urbanSTL

The stadium looks fantastic, and this is all very exciting, but I do have some concerns over the public funding - whether the vote will pass, and reservations on if it should.

For one, it's not completely necessary to spend $200M on an MLS stadium - the $120M the investors are offering in private funds could suffice. Yes, the top stadiums can cost $200M+, but there have been plenty of examples of good stadiums built for less. San Jose's Avaya stadium, just completed in 2015 only cost $100M (privately financed) and seems to be a perfectly nice stadium. Orlando is only spending $155M (privately financed) on their new stadium, which looks like it will be great. Houston spent $95M in 2012 and that is a nice stadium.

So what happens if the public funding does not go through? Do they have a backup plan for a $120M stadium? Do they come up with more funds themselves? Or do they walk and Foundry St. Louis becomes our best hope for MLS?

Which brings us to the issue that could throw the biggest wrench in this: Foundry St. Louis. Check out their twitter from last night: https://twitter.com/foundrystl. They are definitely looking to rally opposition to the public funds, and they do have some ground to stand on.

I would have to think a sizable chunk of the public money will go towards removal of the ramps and other infrastructure changes/improvements.
I'm sure some would also go towards the actual stadium, but an $80M investment is well worth the revenue potential that this stadium can generate directly and indirectly. Beyond MLS games, this venue will attract World Cup qualifiers/other FIFA games, friendlies, college games, summer tour games and even concerts. There is a lot of potential there.

From the renderings, I see the ferris wheel at Union Station. There will be a nice view into the stadium from the gondolas. Also, does anyone know if there is a plan to coat or paint the roof panels on the train shed? They look bad with all of that rust. They need to be coated. In the renderings, you can see the rusty roof panels. I know I'm being picky, but if they are making U.S. a destination, why not coat the roof! I've noticed a few panels have been coated with a gray coating, but not many.

Woah! Grover is back

Alex Ihnen would be proud

I'm all for Foundry.

Apparently whats not include in the "public" or really the private portion is the cost of buying the 30 acres from MoDOT....i would guess its between $6-8M
Also not included in the public or private cost of stadium is the part of MoDOT selling the land, someone has to make jefferson a full interchange ($10M?)

Dave Peacock was just on "The Morning After" on 590AM and during the interview noted that one of the next steps is to determine the actual cost of the stadium. He said that the 200M is a high estimate and that it could end up being less. He also said that cost overruns and the vast majority of maintenance and upkeep would be privately funded.

He seemed to make the point that they will study other MLS stadium agreements as well as what has and has not worked here (DOME) and they want to do what is best for STL.

Two thoughts.

1. Maybe Foundry and SCSTL can merge and pay for everything 100%

or

2. It would be a pipe dream, but maybe Foundry could go after the NBA if they lose out!

There's a bit of a difference between the aerial renderings and the site plan re: the Aloe Plaza west extension. The the east view shows the remnant road of the 20th street interchange still wrapping around the Aloe Plaza west extension (with tents lining the south side of the street, a stage and big screen!). That view shows the road running under Market. In the southwest view you can also see the road running underground under Market. To where it's leading isn't clear; I'd guess maybe it's a club-only delivery area, maybe a secure way for teams to enter the facility?

But in the site plan the north edge of the Plaza extension is squared off, with that road becoming an entry to the parking lot. The plaza extension itself is laid out differently as well, with the site plan showing a more elaborate design.





-RBB

dbInSouthCity wrote:Apparently whats not include in the "public" or really the private portion is the cost of buying the 30 acres from MoDOT....i would guess its between $6-8M
Also not included in the public or private cost of stadium is the part of MoDOT selling the land, someone has to make jefferson a full interchange ($10M?)

Jefferson being made into a full interchange was included in the state's incentives to keep NGA in St. Louis so MoDOT should be paying for that

joelo wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:Apparently whats not include in the "public" or really the private portion is the cost of buying the 30 acres from MoDOT....i would guess its between $6-8M
Also not included in the public or private cost of stadium is the part of MoDOT selling the land, someone has to make jefferson a full interchange ($10M?)

Jefferson being made into a full interchange was included in the state's incentives to keep NGA in St. Louis so MoDOT should be paying for that

out of state general revenue...that's different from modot budget...

midcoaststl wrote: 1. Maybe Foundry and SCSTL can merge and pay for everything 100%

I think that could have been a good solution, in theory. But the way Foundry seems to be attacking SCSTL on twitter, I don't see that happening.

dbInSouthCity wrote:

joelo wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:Apparently whats not include in the "public" or really the private portion is the cost of buying the 30 acres from MoDOT....i would guess its between $6-8M
Also not included in the public or private cost of stadium is the part of MoDOT selling the land, someone has to make jefferson a full interchange ($10M?)

