I'm sorry to veer off topic, but the guy in that picture looks like he might have some Woodrow Wilson in his genes.
Historical side note (I need to go back and check the history online, but the gist is this):
The Gunners dissolved after two seasons (1934 or 36) and ended playing their last game or so, I think, in Cincinnati.
Then something happened—sale, takeover, lack of interest. Anyway, the remaining half of the Gunner's ownership moved the team upstate.
Where they became the Cleveland Rams.
New St. Louis Gunners. Damn near poetic.
The Gunners dissolved after two seasons (1934 or 36) and ended playing their last game or so, I think, in Cincinnati.
Then something happened—sale, takeover, lack of interest. Anyway, the remaining half of the Gunner's ownership moved the team upstate.
Where they became the Cleveland Rams.
New St. Louis Gunners. Damn near poetic.
- 1,792
I acknowledge your point but i think you are overlooking one key thing in this case. There is no client. Your point supposes that there is a lot of back and forth where the "client" says no i need more tailgate experience. Everything I have heard regarding this process has been "design in a vacuum".Knowing what little I do about architecture, sometimes what the firm or individual architect designs is subjected to much alteration by the clients, developer, engineer, or combination of all for financial or logistical reasons (usually budget/financial).
The only real purpose to what we have done so far is to prove we are serious and willing to put some real money up to keep them. If they want us to tear down our city to keep them then at least make them tell us thats what they want.
In fact one look a Kronke's proposal for Ingelwood shows how little we understood what he wanted. That proposal is a multi- billion mixed use entertainment complex with the stadium at its heart. Why should our proposal be any different in its make up.
- 8,155
^ the client is Gov. Nixon and the Peacock/Blitz team. There is no real intent to preserve anything because they feel removing all those buildings is a good thing. HOK talked about the ability to have infill development later on, but removing what's already there and replacing with parking lots -- a source of stadium revenue -- will make it much more difficult than adapting what's already there.
The least these people could do is highlight a realistic Banks-type development zone that possibly could be co-developed with a potential owner, but they chose to go virtually all parking on us with the exception of the odd skinny buildings flanking the weird pedestrian greenway. Who knows, maybe some sense will get knocked into these demolition men.
The least these people could do is highlight a realistic Banks-type development zone that possibly could be co-developed with a potential owner, but they chose to go virtually all parking on us with the exception of the odd skinny buildings flanking the weird pedestrian greenway. Who knows, maybe some sense will get knocked into these demolition men.
- 1,792
OK i get that that is true from HOKs perspective, but its also true that neither one of those people has controlling interest in a team. The whole goal of this process is to keep the Rams and failing that convince another franchise to move here.the client is Gov. Nixon and the Peacock/Blitz team.
You imply that Nixon/Peacock have seen a plan like Paul's and rejected it because there wasn't enough tailgating, or they thought those buildings are an eyesore anyway. That might be true but I'd like to here them flat out say that. The fact they they have stated they are now working with the Historical society to save a few more of those building suggests to me that it was pretty much an oversight in the rush to get something out there.
I will admit the one thing that could torpedo Paul's plan is Tropicana. I'd like to think they would like to live up to their original vision to build something on their massive surface lots, but i don't have any faith in it. Also the fact that People staying in the Four seasons could watch a game from their room has got to raise there eyebrows at the potential boost if might bring.
^ I think you have to correct that statement in regards to Tropicana. Tropicana has never expressed a mixed use development vision as far as know for the property around the casino it just recently bought. The original vision of infills, residential, mixed used that I think most of liked was from a Pinnacle CEO who wasn't around much longer after Pinnacle built downtown. After he was out, the new Pinnacle CEO pushed hard to add the south county casino and tried even harder to divest Pinnacle of its promises to invest further into the city. Sorry, I don't have names but I believe you can trace a very distinct change in Pinnacle's business model/approach to the future when they changed their executive make up a few years ago.
.
I think the opposite, I see Tropicana desires to have the north riverfront stadium, even better if it helps land a MSL team in addition to keeping NFL around, in hopes of capturing a few more room bookings and maybe an extra night or two of a captive gambling crowd. Especially if Drury builds a mixed residential/hotel tower on Lacledes Landing and competes head to head with Tropicana.
.
I think the opposite, I see Tropicana desires to have the north riverfront stadium, even better if it helps land a MSL team in addition to keeping NFL around, in hopes of capturing a few more room bookings and maybe an extra night or two of a captive gambling crowd. Especially if Drury builds a mixed residential/hotel tower on Lacledes Landing and competes head to head with Tropicana.
- 1,299
Sorry for not keeping up, but can someone explain who/what "Tropicana" is? Is someone out there promoting another north riverfront project, perhaps with a hotel/casino?
Tropicana took over ownership of Lumiere Place Casino recently after Pinnacle bought Ameristar. They were forced to sell one of their casinos as part of that deal. Does that clear things up?
- 1,299
Yes, thanks. Same name, new owner. Got it.
- 3,767
Not at all shocking... it is going to a vote...
