis" history is lost forever. Bravo!

onecity wrote:I would wholeheartedly support American rules football in STL under two conditions:

1) The public are treated as shareholders, just like Green Bay.
2) The team is called the Saint Louis Forty-Eighters, in reference to the immigrants that brought everything good to our region.

Just in case you're not aware, Green Bay is grandfathered and the NFL would never consider item 1 for even a moment.

Kevin B wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:But Gunners is a great team name that recalls St. Louis' importance to the Union in the Civil War.

I'm really fond of the name too for a football team. It just sounds right.

Never even considered the connective implications with handgun violence and still really can't.

But hey, the new St. Louis Gunners will quickly out Google-rank the news articles associated with "St. Louis" and "gun" search terms!

I have the solution: Call them the St. Louis Gunnars. Still sounds right but instead of invoking thoughts of guns and crime your mind is drawn to images of this lovely gentleperson:



How can you not like that?

-RBB