^ Love it!
Yeah I don't think there's any need to shame AI visioning -- it makes it amazingly clear to show rather than tell, imo.pattimagee wrote: ↑3:20 PM - Apr 21I mean the stadium builds itself... would be so cool. This is definitely over done, but just to see how it translates.
This looks great!
- 91
That looks fantastic. I would love to see WashU or SLU add D1 football.
I don’t have much hope for the long term health of the UFL. The Battlehawks are the only team that draws decent crowds, and it seems like local interest is already waning. And the NFL is probably decades away from returning to St. Louis.
This is the only way to ensure St. Louis has competitive football in town for the foreseeable future.
I don’t have much hope for the long term health of the UFL. The Battlehawks are the only team that draws decent crowds, and it seems like local interest is already waning. And the NFL is probably decades away from returning to St. Louis.
This is the only way to ensure St. Louis has competitive football in town for the foreseeable future.
I’m skeptical that either school would be able to deliver a competitive program in our lifetimes, even if they were considering it.
In an alternate reality where Wash U had a D1 team, there is no way you would get a stadium near Wash U's campus. They tried to get zoning in place for small athletic fields a couple of years ago, and the neighbors were highly opposed.
- 91
WashU’s North Campus would be a great site for it. Especially with it being transit accessible and having an adjacent entertainment corridor alreadyEcho_216 wrote:In an alternate reality where Wash U had a D1 team, there is no way you would get a stadium near Wash U's campus. They tried to get zoning in place for small athletic fields a couple of years ago, and the neighbors were highly opposed.
- 973
WashU certainly has the money to get an FCS Div 1 Football program and other Div 1 programs off the ground. It would just be all about whether they think it’s worth it to grow their name to ask donors for money that may otherwise have been asked for purposes of academics and research
Everyone wanted into high level athletics 15 years ago, now there is a higher bar to get there so I doubt WashU wants to
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everyone wanted into high level athletics 15 years ago, now there is a higher bar to get there so I doubt WashU wants to
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 2,075
Ya know… I think people hear “D1 football” and immediately think SEC/Big Ten, but the FCS is a much smaller scale from what I'm reading... The jump from D3 to FCS isn’t nothing, but it’s not like trying to build a powerhouse overnight either.... and going from D3 to FCS D1 is probably only increasing their funding by 5X or maybe even less over time?addxb2 wrote: ↑7:20 PM - Apr 21I’m skeptical that either school would be able to deliver a competitive program in our lifetimes, even if they were considering it.
I would also wager if they were to use their architectural prowess to build a beautiful stadium they could do what STLCity did and just bring an elevated experience and I would bet people would show up to watch.
Get a local TV deal to grow, etc- 1,650
Pittsburgh looked fantastic during NFL draft coverage yesterday. Massive crowds mostly outside. I thought maybe 100k. Actually it was 320k attendance.
Mostly locals who used public transportation and shuttle buses.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑3:00 PM - Apr 24Pittsburgh looked fantastic during NFL draft coverage yesterday. Massive crowds mostly outside. I thought maybe 100k. Actually it was 320k attendance.
I am enjoying the schadenfreude.
- 973
Honestly, IL couldn’t get their act together.
IN did and I don’t blame the Bears.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IN did and I don’t blame the Bears.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By "get their act together," you mean "spend a billion dollars in public money to help a $9B company make more money while not paying property taxes."
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
City of Chicago's math is right. The City of Chicago will benefit more from a stadium in Hammond than a stadium in Arlington Heights.
IL got their act together but left Chicago with an option. Chicago politicians used that option correctly (at the last second).
Hypothetically, this is the equivalent of the City of St. Louis sabotaging Missouri's bid to put a stadium in St. Charles County in order to force a concept somewhere in Metro East.
IL got their act together but left Chicago with an option. Chicago politicians used that option correctly (at the last second).
Hypothetically, this is the equivalent of the City of St. Louis sabotaging Missouri's bid to put a stadium in St. Charles County in order to force a concept somewhere in Metro East.
- 973
I mean whatever. The market is the market. That’s what sports teams ask for.
That’s not why it fell apart. Chicago politicians chose to fight against the rest of the state. The rest of the state, including the Governor, wanted it to work. Chicago reps didn’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s not why it fell apart. Chicago politicians chose to fight against the rest of the state. The rest of the state, including the Governor, wanted it to work. Chicago reps didn’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You realize Chicago reps are a large % of "the state" right? Addxb2 is correct, the city determined that the Hammond site would be more beneficial to the city. There's literally no point in spending state tax money (much of which comes from Chicago) on a company actively leaving Chicago when there's another option that benefits the city more and costs the state (city's taxes) $0.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote:I mean whatever. The market is the market. That’s what sports teams ask for.