Jefferson being made into a full interchange was included in the state's incentives to keep NGA in St. Louis so MoDOT should be paying for that

out of state general revenue...that's different from modot budget...

True, curious to see how our new governor is going to handle infrastructure

^ the way the state constitution was amendment a while back he nor legislature has much say over state DOT budget.

Much prefer Foundry.

AFAIK, 100% private financing. A stadium outside of downtown (where they are supposed to be, honestly).

It's unfortunate the MLS2STL group seems to be made up of insiders and people intent on getting public money. Although with Dave Peacock (aka Mr. Oh We Said the Rams stadium wouldn't cost the city but hey whats a little lie every now and then) leading that group, guess I can't be surprised.

Personally I don't think Foundry has the funding. They talk about being open and transparent yet released no figures of any kind. They say they're against public funding but mentioned TIF funding in their proposal. My guess is they wanted to be a part of the MLS2STL or were hoping some big outsider would fund their project

I see the County has confirmed it's not being asked to contribute.... not good. Also, I'm very concerned that the City won't own and control the land north of Market Street; the ownership group should not have their hands on that very valuable property.

Foundry location is preferable for me and the no public money sounds way better, although I like both stadiums. Foundry needs to come out with an investor before this vote and change it to a vote on which plan is preferred. As many of you have said, it would be ideal if they compete over the project. Foundry is calling out MLS2STL on twitter. Wonder if they're hiding something. Secret investor Kroenke?

City needs to learn to make better terms for themselves after the Rams, and Cards blunder. Keep all land and taxes if public money is used. Term needs to be as long as the financing terms.

The stadium is going to be city owned. So the city would also own the land. Peacock said that today on the radio. I am not sure I want it city owned but the land is still going to belong to the city for those of you that are talking about that aspect.

^ I'm not sure that is true... otherwise there is no reason for their lawyers to be working with MODOT. We'll just have to see.

City will own the stadium...its for tax purposes....

As a City, you always want the owner of the franchise, to own the stadium. That way, if they thought about bolting if things go bad, they have to consider the massive stadium they own and will take a hit on, if they leave. This makes ownership more accountable, unlike the Rams. Ownership is almost forced to succeed because more is at stake. If prevents owners from running a franchise into the ground, then abandoning the City. I am all for 100% ownership of the stadium, by the franchise owner. I want our franchises to stay here forever. The Rams deal was not designed to be more than a 20-30 year deal. That makes me very angry. Allowed the owners to reap the benefits and steal money from the region, only to move to another city. That will be my biggest concern. Make sure the lease is iron-clad.

the land surrounding it and who controls development is the primary issue for me, not the stadium itself.... the reports are the MLS owners would purchase the land from the city after STL exercises the option with MODOT, and that it actually is lawyers for the propsective owners who are working on the agreement with MODOT instead of SLDC ones.

DogtownBnR wrote:As a City, you always want the owner of the franchise, to own the stadium. That way, if they thought about bolting if things go bad, they have to consider the massive stadium they own and will take a hit on, if they leave. This makes ownership more accountable, unlike the Rams. Ownership is almost forced to succeed because more is at stake. If prevents owners from running a franchise into the ground, then abandoning the City. I am all for 100% ownership of the stadium, by the franchise owner. I want our franchises to stay here forever. The Rams deal was not designed to be more than a 20-30 year deal. That makes me very angry. Allowed the owners to reap the benefits and steal money from the region, only to move to another city. That will be my biggest concern. Make sure the lease is iron-clad.

Agreed. This is why I don't like city owned stadiums also. I want to owners to own it they have more incentive to make it work. It does sound like the SC STL group is talking about paying a majority of the upkeep on it though and overruns on construction. I will wait to judge until we see what the lease says.

Oh thats awesome./s Never thought of that.

So that makes it:

City contributes 80 million

City loses tax revenues on the land. Maybe gains rent payments. Probably will have to pay more down the line to keep it up to date, like with Scottrade, and with the Rams relocation threat. Ownership can threaten to leave unless upgrades are made.

I had such high hopes for this to be above board. Should have known better.