urbanSTL

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

ibleedlou wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2024

Natural light is not something I'd consider overrated in a dome, I'd say it's much closer to being essential, than it is overrated (go see a MLB game at Tropicana in Tampa if you want to see what a lack of natural light does to a baseball game). The dome in Stl is dark, the narrow concourses are dark, and the dome took on this dark atmosphere as a result, to include: lousy team play (by design), small video boards, the unattractive all white ceiling, horrid field turf, the subdued light, and if I recall, even the blaring sound system was sub-par. The  dome here in MSP almost feels as if there is no roof, and because of this, events here feel completely different than those held at the dome in Stl, but remember, the Rams didn't leave because the dome was dark, they left because they had an out as the dome was no longer a 'top tier' stadium, and probably never was a 'top-tier' stadium, even when it opened.

I also consider it essential to get more Natural Light into our sporting venues.

What if the light was so bright and diffused through panels that you thought it was natural but couldn’t tell the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gary kreie wrote:

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

ibleedlou wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2024

Natural light is not something I'd consider overrated in a dome, I'd say it's much closer to being essential, than it is overrated (go see a MLB game at Tropicana in Tampa if you want to see what a lack of natural light does to a baseball game). The dome in Stl is dark, the narrow concourses are dark, and the dome took on this dark atmosphere as a result, to include: lousy team play (by design), small video boards, the unattractive all white ceiling, horrid field turf, the subdued light, and if I recall, even the blaring sound system was sub-par. The  dome here in MSP almost feels as if there is no roof, and because of this, events here feel completely different than those held at the dome in Stl, but remember, the Rams didn't leave because the dome was dark, they left because they had an out as the dome was no longer a 'top tier' stadium, and probably never was a 'top-tier' stadium, even when it opened.

I also consider it essential to get more Natural Light into our sporting venues.

What if the light was so bright and diffused through panels that you thought it was natural but couldn’t tell the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is what they are doing with pieces of the Super Dome renovation

Cool. Nobody builds stadiums with roofs that open anymore. And, unless a big window frames the skyline, I see more drawbacks from uncontrollable undimmable natural light than I do from fully controlled light that can be made as bright as day and made to fool attendees into thinking it is natural sunlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StlToday - $45M plan to save St. Louis convention center deemed unworkable. It’s unclear what’s next


https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... a4f7c.html

Yeah, this is a terrible project. Bob was right about this one and I support his call for an audit. Some leaders probably also need to be professionally “sacrificed” for the mismanagement.

Convention center is just a larger piece of crap than it was in 2018.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Mar 14, 2024

Yeah, this is a terrible project. Bob was right about this one and I support his call for an audit. Some leaders probably also need to be professionally “sacrificed” for the mismanagement.

Convention center is just a larger piece of crap than it was in 2018.

Why do the city and convention bureau need to be audited? Rita Days and the County counsel, inflation and high interest rates caused this problem. Bob Clark predicted ZERO of those issues.

Were officials to have followed Bob Clark’s plan, we would still have exact same issues we have now, except the Dome and the existing convention center would have been demolished and we would have little to no convention or dome business for the remainder of the decade.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Mar 14, 2024

Yeah, this is a terrible project. Bob was right about this one and I support his call for an audit. Some leaders probably also need to be professionally “sacrificed” for the mismanagement.

Convention center is just a larger piece of crap than it was in 2018.

Why do the city and convention bureau need to be audited? Rita Days and the County counsel, inflation and high interest rates caused this problem. Bob Clark predicted ZERO of those issues.

Were officials to have followed Bob Clark’s plan, we would still have exact same issues we have now, except the Dome and the existing convention center would have been demolished and we would have little to no convention or dome business for the remainder of the decade.

I think the original needs assessment that demanded updates should be publicized. I think the City and County should’ve had an independent firm audit that assessment and offer an unbiased recommendation.

I think residents deserve to understand why such a massive investment was essentially focus grouped through approvals. Why was there such little community engagement regarding the design and function? Were the neighbors north of Downtown consulted at all?

Bob was right in that the project didn’t HAVE to move forward at that very moment. Leaders had time to make a decision. They would’ve benefited from asking questions/challenging Explore St. Louis.

