In this article is says the Foundary group would ask for TIF money not up front money like the NFL wanted. I will admit I don't know how TIFs work exactly (I am guessing they don't pay all their taxes or something like that for a certain period of time) or how the money translates but I would think that would be a better way to go about it than the NFL route.
OK, got two of three pretty and optimistic site renderings for stadiums - North Riverfront aka wish it was the Rams new home and Foundry/Bull Moose guys with a huge infill plan and lets put the platform over the railroad tracks so the fans get to our development in midtown plan. Hate to be cynical but all is we need is another version of either BPV or Bottlelworks as first rendered with a lot of new high rises surrounding a stadium for West Downtown.
Kinda ready for a respectable stadium situated on a doable site plan with same amount of concern for foot traffic/access to metrolink as auto traffic. Do that and you got a winner that won't break the bank. The renderings above and my heavy civil construction experience tells me you got a huge amount of infrastructure even before you build a stadium.
In this article is says the Foundary group would ask for TIF money not up front money like the NFL wanted. I will admit I don't know how TIFs work exactly (I am guessing they don't pay all their taxes or something like that for a certain period of time) or how the money translates but I would think that would be a better way to go about it than the NFL route.
pretty much got it.... I think a basic framework is that the amount of any property tax increases goes to pay off the TIF notes (but I believe this site is already exempt with SLU ownership.) On top of that half of additional taxes such as sales and earnings taxes on the site pay off the TIF. Generally the city doesn't want TIF to go more than 15% of the project cost although sometimes it goes higher, so a $200M stadium might see around a $30M TIF.
One thing I'd like to see if a stadium does move forward is the retention of the city's 5% amusement tax, with half going to pay off TIF and half going to general fund.
From what I have heard from a connection to the MLS2STL group, that it is a done deal. Just working out the details of a TIF for whatever site then have chosen. My money is on 22nd street and Union Station.
^So, are you saying Foundry IS connected to MLS2STL already?
It would make sense if Foundry is building the stadium and MLS2STL is bringing the team together. A partnership seems to be the best approach. Why have opposing groups?! That is what ruined our bid for an NFL expansion team.
^ I have a feeling the MLS2STL group pretty much has it wrapped up and it really isn't a competition, it is more of a group coming in too late to a party that was almost over.
quincunx wrote:I don't understand. They're concerned about the connection from Metrolink to the stadium. They put it as close as they could to it.
Yes, it sounds good to state that your concerned about having stadium close to metrolnik as possible but if you are an investor with Lawrence Group on Foundry and or Green Streets Armory development who has interest in landing a MLS team your bottom line priority is to get as much of the MLS soccer foot traffic as close to your investments as possible. I just believe their is a lot more site and infrastructure work once you get into the nuts and bolts of what the renderings require for a stadium to happen there as envisioned. Just don't buy the $150 million dollar number thrown out there.
In other words, the crowd behind this plan is proposing probably the best way to tie a new MLS stadium to mid town where development is happening and will continue instead of bringing it back to a hospital. Good plan and vision but just they are being coy right now on what will take to get there IMO. Which is fair because first and foremost they are trying to make a play for the franchise.
Let's not forget that if/when SLU is able to put together its development corp for the area that could also play into some of the infrastructure work. There may be many more players who are willing to chip in on the infrastructure work of tying the stadium into the development on the N side of the train tracks... Green Street, Lawrence Group, Koman, any anyone else who wants to be a part of the development in the CORTEX and midtown development scene could get involved. I'm sure all this will be discussed more as the ownership group gets announced and things start rolling.
Quick and easy way to try to get their name out there? Bring in some extra spending cash? That or their marketing guy just pulled the trigger waaaaaay to early on swag (the quality doesn't look great imo).
Can someone give me a lesson in how MLS it is organized or incorporated or chartered? I believe it is quite different from NFL in some fundamental points when it comes to expansion teams, moving a team. Essentially NFL is a non profit organization to represent the thirty two NFL team/owners and at end of day really does take a vote by the NFL team owners for a change whether it Rams to LA, Raiders to Vegas or not or the next expansion team(s). I believe MLS is very different in that it really comes down to a decision from the organization itself not the owners who are essentially franchise holders at end of day.
dredger wrote:I just believe their is a lot more site and infrastructure work once you get into the nuts and bolts of what the renderings require for a stadium to happen there as envisioned. Just don't buy the $150 million dollar number thrown out there.
More than what? I think the west of Union Station and North Riverfront sites have their own site challenges. Is there another site you have in mind?
Where did you see the $150M number? I didn't hear one given last night at the open house.
