addxb2 wrote:I am very confident (80%) this stadium will happen on or along Clark.
80%... Wow. I would definitely bet against you with those odds.
The ONLY place adjacent to Clark that I could imagine a stadium is West of Union Station. It's probably one of the top 3 sites in the city which in itself is not guaranteed.
-North Riverfront
-Union Station (west side)
-Grand and Chouteau (NW corner)
So much effort has been put into the North Riverfront that my gut tells me that will be the leading proposal.
A second option along Clark that would be very tight and has about a 0.1% chance of happening is directly south of Scottrade. It would be very tight and would require moving the transit center to Union station, so very expensive as well. I'd still support it though as I am convinced the transit center was put in the wrong place from the first place. Any other proposal on Clark has a near zero chance of happening IMHO.
addxb2 wrote:I am very confident (80%) this stadium will happen on or along Clark.
80%... Wow. I would definitely bet against you with those odds.
The ONLY place adjacent to Clark that I could imagine a stadium is West of Union Station. It's probably one of the top 3 sites in the city which in itself is not guaranteed.
-North Riverfront
-Union Station (west side)
-Grand and Chouteau (NW corner)
So much effort has been put into the North Riverfront that my gut tells me that will be the leading proposal.
A second option along Clark that would be very tight and has about a 0.1% chance of happening is directly south of Scottrade. It would be very tight and would require moving the transit center to Union station, so very expensive as well. I'd still support it though as I am convinced the transit center was put in the wrong place from the first place. Any other proposal on Clark has a near zero chance of happening IMHO.
I still think the Jefferson/Market/Clark/20th area is a great idea.
I think the decision to put it on the North Riverfront has all but been made. Just connecting the dots and the legwork thats been done thru the proposed football stadium. If that North Riverfront gets developed it puts a nice bow on all the downtown projects going on over the last couple years.
NickOnDelor wrote:I think the decision to put it on the North Riverfront has all but been made. Just connecting the dots and the legwork thats been done thru the proposed football stadium. If that North Riverfront gets developed it puts a nice bow on all the downtown projects going on over the last couple years.
STLEnginerd wrote:
A second option along Clark that would be very tight and has about a 0.1% chance of happening is directly south of Scottrade. It would be very tight and would require moving the transit center to Union station, so very expensive as well. I'd still support it though as I am convinced the transit center was put in the wrong place from the first place. Any other proposal on Clark has a near zero chance of happening IMHO.
Not that tight. The MetroLink tracks could be lowered a bit and built over, or not. The 16th street bridge fits over them, so you could probably just build directly on top. Spruce is hardly a street anymore and it could be crossed to grab that parking lot. There's room without bothering the transportation awfulness.
So much effort has been put into the North Riverfront that my gut tells me that will be the leading proposal.
Exactly.
They essentially just compiled a huge swath of land and have agreements in place with the railroad. Its ready to go. GRG has plans for the area as well. It builds upon the Arch ground and riverfront work.
I think it would be cool to put the stadium west of Union Station. But they have to go through the whole process again of acquiring land etc.
addxb2 wrote:A second option along Clark that would be very tight and has about a 0.1% chance of happening is directly south of Scottrade. It would be very tight and would require moving the transit center to Union station, so very expensive as well. I'd still support it though as I am convinced the transit center was put in the wrong place from the first place. Any other proposal on Clark has a near zero chance of happening IMHO.
What about the opposite corner with the block bordered by Clark/16th/I-64/18th? Those FDA and DEA buildings could easily go away and the jobs shifted elsewhere downtown.
^Those are not small buildings and removing them would drop the density of activity in that area even further. You would probably be shifting jobs further away from public transportation unless you could be sure they would end up in the CBD or the other nearby civic buildings. More than likely you'd also cut down on some of the money that ends up in the Union Station lunch options.
It's probably not worth considering when there's so much other vacant land to work with.
I could very likely be wrong about the Clark site. They have put a lot of work into north riverfront. I just see the weight these three people carry and can't imagine they wouldn't be fighting to get it as close as possible to their current facilities. If that isn't their objective then it's amazing that their willing to spend a lot of time and a lot of money to get a soccer team here with no other personal profit made. These guys care deeply about St. Louis, so I guess that's not impossible.
I personally hate the north riverfront location for mls. It's another investment that is further away from investments that are struggling. It'd be like downtown sprawling. The location on north riverfront is completely isolated from other neighborhoods, maybe lacledes landings but that in itself is isolated. There's also no transit. A Clark site would be connected to transit. IMO if it is located on NRF, were simply building a stadium for suburbia to enjoy, it'll be overwhelming surrounded by surface parking, it'd lead to little further investment in downtown. People will drive in and drive out. I can't imagine Bob, Bill, Tom want to see that happen. We'll see.
addxb2 wrote:The location on north riverfront is completely isolated from other neighborhoods.
Old North and Hyde Park have a bright future if they could get rid of their aldermen. The Branch Street connection and the Iron Horse Trestle are solid projects, and GRG's riverfront park is a good way forward.
Otherwise, yeah it'd be a long walk from the landing metro station. I also cannot imagine an alliance of three major Clark Avenue stakeholders for something not related to their immediate investments. The coincidence is too great. All three are actively trying to build something right now.
Otherwise, yeah it'd be a long walk from the landing metro station.