It’s all starting to feel like a rushed job by Explore St. Louis. Are the cost overruns exceeding the alternative of missed conventions for a few more years? I’m not sure.

addxb2 wrote:

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Mar 14, 2024

Yeah, this is a terrible project. Bob was right about this one and I support his call for an audit. Some leaders probably also need to be professionally “sacrificed” for the mismanagement.

Convention center is just a larger piece of crap than it was in 2018.

Why do the city and convention bureau need to be audited? Rita Days and the County counsel, inflation and high interest rates caused this problem. Bob Clark predicted ZERO of those issues.

Were officials to have followed Bob Clark’s plan, we would still have exact same issues we have now, except the Dome and the existing convention center would have been demolished and we would have little to no convention or dome business for the remainder of the decade.

I think the original needs assessment that demanded updates should be publicized. I think the City and County should’ve had an independent firm audit that assessment and offer an unbiased recommendation.

I think residents deserve to understand why such a massive investment was essential focus grouped through approvals. Why was there such little community engagement regarding the design and function? Were the neighbors north of Downtown consulted at all?

Bob was right in that the project didn’t HAVE to move forward at that very moment. Leaders had time to make a decision. They would’ve benefited from asking questions/challenging Explore St. Louis.

It’s all starting to feel like a rushed job by Explore St. Louis. Are the cost overruns exceeding the alternative of missed conventions? I’m not sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would those parties have any understanding of the current or future needs of the convention center?

They hire a consultant so that they (the primary funders) understand. Explore St. Louis had good intentions but it’s definitely not unbiased. It wants a bigger facility. It will always want a bigger facility.

I don't know. Is the concern St. Louis moves too quickly and doesn't consult enough people?  

My gripe is STL moves wayyy too slowly.  It has taken forever to build any bike paths in this city, it takes forever to get licenses, approvals, zoning variances, etc.

What would the neighbors to the north understand better about building a convention center? What does Bob Clark know?  Explore St. Louis should have the ability, experience and capacity to build a great convention center. If they dont, we need new people to lead. But it feels like the current issue is that STL County took too long to get their funding portion done and the interest rate and wage environment changed.  If anything we should've moved faster and consulted less people and this wouldve gotten done much cheaper and quicker.

^ I see some of your points There is balance that has to be found between acting fast and good decision making.

The airport update seems to have found that balance. Thanks to federal regulation. NS MetroLink is an example of over planning and lack of clear owner.

This was first announced to the public October of 2018 as $175M, renderings already done. Shovels were in the ground spring of 2022. Not enough time considering most of it was squabbling over HOW to pay for it and not WHAT it is.

Let’s fund about 10 more studies before we do anything. That’s all St. Louis does.

City putting more money into CVC as per bizjournal article.   I do think the city is wise by trying to keep things moving forward whether you blame the county or not, agree with current plan or Clayco guy's plan, and or even city should have a convention center.  They do have the Rams settlement fund and would argue convention expansion/improvements a good long term use considering the hotel room and foot traffic from conventions versus, say a football team,

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... 2#cxrecs_s

Kitty Ratcliffe out

Stltoday - St. Louis tourism chief is out amid turmoil at convention center


https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 4f14b.html

The Dome will need $150M in upgrades to compete, report says. Can St. Louis afford it? https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 9b021.html

If Bob Clark was serious about the convention center idea, this is his opportunity to show St. Louis an updated vision.

Clayco naming rights, let’s call it the “Clayco Center.” The city and Clayco will jointly own the Bottle District. Create a new CID and TID that only includes the Dome and Bottle District to generate revenue. Clayco will could lead the development of the area.

There's planty of space in the "Bottle District" that could be expanded upon if Bob Clark wanted, you'd think he would propose an updated idea if he was serious.

I think the fact that no company has bought the Dome's naming rights is pretty telling to how out of date and unattractive it is. It really does need a major influx of money to be able to draw major events anymore and it's too bad that only the city and county area expected to actually put forward money to upgrade the region's highest capacity stadium.

Key point of this story: the Dome has $150m in maintenance over the next decade and it already has $88,000,000 of it in the bank. Very good.

