urbanSTL

kustramo wrote:Um, this is totally ridiculous. First of all the dome is only 12 years old, and I've been to plenty of games there and its not all that bad. And it got us two super bowl births and one championship if I'm not mistaken. Back then everyone touted how great it was cause it was so loud it shook the other teams. The place is empty because the Rams suck, not cause the stadium sucks. Also, any public funding of either massive improvements (ie the retractable roof) or a new stadium would be such a slap in the face to the people that work hard every day to bring it the limited amount of tax dollars to this city and state. There are so so so many things much more deserved of this type of money I don't even know where to begin.

I said IF THE RAMS USED THEIR OWN MONEY!

Yeah... but how often does that seem to happen? Every time a pro team wants a new stadium they toss around the idea of moving until the governement coughs up the money.

Given that the Rams haven't used their own money for anything they've done since arriving here, why do you think they'll suddenly start?

This is simply a hypothetical question asked amoung civic minded people while not having a beer. I'm not saying the would ever do anything like that, but asking the question only for the purpose of debate.





I also ask you this question: the Rams agree to build a new open air Riverfront North stadium with their own money. The only thing they ask in return is a new North/South Metrolink line that runs from Florrisant to South County with a stop at the new stadium. What do you say?



OR



The Rams agree to build a new open air Riverfront North stadium with their own money. The only thing they ask in return is a new Mississippi River Bridge with exits that dump right into the new stadium parking lot. What do you say?

^

Okay.



But the problem with the dome extends beyond the Rams (as a team) themselves, I think it's more organizational. The Falcons have done a great job of making their dome an exciting place to be on game day.

^Could the new MLS stadium double as an NFL venue? Don't the Chicago Bears and Fire each play at Soldier's Field?

trent wrote:^

Okay.



But the problem with the dome extends beyond the Rams (as a team) themselves, I think it's more organizational. The Falcons have done a great job of making their dome an exciting place to be on game day.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence...



A quick google search show there are plenty of Falcon fans who think their dome should be replaced for many of the same reasons people here are saying about the Rams and our dome.



And the sporting news ranked it as the worst football stadium/dome in the NFL.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... hp?t=10830



31. Georgia Dome, Atlanta



The odd roof makes this place look like an oversized circus tent. Is there any reason for a dome in this climate? The atmosphere inside and surrounding the stadium is dark and dingy. Frisghtening, almost. It's nice that it's located in downtown Atlanta, but you hardly get the feeling this is prime real estate. The cheesy photos of Georgia that ring the bowl of the arena add nothing. Playing Super Bowls here was like having a wedding in a sewer.



The Edwards Jones Dome ranked a little better-

25. Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis



Centrally located in downtown St. Louis, this is not an unattractive building from the outside. In fact, it doesn't even look much like a stadium. But the inside is another matter. The gloomy, dark atmosphere makes for a poor game-day experience. On the plus side, the Rams have found a way to get a tremendous home-field advantage out of this place.

southslider wrote:^Could the new MLS stadium double as an NFL venue? Don't the Chicago Bears and Fire each play at Soldier's Field?

While they used to play at Soldier Field, the Chicago Fire now play at Toyota Park on Chicago's south side. MLS recommends against sharing facilities with NFL teams despite the similarities in field size: they don't want to play in half empty stadiums (think 70,000 fans vs. 20,000).

buckethead,



The difference isn't in the facility. Both facilities are rather bad, but the dome in Atlanta is better during game days because of simple small things like music selection, announcer, video display. They work harder there than the Rams at making game day a bigger deal, instead of just relying on our lame fans or boring offense to provide the fun.

trent wrote:buckethead,



The difference isn't in the facility. Both facilities are rather bad, but the dome in Atlanta is better during game days because of simple small things like music selection, announcer, video display. They work harder there than the Rams at making game day a bigger deal, instead of just relying on our lame fans or boring offense to provide the fun.