Time well tell but understand after I posted the comments that the design incorporates structure parking under or around stadium which includes a lot greenery on top at it abuts the rails. I can't tell if stadium is sunken or not from the renderings but either way the design load would suggest something more than your run of the mill prefab parking deck. That is one cost not sure if it is inclusive of the number provided. In addition, the east to west view of the rendering shows a pretty sizeable chunk of greenery over existing freight rail and the metrolink track with varying degrees of elevation change. Either lacking the details or one heck of a platform compared to Arch Lid which I believe alone was a $15-20 million project incorporating a simple level structure and even that happened with a significant TIGER grant to fund it.
dredger wrote:I just believe their is a lot more site and infrastructure work once you get into the nuts and bolts of what the renderings require for a stadium to happen there as envisioned. Just don't buy the $150 million dollar number thrown out there.
More than what? I think the west of Union Station and North Riverfront sites have their own site challenges. Is there another site you have in mind?
Agree every site will have challenges. I believe North Riverfront is the worst out of the bunch and would spur the least amount of development for the immediate area.
West of Union Station would most likely include a stadium on top of parking deck or sunken field as you clearly got to deal with the elevation difference from the old 22nd Parkway. The one advantage of West of Union Station is essentially you can site the stadium so don't have to deal with the UP/BNSF between the stadium and metrolink while having easy pedestrian access to Union Station & surrounding area already in place and closer to the stadium. Either way, one area will win out and other loses. City wins either way.
My other site, Laclede's landing sited between the casino and the rail line if it fits. Stones throw from metrolink station and Drury has ready made hotel/residential/parking garage proposal for the immediate area Foot traffic between Convention Center, Casino & Soccer stadium as well as being within walking distance of Wash Ave loft district might finally breath some life into Laclede's Landing. The site might also offer a whistle stop opportunity for Amtrak Lincoln service or extended River Runner service for game day whistle stop when playing regional rivals
The Laclede's Landing site would be really really tight. If you're talking about essentially the surface lot bounded by First, Second, Carr, and what I'm guessing used to be Cole before Lumiere made it into their parking lot (I don't really remember, sadly, but I think Cole went through the landing somewhere, so that would make sense) . . . That site is only about 300' by 450'. Kansas City's Children's Mercy Park is about 600' square. Toyota Park in Chicago is a bit bigger. Colorado Rapids field is bigger still. I don't think there's any way you could squeeze a 600' square into the landing without demolishing something, and that's a really small stadium. You'd have to move either Second or the TRRA to get fully 600'. And that's assuming you vacate First and you can get every drop of parking in front of that thing. I don't see the Landing as a viable site. The 22nd St. Site would probably require you to vacate 21st and acquire the building with Maggie O'Brien's, and even then it's a little tight, as there's barely 600' from Market to Eugenia. I'm starting to think the Chouteau and Grand option is the best of the major market selections. You have more than a thousand feet from Chouteau to the railroad tracks and almost as much from Spring to Grand. If you want to keep it downtown you could almost squeeze it into the area between 40 and Gratiot, though it might require moving the railroad and Gratiot a little south into the CheckerPark. (If Nestle, UP, and the TRRA can be bribed. Which seems probable.) Likewise you could probably squeeze it into the area between Clark and 40 south of the Post Office, onto a site much like Busch Stadium's block. Wouldn't even be difficult if you can bridge over Metrolink. But again, this is a small stadium. (That 600 foot square in KC seems like the small end.) I'm a little surprised no one has talked about all the empty industrial down in Soulard (on Kosciusko) where the Queeny Plant and Nooter and whatnot used to be. I guess there's Big Plans (TM) for that. But MLS might be a quicker bet. I know it would be nice to have them downtown, but I don't see that as a great option. Either you have to move heavy infrastructure or you have to demolish buildings. 22nd would work . . . but even that's a little tight. (Mind you, this is just banging around for an hour or so on Google Maps. Not an official study. Your mileage may vary. And a good site plan might make even an oddly shaped site work. But I bet we can do better than KC in terms of soccer draw, so a slightly larger stadium and site might well be worth it.)
ideally the stadium would host mls, womens pro soccer, slu men and womens games, state championship games, and some other events.
I think that the ideal site is between olive and market along 20th, because it would sit directly amoung existing buildings and act as a member of the neighborhood (unlike a busch stadium that awaits a bpv to close the gap). I dont think that will happen though.
user28 wrote:ideally the stadium would host mls, womens pro soccer, slu men and womens games, state championship games, and some other events.
I think that the ideal site is between olive and market along 20th, because it would sit directly amoung existing buildings and act as a member of the neighborhood (unlike a busch stadium that awaits a bpv to close the gap). I dont think that will happen though.
I'd hope they'd also host concerts like Toyota Park in Chicago does.
