urbanSTL

Of course Union Station is proceeding with the amusement attraction development so the idea is just a thought exercise... but what if we added a retractable ferris wheel to the stadium? Now that would be awesome!

As for the question of should we pursue MLS, I say if it falls into place with ownership group who has a good site in mind and are willing to pay for it (or almost all of it) then great, but I don't think it should be a top priority of local government/civic leadership to pursue.

While the attention to the design of a new stadium is a fun exercise in urban thought, I think we should focus on the much more important concerns of sustainability, ownership, and maintenance.

The Packers will never leave Green Bay because they are owned by the people of Green Bay. They don't need a new stadium because the fans like the one they have.
We lost the Rams because they belonged to some rich guy who didn't even live here. The Rams have never belonged to any group of fans.

Saint Louis FC has a good ownership structure since they're basically run by non-profit youth soccer. As long as they stay non-profit and the stakeholders remain citizens of the Metro at large, there's a strong path for them to grow into an MLS team.
I mean, look at their flag and it's obvious nod towards regionalism:
http://shop.saintlouisfc.com/collection ... c040-multi

The St. Louligans as a stand-alone organization with a mission of simply supporting soccer in St. Louis, could be a powerful stadium owner able to effect great influence provided someone built a stadium and donated it to them. They'd be better than any RSA...

If you want to build an MLS stadium downtown, it must retain some connection to the park in Fenton or at least to SLU. That social connection needs to maintained and it needs to grow organically if we want it to be sustainable. So we must grow soft infrastructure before we throw down a stadium we're unequipt to maintain.

CarexCurator wrote:While the attention to the design of a new stadium is a fun exercise in urban thought, I think we should focus on the much more important concerns of sustainability, ownership, and maintenance.

The Packers will never leave Green Bay because they are owned by the people of Green Bay. They don't need a new stadium because the fans like the one they have.
We lost the Rams because they belonged to some rich guy who didn't even live here. The Rams have never belonged to any group of fans.

Saint Louis FC has a good ownership structure since they're basically run by non-profit youth soccer. As long as they stay non-profit and the stakeholders remain citizens of the Metro at large, there's a strong path for them to grow into an MLS team.
I mean, look at their flag and it's obvious nod towards regionalism:
http://shop.saintlouisfc.com/collection ... c040-multi

The St. Louligans as a stand-alone organization with a mission of simply supporting soccer in St. Louis, could be a powerful stadium owner able to effect great influence provided someone built a stadium and donated it to them. They'd be better than any RSA...

If you want to build an MLS stadium downtown, it must retain some connection to the park in Fenton or at least to SLU. That social connection needs to maintained and it needs to grow organically if we want it to be sustainable. So we must grow soft infrastructure before we throw down a stadium we're unequipt to maintain.

Sounds like you're more in favor of a suburban stadium over downtown. Nothing wrong with that, but do you have a place in mind?

Don't misunderstand. I think the current soccer fields and the whole of the Chrysler plant should be converted into a wetland park for recreation, flood prevention, and habitat along the Henry Shaw Ozark Corridor.

Space's plan for Union Station is good.

If we build in the city, it should not block streets (like Chestnut), it should fix a deadzone like next to a highway, and it should maybe incorporate space beside a large historic structure like Union Station or Camden Yards. You know like if a field fit inside the Lemp complex, how obviously awesome would that be?

I'd favor Grand and Chippewa, replacing the Schnucks at Grand and Gravois, or at the old stadium site at Grand and Natural Bridge once the EPA is done with it. Being close to the Bosnian community is a good thing too though.

Using it to build out the Chouteau greenway or to fix the massive deadzone that is the Grand overpass would be nice. Building at grade with the bridge above the station with a view of downtown would be sweet.

Or built between Ikea and Six Row to really activate SLU.

I am not really concerned. I just wanted to say that we shouldn't obsesses about the building as much as the soft power that will end up having to maintain it. I think building capacity is more important than building buildings. When the capacity is there, the building will just happen.

downtown2007 wrote: Yeah you won't have to give that much money until the MLS sees growth to a point where every owner holds a gun to the heads of the taxpayers wanting a new stadium or threatening to move.

Or until they leave land vacant to their stadium site that they promised to build on 10 years ago. A la BPV.

Or until the stadium needs repairs and ask the city for a 100 million handout like the Blues did this week.

We need to move on from our addiction to sports. We will be better humans and a city if we did.

That is why a team owned by fans like the Packers or FCbarcelona is the only sensible way forward. When the team is a representative body and not a private company, the decision making process is more consensus driven. The Packers never had a compelling reason to leave Lambeau Field, so they just renovated it together for the past fifty years.

This and MLS stadiums are an order of magnitude cheaper than NFL or MLB stadia.

^ I'd love to see that bill get to Committee and have it amended to allow for any Missouri County in the EWG region to participate.

^ I like it! We'll call it the Saint Louis Regional Millennial Silver Bullet Act!

Is there a word for speculative conditional public policy? Surely there's a word for such a thing. Building castles in the clouds?

Why don't we have dozens of bills like this floating around if there's no risk whatsoever unless they actually happen?

It's amazing that a two year old rendering of a site that is being redeveloped right now as something completely different with a ferris wheel should get this much play.

^ we're on the same wavelength as I had tweeted that same thought just a few minutes ago... poor little Johnny is going to cry when he sees the ferris wheel go up and asks his dad if that is part of the soccer stadium project.

Without an ownership group actively pursuing an MLS team, this all seems extremely... well, stupid. Heck, we don't even have rumors about an ownership group or people who have publicly stated they would want to join a group. Let's focus on getting that in place BEFORE we start going stadium proposal crazy.

^ and right on cue per KMOX Kevin Killeen the governor says he is "working on a possible deal for MLS in Saint Louis"

chaifetz10 wrote:Without an ownership group actively pursuing an MLS team, this all seems extremely... well, stupid. Heck, we don't even have rumors about an ownership group or people who have publicly stated they would want to join a group. Let's focus on getting that in place BEFORE we start going stadium proposal crazy.

So just sit back and do nothing and then scramble around when it's too late? Yeah, that works wonders.

user28 wrote:Look it may appear silly without a definite ownership group in place who is actively seeking MLS, however i am certainly in support of efforts to persuade professional soccer to be incorporated into St Louis.

The things we are seeing happening right now (a bill, articles about potential locations, rumors about potential expansion) are a result of ongoing momentum from all of our effort to try and keep the rams and build a new stadium. The fact that that momentum is still in full motion is a tribute to our regions strong will and a sign that our city can show resilience, that our city can build onward even when faced with adversity. It is momentum we have needed for a long time, or at least we have needed in the press and in the minds of the people in the metro area.

Having this momentum continued will help it build and grow. With a strong base, ownership will come (if only because such a market could not be ignored when it makes itself known with such activity). It might seem like all of this is funny or a joke not to be taken seriously, but it is very much the opposite.

I think you're on the right track with the momentum idea, but I also think it would be wise for the MLS effort to detach itself from the failed Rams bid. These stadium concepts, public proposals, and fan outreach programs are good because they show potential investors and the MLS that this is a good soccer market and that people are excited about the idea of having a club here. However, coupling the MLS with the NFL loss makes it look like we're turning to the MLS for a rebound hook-up instead of an authentic and independent commitment. The enthusiasm is clearly here for an MLS club, Rams or no Rams, so I don't want it to get misconstrued because of emotional disappointments elsewhere. It's not like we have to remind the powers-that-be that there's an opening here because our football team just left. I'm sure they're aware.