I disagree. Its a half mile.
Imagine the congestion at the Landing stop right after an MLS game. 10,000 or so people walking from the North riverfront through the Landing, filling up bars and restaurants while they wait for the congestion to die down.
Otherwise, yeah it'd be a long walk from the landing metro station.
I disagree. Its a half mile.
Imagine the congestion at the Landing stop right after an MLS game. 10,000 or so people walking from the North riverfront through the Landing, filling up bars and restaurants while they wait for the congestion to die down.
I think the City wins with either location.
Plus with the smaller footprint needed they could move the the MLS stadium site to the south and closer to the Landing. Maybe even up against Carr Street?
Can they slam it south, between Carr and the Cotton Belt Building? Then it would have it's own built in Ballpark Village (the landing). And gosh the Landing deserves it.
I'm still skeptical of that happening. Sounds good. But IDK.
If they build it on NRF, only a small portion of those in attendance would take Metro. Why? Because with that much available land the developers will build acres of surface parking. Heck, even downtown residents would drive to NRF location, theres to much disconnect between NRF and the city for a neighborhood to support it. IMO soccer is a neighborhood sport, it needs a strong neighborhood that will support it even when others give up coming. If we're going to build it on NRF I support the area between Lenore, 2nd, MLK, and Carr. If we want people to spend money in Lacledes, we gotta put it as close as possible, with parking to the north.
Lumiere could relocate their hotel across MLK Bridge to the surface parking lot in Lacledes. The entrance would be much closer to Metro. There's already a nice riverfront atmosphere also.
Looks like Sporting KC's stadium is about 600ft by 600ft. You could nestle something that size between the Cotton belt building, the old power house, the railroad and the riverfront.
addxb2 wrote:I personally hate the north riverfront location for mls. It's another investment that is further away from investments that are struggling. It'd be like downtown sprawling. The location on north riverfront is completely isolated from other neighborhoods, maybe lacledes landings but that in itself is isolated. There's also no transit. A Clark site would be connected to transit. IMO if it is located on NRF, were simply building a stadium for suburbia to enjoy, it'll be overwhelming surrounded by surface parking, it'd lead to little further investment in downtown. People will drive in and drive out. I can't imagine Bob, Bill, Tom want to see that happen. We'll see.
So a brief synopsis of what I got out of last nights TEDx panel discussions on Soccer in St. Louis.
First panel - St. Louis has some some great soccer talent, past present and future. The talent from here is proud to be from here. Taylor Twellman needs an honorary something in St. Louis. (Plaza, Park, Statue, ... soemthing) Ideally as park of any new stadium. Not only does he probably the recognition of some of the more well known modern players, like Landon Donovan, but he is a great TV personality who is an ambassador of St. Louis soccer to the rest of the country, a big proponent of St. Louis, and a fierce fan of soccer at all levels. He made some great points about support the team we have (St. Louis FC) and wrapped up the panel with a braveheart-esque speech about his vision of what Soccer could do for St. Louis.
The others on the panel were great as well, Lori Chalupney and Al Trost. A little more reminisce-ish than Taylor, but great representative of St. Louis and soccer. David Langs wrote a recent book on St. Louis soccer history, so in a way sort of bridged the generational gap between the players. All seemed to prefer a downtown stadium but that wasn't really their focus that was more the next panel.
Interlude - focused on the stadium plan and how it had been built with a focus on accomodating both NFL and MLS. They said it several times that the soccer aspect was not a secondary consideration but considered critical to the stadiums success. 8 days a year was not the plan ever.
Since that stadium was dead they have started looking at soccer only venues. Threw up a stadium plan that they stated was just a generic stadium idea, but it looked pretty site specific to me. It even had some building shapes in the background of one picture. I could have swore one of them was the Globe warehouse (now Uhaul downtown) my guess is they mocked up SSS for several sites even if they were un-realistic and that this one was rejected and so fair game for show and tell. I do not think it was one designed for Union Station, or the North Riverfront, but its pretty hard to tell.
There was Q&A afterwards. Most question tended toward financing and public input which are important, but this early on they are real snoozer questions. Your just going to get canned answers anyway.
Second Panel - More nut and bolts. Quite a bit of talk about the potential of the market and how MLS sees us. There was lot of patting St. Louis on the back, attendance figure for the international friendlies, and the St. Louis FC attendance figures.
MLS was apparently interested before when there was a dual use stadium proposal on the table, now their interest has increased significantly because of opening the Rams leaving has created. Someone on the panel indicated that we our now unquestionably the MLS's #1 target for an expansion team after the teams they have already agreed to. Said before we were chasing the MLS, but now its nice because the MLS wants us.
Mentioned how MLS per game attendance has exceeded NHL and NBA numbers, and how the average age of MLS fans skews significantly younger. basically this sport is growing fast, so get in now.
Most on the panel indicated that that although all option should be considered, they pretty much all envisioned a stadium somewhere downtown.
Former Rams (as in, he was cut from the team about a week ago) defensive lineman Chris Long has expressed interest in participation as a minority stakeholder for an MLS team in St. Louis.
^He has tens of millions to his name. Like the rest of the exploratory committee, none are at a point where they can easily throw in a few hundred million. They could finance a stadium maybe, but fielding the team and staffing the stadium would still be a massive expense.