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1423838363
What kind of shocks me, is not the fact that Peacock met with Grubman the other day in St. Louis. The shocking thing, is the fact that Kevin Demoff is attending these sessions now. Is the NFL forcing Stan to have representation at these meetings or does it have any real substance??? That is the question. This could just be part of the process, that Demoff has to attend these meetings.
I do have a close contact, that attended the St. Louis Sports Commission luncheon at the MAC the other day. Kevin Demoff was there as well. Everyone, including KD have remained positive, regarding local stadium developments. Either he is being forced to be at those events to TRY and sell tickets next season and show SOME goodwill towards the community, he has no clue what Stan is doing and has to conduct biz as usual or he truly wants to remain in the public eye, out in the community because the Rams could stay. Who knows!
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1423838363
What kind of shocks me, is not the fact that Peacock met with Grubman the other day in St. Louis. The shocking thing, is the fact that Kevin Demoff is attending these sessions now. Is the NFL forcing Stan to have representation at these meetings or does it have any real substance??? That is the question. This could just be part of the process, that Demoff has to attend these meetings.
I do have a close contact, that attended the St. Louis Sports Commission luncheon at the MAC the other day. Kevin Demoff was there as well. Everyone, including KD have remained positive, regarding local stadium developments. Either he is being forced to be at those events to TRY and sell tickets next season and show SOME goodwill towards the community, he has no clue what Stan is doing and has to conduct biz as usual or he truly wants to remain in the public eye, out in the community because the Rams could stay. Who knows!
- 1,299
You had me fooled.
When you said, "it's going to a vote", I thought you meant in St. Louis, not LA.
I wonder if a stadium vote is more likely to pass in STL or LA?
Any guesses?
When you said, "it's going to a vote", I thought you meant in St. Louis, not LA.
I wonder if a stadium vote is more likely to pass in STL or LA?
Any guesses?
- 8,155
^ From what I've read it looks like the consensus is that the Inglewood vote likely will pass. For Saint Louis, I suspect it would have more trouble passing in Saint Louis County than in the City. One thing for sure is that there will be a suit if the City or County tries to go ahead without a public vote.
- 3,767
^ I agree, will pass in Inglewood, might have a tougher time passing here. However, Nixon is confident, even if lawsuits come, this will not require a vote. It was already voted on. Once voted on, they can refi as they please. NO clue how much substance there is to his claim.
Inglewood is desperate for development around that site and in general. It is a low income city that is looking to be rejuvenated. I'm not sure if the stadium does that, as much as the development as a whole.
The Downtown LA 'Farmers Field' project may face more hurdles. I think it would pass a vote if privately funded by AEG, but it's hard to say whether or not they'd pass the environmental regulations and hurdles. It is a crazy busy area and the footprint is small. We as STL Rams fans have to root for Farmers Field, even though it is still a threat to our NFL future. It is clearly not as big a threat as Stan's Inglewood deal.
Inglewood is desperate for development around that site and in general. It is a low income city that is looking to be rejuvenated. I'm not sure if the stadium does that, as much as the development as a whole.
The Downtown LA 'Farmers Field' project may face more hurdles. I think it would pass a vote if privately funded by AEG, but it's hard to say whether or not they'd pass the environmental regulations and hurdles. It is a crazy busy area and the footprint is small. We as STL Rams fans have to root for Farmers Field, even though it is still a threat to our NFL future. It is clearly not as big a threat as Stan's Inglewood deal.
I understand that the number of signatures on the Inglewood petition is equivalent to almost half the registered voters in the city. It will pass. Heck, I think their was some discussion by the city council and the legal counsel if they could simply just agree to it the stadium based on the sheer number of signatures.
This will get interesting in the next year. Two cities, two new stadiums in the works and one owner/team where as you got two other teams in two other cities going nowhere. The more I think about it the more I think the NFL needs to take a position on expansion team(s) and or force the Oakland issue..
How would I play it in my high powered fantasy world. Rams name stays in St. Louis, Stan gets an expansion team and gets to lease his stadium to a second NFL team, specifically the Chargers (meadowlands of South Cal). Time for San Antonio/NFL get serious about the state of Texas raiding the Raiders (raiding everything else). Texas would now have three NFL teams just as Florida and California. My wild card, call Slim, the richest guy in Mexico who owns a media conglomerate, and ask if he wants to put an expansion team in Mexico City and add NFL to his media network. He could probably build a NFL open air, first class stadium from his personal checkbook and NFL would have an international team that plays home games during the same prime time TV slot as the rest of the league (Mexico City is in the Central Time Zone). If all fails, put in a clause that lets the AEG group have first option on the failed Mexico City team and NFL/Slim leaves Mexico City with a world class soccer venue. By that time you might have a new stadium in San Diego for the Charges to move back to and Farmers Field is built hosting USC and or UCLA (Stan K hosting the Chargers). Win Win all around. Ok, not for Oakland.
