even through the riverfront isnt my first choice, it is exciting to think that development could be spurred by something like an mls stadium. I mean i really hope we get to see some new and dense development on the riverfront. A large riverfront neighborhood would be incredible.
Bummed, was getting excited about a west downtown/union station/Clark ave location and seeing this area continued to build. A north riverfront soccer stadium well logical in terms of what already is done it also aleaves downtown with three competing areas trying to move forward from LHM/Union station as well as a new 22nd interchange, BPV future phases and a north riverfront with plenty space to fill in between Laclede's Landing. A NFL football stadium is one thing but MLS offers a smaller and more buildable urban footprint that could be used to compliment existing developments within the city.
Heck, at least build it in on casino parking lot in Lacledes Landing and make a deal on new parking. This also gives the ability for a future NFL stadium if an expansion team happens one day
Heck, at least build it in on casino parking lot in Lacledes Landing and make a deal on new parking. This also gives the ability for a future NFL stadium if an expansion team happens one day
- 1,864
Hopefully we can see the Cotton Belt Building incorporated into the design, since the stadium footprint will be smaller. Would be perfect for team offices, a store, restaurant, etc just like Camden Yards in Baltimore has with their historic warehouse building.
- 1,792
]dredger wrote:Heck, at least build it in on casino parking lot in Lacledes Landing and make a deal on new parking. This also gives the ability for a future NFL stadium if an expansion team happens one day
And I'm convince it would be cheaper since the power lines are not in the way any more.
So, are they going to acquire land the right way? Or use the same eminent domain b.s. they tried with the Rams?
Is all the work going to be privately financed? Or more "no new taxes" b.s. they tried with the Rams?
Is all the work going to be privately financed? Or more "no new taxes" b.s. they tried with the Rams?
- 472
Absolutely. But would you put the stadium on the river side or city side of the building? On the river side you could see the bridge or the arch from your seat pretty well, but they'd have to build out over some train tracks.chaifetz10 wrote:Hopefully we can see the Cotton Belt Building incorporated into the design, since the stadium footprint will be smaller. Would be perfect for team offices, a store, restaurant, etc just like Camden Yards in Baltimore has with their historic warehouse building.
- 2,055
Not a huge development, but confirmation on the 28 teams is a go.
http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-socce ... -expansion
http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-socce ... -expansion
is there any feasibility to build a stadium near soulard? perhaps between the river and broadway/7th?
In my opinion that would be the next best option to building at the 22nd st interchange
In my opinion that would be the next best option to building at the 22nd st interchange
From what I've seen/heard, MLS is extremely understanding of urban initiatives and objectives, therefore whenever possible they choose the solution best connected to transit. I've heard even the N. Riverfront location will have little (little, as in smaller than what you'd expect for a stadium) parking. They want people on metro.user28 wrote:is there any feasibility to build a stadium near soulard? perhaps between the river and broadway/7th?
In my opinion that would be the next best option to building at the 22nd st interchange
- 9,549
^so the west county suit buyers will drive to maplewood and take metrolink into downtown and than walk over to the north river front?
442 with a nice article on the efforts from St. Louis -
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/ ... OOkMQmOZ8A
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/ ... OOkMQmOZ8A
According to Sports Illustrated, STL "Best bet for team 26":
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/04 ... in-detroit
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/04 ... in-detroit
- 2,055
I have heard from no one specific (ahem) that a certain birdy or say a peacock is speaking again with a certain firm about designing a certain stadium again... no details... just that actual talks have begun.
Please tell me you mean MLS... Not NFL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,610
^ Well, the post IS in the MLS thread, so I'd imagine Patti is speaking of an MLS stadium.
- 8,155
it'll be interesting to see what a specific proposal will be.... it'll be a challenge to gin up public funds for this, both on the state and local level, especially since Nixon and Slay will be gone. I'm not convinced a deal can't get done unless the mysterious ownership group really steps up on the private side of funding.pattimagee wrote:I have heard from no one specific (ahem) that a certain birdy or say a peacock is speaking again with a certain firm about designing a certain stadium again... no details... just that actual talks have begun.
- 3,428
I have a suggestion for the new MLS stadium. At concerts, college football, college basketball, NFL football games, and even the NASCAR race I was watching on TV, more and more people stand for the entire event. Frequently, this is because folks in the front row stand, so the folks behind them stand, and on and on all the way up.
So, I think for the MLS stadium, we should consider building a STANDium -- a stadium with seating steep enough that one can see the field whether the folks in front of them are standing or not. I could see this becoming a new trend in stadiums, rendering all current stadiums obsolete. A lot more older folks with disposable income could attend sporting events if they could sit. Otherwise they'll stay home and watch on TV.
There were plenty of sections like this in the past. The upper level of the old Checkerdome was certainly steep enough for this. (A very thin steel rail could be required to keep folks from toppling forward.) An MLS stadium isn't that big, so I don't think anyone would object to being pushed up further from the field in the vertical direction.
So, I think for the MLS stadium, we should consider building a STANDium -- a stadium with seating steep enough that one can see the field whether the folks in front of them are standing or not. I could see this becoming a new trend in stadiums, rendering all current stadiums obsolete. A lot more older folks with disposable income could attend sporting events if they could sit. Otherwise they'll stay home and watch on TV.
There were plenty of sections like this in the past. The upper level of the old Checkerdome was certainly steep enough for this. (A very thin steel rail could be required to keep folks from toppling forward.) An MLS stadium isn't that big, so I don't think anyone would object to being pushed up further from the field in the vertical direction.
Gary: too radical of a thought for an entire American soccer stadium. Though it was be a cool idea for one section of the stadium (say the end zone) where your stick people like the Saint Louligans.
- 1,792
I think the trend actually is going another way. Because a seated person takes up roughly twice the square footage as a standing person, squeeze more people in by providing standing space only (basically no seats at all). This concept was actually part of the St. Louis MLS stadium concept development presented at the TEDx event a WashU by one of the architects involved. By making it standing room only you reduce the cost per person and/or reduce the stadium footprint and therefore land acquisition and construction costs. On top of the financials it helps to 'create a more engaging and immersive experience' because people feel (or i guess they literally are) closer to the field and sort of more 'above it'.gary kreie wrote:So, I think for the MLS stadium, we should consider building a STANDium -- a stadium with seating steep enough that one can see the field whether the folks in front of them are standing or not.
The stadium would be significantly steeper, and each "seat" (no actual seat) would have a rail in front of it to lean against for support and to make sure no one falls. I had heard of the concept before but the fact that they were actually considering it was pretty surprising to me. I assume if they did try it it would be just in certain sections since its such an unproven concept, especially in the American market. If done right, it could prove a model to be emulated for years to come.
- 1,868
I thought standing areas were pretty common in Euro association football.
The Germans still do in some places, but most other leagues have all seater rules. Especially Britain after the Hillsborough stadium disaster. FIFA and other federations also require all seaters for their games.MarkHaversham wrote:I thought standing areas were pretty common in Euro association football.