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Mar 13, 2024

Cool.  Nobody builds stadiums with roofs that open anymore.  And, unless a big window frames the skyline, I see more drawbacks from uncontrollable undimmable natural light than I do from fully controlled light that can be made as bright as day and made to fool attendees into thinking it is natural sunlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody builds closed roof stadiums without natural lighting anymore, either. And they stopped building those around... 1995. The two most recent NFL stadiums to open both had coverings - in the case of Allegiant Stadium a closed translucent roof with massive retractable transparent side window panels on sliders that can be opened to bring in outside air, and in the case if Sofi Stadium, a gigantic translucent canopy that allows full outdoor air circulation within the stadium but keeps the field dry at all times. The two NFL stadiums currently under construction (New Nissan Stadium in Tennessee and New Highmark Stadium in Buffalo) will both be open air facilities fully exposed to the elements. Nobody builds closed-roof 65,000-70,000 seat stadiums without natural lighting anymore. Because they're terrible, at least as sports facilities. No stadium with more than 30,000 seats should be capable of being pitch black inside in the middle of the day. Or to put it more succinctly, 20,000ish seat NHL and NBA arenas being fully enclosed without natural lighting is fine. No NFL, MLB, or MLS team should ever play in a facility that has no natural lighting.

Ok ok we get your point, natural lighting…

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2024

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Mar 13, 2024

Cool.  Nobody builds stadiums with roofs that open anymore.  And, unless a big window frames the skyline, I see more drawbacks from uncontrollable undimmable natural light than I do from fully controlled light that can be made as bright as day and made to fool attendees into thinking it is natural sunlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody builds closed roof stadiums without natural lighting anymore, either. And they stopped building those around... 1995. The two most recent NFL stadiums to open both had coverings - in the case of Allegiant Stadium a closed translucent roof with massive retractable transparent side window panels on sliders that can be opened to bring in outside air, and in the case if Sofi Stadium, a gigantic translucent canopy that allows full outdoor air circulation within the stadium but keeps the field dry at all times. The two NFL stadiums currently under construction (New Nissan Stadium in Tennessee and New Highmark Stadium in Buffalo) will both be open air facilities fully exposed to the elements. Nobody builds closed-roof 65,000-70,000 seat stadiums without natural lighting anymore. Because they're terrible, at least as sports facilities. No stadium with more than 30,000 seats should be capable of being pitch black inside in the middle of the day. Or to put it more succinctly, 20,000ish seat NHL and NBA arenas being fully enclosed without natural lighting is fine. No NFL, MLB, or MLS team should ever play in a facility that has no natural lighting.

Nashville will have a roof and not be open to the elements . But it will be see through. It looks like a convention center with a see through roof

Jags will also be fully enclosed with a see through roof.

No one is questioning the $88 million in the bank.

I just question if $150 million is enough for a building that needs a new roof altogether. An ETFE roof would make the Dome better. I think we probably need $300 million.

I would be intrigued to see if HKS could still do some parts of the plan that the City rejected when the Rams proposed it. The retractable roof was a bit much but other parts of that plan could still be implemented. But what we will likely get is a kick the can down the road. Not that it’s a bad thing but bigger decisions will need to be made down the line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t get the love affair now with a see-through roof. It used to be an opening roof that teams rarely opened. I agree with more bright-as-day light in the dome. But I think we can get that with LEDs instead of a patch of blue sky. And we keep the option of a summer blackout dome like we had for Pink, Stones, & Beyoncé as needed for concerts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's crazy that the Superdome was built to be a better building before the STL Dome was ever built. 

Their renovations are $500 million, but they host bigger events and they also have a three way partnership where their team is interested in helping, they have a competent convention and dome authority, and a state that is supportive. Three conditions that I'm insanely jealous of since they never existed here. 

Our city failed on massive levels.

The Superdome cost $200 million more in 2023 dollars than our Dome ($750 million vs $550 million), then got next to no upgrades for many years. It's really a testament as to why you don't cheap out on massive stadiums like we did with the Dome. Now we have a sizeable fraction of people who actually think we'd be better off without the Dome (or a size-equivalent stadium) with no regard to how many big events it still attracts and how much it does help the local economy.

With that being said, New Orleans is also in a very different position than us. NO is a city that's actually in decline and is facing problems that are genuinely unfixable. They pump hundreds of millions into tourist attractions because their economy is fairly reliant on tourism, far more than ours is. So that investment makes more sense from their POV.