Plus the Georgia Dome has a transparent roof and lets light into the field/seating area.

trent wrote:buckethead,



The difference isn't in the facility. Both facilities are rather bad, but the dome in Atlanta is better during game days because of simple small things like music selection, announcer, video display. They work harder there than the Rams at making game day a bigger deal, instead of just relying on our lame fans or boring offense to provide the fun.

I understand that, but if you do a google search of some falcon websites and forums, their fans complain about the same things. The game atmosphere isn't great, the fans aren't as loud as they used to be, and so on.

trent wrote:The difference isn't in the facility. Both facilities are rather bad, but the dome in Atlanta is better during game days because of simple small things like music selection, announcer, video display. They work harder there than the Rams at making game day a bigger deal, instead of just relying on our lame fans or boring offense to provide the fun.

Exactly. Who wouldn't agree that this is the biggest problem at the Ed, moreso than the facility itself?



And I think we can all agree that a replacement stadium, at least located within the City of St. Louis proper, is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. So, aside from the aforementioned changes that could be made, what else can be done to make the existing facility better?



A retractable roof would be the ultimate improvement, but short of something that lofty, simply improving the video displays, music selection, and other changes to improve the overall gameday atmosphere would go a long way toward making Rams ticketholders happier (and perhaps, a bit more boisterous). Although it would also require structural changes, I think more windows in certain spots, or at a bare minimum, improved lighting, would liven up the tomblike interior.

^ Well, we could attach the roof to a giant crane and swing it out of the way. It'd be pretty cool to drive down I-70 underneath a gigantic 4 block roof. Or build a series of building in the Bottle District the same height as the EJ Dome, install a railing system on their roofs, and then roll the EJ Dome's roof on top of the Bottle District on game days. That wouldn't be too far fetched, now, would it?

Or use the roof to create the lid over the depressed section of I-70!

Would anyone here support the ability for pedestrian traffic to flow through the dome between Cole and Convention Center Plaza where 7th street meets (ie allowing the general public to enter the convention center at either side and exit at the other for the purpose of accessing public transportation, the CBD, etc.)? I know most probably don't care about that issue, but that's one that would be easily addressed. I'm sure the only issue would be security and I'd think that breezeway could at least be staffed with security during core business hours. I think this issue will become more important once whatever happens at the BD site.

^ I think it's a great idea. If the developers of Lumiere Place figured out how to get pedestrian access underneath Interstate 70, then why can't someone figure out a way to better connect pedestrians south of America's Center with current and future developments north of the facility?

Put it on stilts on the eastside. That would be sweet.

Nowhere, for at least another 10 years. RSA and Rams announced agreement for upgrades last week, satisfying lease terms.

The new ribbon boards and lighting improvements will do wonders to liven and more importantly brighten up the place. The seating bowl, while viewed on TV, appears to be the darkest in the league (anybody else notice this?).



I vaguely remember something about the Rams having an out clause in their lease that allows potential relocation if The ED falls below a certain level in relationship with other NFL stadiums (sorry, don't remember the particulars, or how this would be qualified/quanitfied). Am I dreaming this?



IMHO, the walls, ceiling and floor are not the problem (well, maybe the floor is from a players' perspective). We know the place can be the loudest in the league, right? It really is a beautiful stadium from the outside, so no problem there. You will see...winning will make it fun again.

^agree!

I don't think I've said this before, but I wish they would replace the Dome with a convention center expansion. I guess they use the Dome for some conventions? But 8 games and a playoff game or so just doesn't add much to downtown. More and bigger conventions would be great - and St. Louis is in need of expansion. Imagine if Wash Ave, Lumiere and the new Mercantile developments were adjacent to a larger convention center and another 100,000 people visited the area every year.

^ I agree with you. As much as I love the Rams and the convenience of having all three major sports teams downtown, the building's status as part of the convention center is really more important, at least in terms of what the building contributes to downtown's overall vitality.



I'm glad to see improvements will be made to the Edward Jones Dome for now, even if they probably won't be as drastic and unrealistic (cough- retractable roof!) as I would like to see. Give it another ten years, and I think the Rams will look into relocating to East St. Louis- or Los Angeles.