This will get interesting in the next year. Two cities, two new stadiums in the works and one owner/team where as you got two other teams in two other cities going nowhere. The more I think about it the more I think the NFL needs to take a position on expansion team(s) and or force the Oakland issue..
How would I play it in my high powered fantasy world. Rams name stays in St. Louis, Stan gets an expansion team and gets to lease his stadium to a second NFL team, specifically the Chargers (meadowlands of South Cal). Time for San Antonio/NFL get serious about the state of Texas raiding the Raiders (raiding everything else). Texas would now have three NFL teams just as Florida and California. My wild card, call Slim, the richest guy in Mexico who owns a media conglomerate, and ask if he wants to put an expansion team in Mexico City and add NFL to his media network. He could probably build a NFL open air, first class stadium from his personal checkbook and NFL would have an international team that plays home games during the same prime time TV slot as the rest of the league (Mexico City is in the Central Time Zone). If all fails, put in a clause that lets the AEG group have first option on the failed Mexico City team and NFL/Slim leaves Mexico City with a world class soccer venue. By that time you might have a new stadium in San Diego for the Charges to move back to and Farmers Field is built hosting USC and or UCLA (Stan K hosting the Chargers). Win Win all around. Ok, not for Oakland.
- 8,155
^ dredger,
I hadn't seen Nixon comment on whether local votes were needed or not; was that at his press conference?
I hadn't seen Nixon comment on whether local votes were needed or not; was that at his press conference?
- 271
His comments at the press conference were that at the state level, no votes would be required. At the City and County level, he said something like there are several options, some requiring votes, some not, and they'll be sure to follow the law in all instances.roger wyoming II wrote:^ dredger,
I hadn't seen Nixon comment on whether local votes were needed or not; was that at his press conference?
I like to think the NFL wants both -- a new stadium in both places. I'm hoping they are talking to the Rams about some way to let that happen, such as San Diego and Oakland moving to Stan's stadium in LA, and the Rams stay here. Or expansion teams in LA -- I cannot figure out why the NFL is so opposed to that. Why screw loyal fans in one or more current NFL cities? The talent pool is large enough, since so many high school athletes go into football now instead of baseball. Or some other arrangement that keeps a team in St. Louis -- a city in the middle of their NFL city size.
I wonder if LA won't try something to get Farmers Field going to keep the money in LA rather than Inglewood.
St. Louis has more rabid sports fans than any city I know -- especially LA. You'd think the NFL could tap into that with just a minor improvement in their product here.
I wonder if LA won't try something to get Farmers Field going to keep the money in LA rather than Inglewood.
St. Louis has more rabid sports fans than any city I know -- especially LA. You'd think the NFL could tap into that with just a minor improvement in their product here.
I'm not sure what to make of Kevin. I went to a PSL holder lunch with him a year ago and wrote up this report.DogtownBnR wrote:Not at all shocking... it is going to a vote...
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1423838363
What kind of shocks me, is not the fact that Peacock met with Grubman the other day in St. Louis. The shocking thing, is the fact that Kevin Demoff is attending these sessions now. Is the NFL forcing Stan to have representation at these meetings or does it have any real substance??? That is the question. This could just be part of the process, that Demoff has to attend these meetings.
I do have a close contact, that attended the St. Louis Sports Commission luncheon at the MAC the other day. Kevin Demoff was there as well. Everyone, including KD have remained positive, regarding local stadium developments. Either he is being forced to be at those events to TRY and sell tickets next season and show SOME goodwill towards the community, he has no clue what Stan is doing and has to conduct biz as usual or he truly wants to remain in the public eye, out in the community because the Rams could stay. Who knows!
http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... ff#p222925
A year ago, Kevin Demoff said this was all part of the process to get a new stadium here. He didn't think it made any sense to modify the dome. [GK: So that whole massive dome upgrade arbitration thing was just to get out of the lease, and get on with the new stadium discussion.] Kevin said he preferred open air of about 60K seats. I wish I or someone had video taped the Rams VP back then to show the NFL what they were saying then to get the Rams season ticket holders to keep buying tickets.
- 3,767
KD is either clueless as to Stan's moves, a bold face liar (& the team is going to LA regardless) or the PR man for the Rams, who really want to stay if the stadium deal gets done. I have no clue which one it is. All I know is that he said over and over, "it is only going to get worse, before it gets better". I never understood what he meant.
It would be awesome if they do move, that the league keeps the Rams name in St. Louis. If anything, it will P off the 'Bring back the LA Rams" group. Their LA loyalty would surely be tested, since they claim loyalty to the Rams, no matter where they are located.
It would be awesome if they do move, that the league keeps the Rams name in St. Louis. If anything, it will P off the 'Bring back the LA Rams" group. Their LA loyalty would surely be tested, since they claim loyalty to the Rams, no matter where they are located.
- 1,299
It would be interesting to poll readers of this site: Thumbs up or thumbs down to public financing to help pay for a new downtown NFL stadium?
I vote, "yes".
What about you?
I vote, "yes".
What about you?
I'll gladly subsidize it if I get a share of profits. Otherwise, no way in hell.