urbanSTL

How about the old Schnucks site @ 10th and Cass?

mcarril wrote:How about the old Schnucks site @ 10th and Cass?

/Mr. Burns



Excellent!



/

I'd love to see a soccer stadium in the Midtown area.

appraisalman wrote:I'd love to see a soccer stadium in the Midtown area.

That works too. Maybe in and around AG Edwards, Harris Stowe and SLU.

What about here?

http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie ... 8&t=h&om=1



sorry bout the lengthy link!

Or here: http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie ... 022573&t=h



Nestled between Harris Stowe on the west and AGEdwards on the East. Or is it not big enough?

When capared in size to Saavis/Kiel, this location seems more than large enough, but it is defiantely not downtown, not THAT close to a metro station.... so... that being said

I want it here.



Between two bridges, close to the highways, close to Metrolink. Brings some life to the Eastern Riverfront.



But I don't hate the idea of it being north of the dome.

Isn't that area in a flood plain

Yeah, so is Chesterfield, but that didn't stop them.



I think the area bodered by the Casino Queen to the north, the geyser to the east, 55/64 to the south and of course the river to the west is perfect what with the views and all.

Even though it didn't stop Chesterfield, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Flooding can be controlled. Besides, I don't think you need it up against the river. Set it back quite a bit.

There really isn't a moral right/wrong issue to this. It's a stadium -- a business. It's not like encouraging people to settle in a dangerous area, that would be wrong.



This is just a matter of economics -- how much risk are the team owners willing to take on for the location? It's no different than building in the far out suburbs, then risking not attracting people from across the other side of St. Louis.

First of all, there is no way to controll mother nature, and second of all I don't want my tax money to go towards a new soccer stadium in a flood plain.

I think the east side waterfront would be a good visual setting, but other than that I don't think it makes sense. Where's the fan base going to be centered - probably west of 40/170. I don't want a stadium in St. Charles, but let's put it IN the city. IMO they made this mistake in Cincinnati by choosing the riverfront for the new baseball stadium instead of a city-center site. Has anyone been to Cincinnati - it's a nice view, but is surrounded by highways and parking lots. There will never be a retail, entertainment, or residential component there. Can anyone honestly say that an east side soccer stadium would ever have anything other than parking lots around it?



Let's put it on Manchester!

Ihnen wrote:Can anyone honestly say that an east side soccer stadium would ever have anything other than parking lots around it?

That is a valid question -- and a valid consideration for whatever tax base (MO or IL) fronts the cost.

Ihnen wrote:I think the east side waterfront would be a good visual setting, but other than that I don't think it makes sense. Where's the fan base going to be centered - probably west of 40/170. I don't want a stadium in St. Charles, but let's put it IN the city. IMO they made this mistake in Cincinnati by choosing the riverfront for the new baseball stadium instead of a city-center site. Has anyone been to Cincinnati - it's a nice view, but is surrounded by highways and parking lots. There will never be a retail, entertainment, or residential component there. Can anyone honestly say that an east side soccer stadium would ever have anything other than parking lots around it?



Let's put it on Manchester!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=114602



http://3cdc.org/content.jsp?sectionId=12



http://3cdc.org/content.jsp?articleId=89



http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.p ... c=2772.780





Yeah, only a little over $2 billion worth of development going on. And yes, the I71 Fort Washington way will be capped.

Ihnen wrote:I think the east side waterfront would be a good visual setting, but other than that I don't think it makes sense. Where's the fan base going to be centered - probably west of 40/170. I don't want a stadium in St. Charles, but let's put it IN the city. IMO they made this mistake in Cincinnati by choosing the riverfront for the new baseball stadium instead of a city-center site. Has anyone been to Cincinnati - it's a nice view, but is surrounded by highways and parking lots. There will never be a retail, entertainment, or residential component there. Can anyone honestly say that an east side soccer stadium would ever have anything other than parking lots around it?



Let's put it on Manchester!

I don't necessarily agree with that. Parking will always be an issue, but it can be controlled with development. Look at the Ed Jones Dome. A few years ago the Dome was surrounded by giant parking lots. Then, Pinnacle comes in and builds a casino.



All it takes is demand for the land, and it will be developed. I don't have a problem with a great east side location for the stadium, if it surrounded by parking, because other than the stadium, there's no real demand for the land right now. But all it takes in a start, the same way much of downtown has started.



And it also doesn't have to be right on the riverfront. I'd like to know where the flood of 93 ended up on the east side. Don't we have Levees?



My whole point is that I think we have some really prime real estate that could be utilized by taking advantage of the East Side with a new soccer stadium.



Where's Xing when I need him?

trent wrote:A few years ago the Dome was surrounded by giant parking lots. Then, Pinnacle comes in and builds a casino.

I'd call it more of a parking lot with a casino next door.

bprop wrote:


I'd call it more of a parking lot with a casino next door.

That's sort of not the point.



You can always build on parking lots, was the point. It's not like Pinnacle looked around the city and wanted to knock the Mansion House and Gentry's Landing down to build. They built on a parking lot. And if/when the Bottle Distric goes up, that was largely an open swarth of land (not entirely, but close).



As of today, there isn't a huge demand for land downtown, so the new construction projects are few and far between. But that can change with more people living downtown. Similarly, if a soccer stadium is built on the East Riverfront, it could change the outlook of the east side. Demand for land could go up, and you could eventually see some decent development over there.

Props to Cincinnatus - I just got served, 'Nati style!



Great stuff on the links. Capping Ft. Washington Way would be awesome. I guess as it stands, it's just a ballpark village type site. I hope that everything planned comes along. After all, the new ballparks have been there a couple years now. If only St. Louis had a comparable opposite bank of the river . . .



I still like the idea of a stadium surrounded by the city (yes, it's dawning on my that this may just be a hangover from my Cubs days).

Any updates on a possible MLS expansion??

there are a few threads on this subject kicking around over at bigsoccer.com, which is perhaps the most widely read soccer board. not too much information beyond what's been posted here, but some.



see, e.g.,



http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399530



http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=1157