That’s not why it fell apart. Chicago politicians chose to fight against the rest of the state. The rest of the state, including the Governor, wanted it to work. Chicago reps didn’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
- 973
I’m not saying Chicago reps tanking the deal with the Bears was the right or wrong choice.
But that is exactly what it means for a state not to get their stuff together. They weren’t on the same page. No different than when we complain about the rest of the state being opposed to StL all the time. In this case, Chicago reps turned on the rest of the state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But that is exactly what it means for a state not to get their stuff together. They weren’t on the same page. No different than when we complain about the rest of the state being opposed to StL all the time. In this case, Chicago reps turned on the rest of the state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On the plus side if a team ever considers STL again, they’ll have two desperate states to pit against each other.
- 973
Yes, I think this is the slightest bump for StL NFL prospects.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's completely different lol. Missouri doesn't do bare minimum for its cities while draining them with taxes. Chicago actively subsidizes the rest of the state. And the Bears have no impact on anywhere south of Chicago. Cook County alone is about half of Illinois' GDP. This was simply a function of Chicago choosing not to spend money derived from itself on a worse option for the city than other available options.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote:I’m not saying Chicago reps tanking the deal with the Bears was the right or wrong choice.
But that is exactly what it means for a state not to get their stuff together. They weren’t on the same page. No different than when we complain about the rest of the state being opposed to StL all the time. In this case, Chicago reps turned on the rest of the state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A better comparison would be the new Chicago transit bill that re-organzied all the transit agencies in the Chicago area while infusing $1B in new yearly funds. That bill, which was focused on Chicago transit, also provided even more down-state transit funding to the tune of 85x what Missouri provides to the entire state. Illinois lawmakers were aligned on something actually important and extremely beneficial to the state and got it done.
Seems more like Illinois made the logical decision to not dump even more money on a sports franchise that clearly doesn't actually care very much about the city that helped make it what it is.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
- 973
Anyone who could look at the state of Illinois and think that Chicago hasn’t gotten every bit of taxes it could want is delusional. The state of Illinois does way more for Chicago than most states do for their primary cities.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As any state logically should do.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote:Anyone who could look at the state of Illinois and think that Chicago hasn’t gotten every bit of taxes it could want is delusional. The state of Illinois does way more for Chicago than most states do for their primary cities.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Bears stadium deal in Indiana:
-100% property tax break for 40 years on all Bears facilities used in whole or part to manage and operate the professional team. This applies to everything, no matter the location, meaning it applies to property away from the mIn stadium campus.
-Indiana issues $1 billion in bonds to build the stadium, protecting the Bears from taking on any debt related to the stadium construction. The bonds will be paid off by new taxes on stadium admissions, a food and beverage tax that covers the entire Indiana side of the Chicago MSA, a hotel tax, and increased tolls on toll roads.
-The Bears will sign a 35-year lease (no rent costs given) but will retain all revenue from naming rights, advertisers, concert revenue, concessions, advertising, etc.
-The Bears will invest $2 billion in private development around the stadium.
-Indiana will spend $700 million to upgrade the road infrastructure around the stadium. They plan to pay it off with the new roads being toll roads.
-South Shore Line extension to the stadium, no price tag yet, but will likely cost at least tens of millions.
Across 40 years, it's worth about $2.5 billion more than what Illinois was offering at the Arlington Heights site.
Additionally, Illinois' gambling tax is 40% compared to Indiana's 9.5%. The Bears want a casino and a sports book as part of their build out. The Indiana tax rate saves about $1.5 billion in revenue over 35 years.
-------
This deal is about as bad as the Kansas deal lmao.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
-100% property tax break for 40 years on all Bears facilities used in whole or part to manage and operate the professional team. This applies to everything, no matter the location, meaning it applies to property away from the mIn stadium campus.
-Indiana issues $1 billion in bonds to build the stadium, protecting the Bears from taking on any debt related to the stadium construction. The bonds will be paid off by new taxes on stadium admissions, a food and beverage tax that covers the entire Indiana side of the Chicago MSA, a hotel tax, and increased tolls on toll roads.
-The Bears will sign a 35-year lease (no rent costs given) but will retain all revenue from naming rights, advertisers, concert revenue, concessions, advertising, etc.
-The Bears will invest $2 billion in private development around the stadium.
-Indiana will spend $700 million to upgrade the road infrastructure around the stadium. They plan to pay it off with the new roads being toll roads.
-South Shore Line extension to the stadium, no price tag yet, but will likely cost at least tens of millions.
Across 40 years, it's worth about $2.5 billion more than what Illinois was offering at the Arlington Heights site.
Additionally, Illinois' gambling tax is 40% compared to Indiana's 9.5%. The Bears want a casino and a sports book as part of their build out. The Indiana tax rate saves about $1.5 billion in revenue over 35 years.
-------
This deal is about as bad as the Kansas deal lmao.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk