urbanSTL

Best locations for SSS in an urban context, check out Portland/Toronto/new Houston especially:

1. Forest Park Hospital site- great location, easy access, Dogtown for bars, parking galore in the area. Also would allow for urban development south as the stadium would act as a buffer between the highway.

2. Kosciusko- more useful than the desert of parking/industrial brownfield that is there. Soulard/downtown for bars. Super easy access. If done right could jumpstart development in Choteau Landing/Downtown south. Would make for a nice anchor to the Riverfront South trail.

3. Rebuilt 22nd street interchange- pretty much same advantages as Kosciusko but also helps in the unification of Midtown and Downtown and a more central/familiar location.

4. Lumiere pt2 Area and the area north of it- similar idea to Kosciusko but even more ability to spur development. Thinking of that stretch at Broadway and Cass.

5. BALLPARK VILLAGE- central location, everything is already in place. Would be a good place for a temporary D2 stadium until franchise wants to move up. Probably most expensive option and smallest possible impact of development, except strengthening (?) the core. IMMEDIATELY Petition to move US Soccer Hall of Fame into old Bowling Hall of Fame building.

6. East St. Louis as part of/in addition to improved arch grounds- best possible view of skyline, land is cheap i'd imagine. central location. lots of room for parking/development?

7. Anywhere in North City- cheap land, neighborhoods largely in tact. lots to like but probably the most work.

I tried to pick locations that are easily accessible to all the major highways, have an urban context which allows for a real soccer experience (pub before/after match, walk to the stadium, allowing the club to really be apart of the neighborhood/city), good views of the city/skyline, possible related development, and have some space for practice fields/youth fields (not all allow for this).

As a huge soccer fan, St. Louis lover, and urban enthusiast it dismays me that St. Louis still has no team. If the issue isn't resolved when i graduate in 2 years, you can bet I will do all in my possession to change it.

This seems like a good a spot as any to post....

AB Soccer Park in Fenton is now owned by a joint group made up of Scott Gallagher, Busch, and Metro United select soccer clubs. The main field has been ripped out (all turf, dirt, and sprinklers) and they are currently replacing with a synthetic turf field. As someone who grew up going to camps there and playing SLYSA and high school games there it's nice to see the investment.

Ruski

Great listing of all the possible locations. The great thing about these professional soccer stadiums is that they are much smaller than other pro sports venues. Heck, we could build a brand new stadium for the price of what we are giving the Rams to renovate the dome.

Anyway, out of all your spots, I like three of them the most.

1. Kosciusko - I love the south city location. It will be near some of our densest neighborhoods and also closest to a lot of the Bosnian population. (The Bosnians were basically some of the only people that came out and supported AC St. Louis) In Europe, the stadiums are always built in these dense, bar districts. Now I know we are not London or Madrid but still...Plus, it would give another great anchor to the area and another incentive to run a trolley or Metrolink line down to Soulard.

2. 22nd Interchange - Something substantial to connect the Midtown and Downtown areas is crucial... Slowly but surely this is already happening in some areas but it would really enhance the East-West Spine, practically complete it really...

3. North City - How about the old Sportsman's Park Site? Not far from Grand Center. Already, there is a Boys and GIrls club there so involving the community could be stressed. Plus, the old Carter-Carburetor Building is there. Would be a great place to rehab and turn into offices, restaurants, and a US Soccer HOF... Similar to what Camden Yards did in Baltimore with that gigantic warehouse. Obviously, a soccer stadium has a lot of potential to anchor a neighborhood too and North City needs it.



If St. Louis ever attracts a stadium, I think it is key that we attempt to get the HOF too. We already have the history and the backing in soccer, we are the ideal location. Also, where ever the stadium is constructed, it creates a good deal of extra incentive to run transit to that area. People in the county need tangible, concrete locations for any kind of expansion.

A good read about the present and future of St. Louis soccer-

http://www.fpfooty.com/?p=2426#more-2426

I like the fact that there is a grassroots effort here, but we need more than signatures. The key, as always, is to get a big money investor. I thought STL Soccer United, had a lot of good ideas, the right intentions, as well as a grandiose idea. However, in the end, the money was not there. No matter what, STL is going to have to build a venue. The old saying, if you build it, they will come, rings true here. I think a grassroots effort is a good start. However, this effort should work hard to recruit St. Louis legends, past and present, to join this group. These people have pull in the soccer world. Guys like Ralston and Twillman. Get the up and coming stars to be ambassadors. Then maybe a big money investor will see STL as a good investment. I think, if marketed right, connected to select, youth leagues etc.. and given the resources, an NASL team could flourish here, MAYBE, leading to an MLS bid. I think we'll have to pay our dues in the 2nd division, as long as we in STL do not have a venue that holds close to 20K. It would be nice to see some big names get behind the effort. Maybe this new group will begin to lay the foundation. I think they can take some things from Cooper's group. He had good intentions. He just dropped the ball in some respects. STL needs to get back on the map, before we get buried even further on the list of US soccer cities.

^Good article BTW...

Another good read about St. Louis soccer


http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2012/04/0 ... ccer+News)

Yes it does

Absolutely, no question, without a doubt it does.

the central scrutinizer wrote:

beer city wrote:So buried in the info about the stadium upgrade is a bit about soccer events. If Stan dangles an MLS team or an anual visit from the Gunners, does that make it a more desirable deal for tax payers?

No, because your average tax payer cares less about Arsenal or the MLS than they do about the Rams.

And that is my concern, outside of paying for it all himself, what would be the mix of cash and extra goodies (ie MLS or national team games, final 4's superbowls) that would be required to get people to vote for it? or is there any?

IMO, having an MLS team permanently located here would be helpful in getting the stadium funded. I believe the stadium proposed in Collinsville was about $100M. Folding that into one multi-purpose stadium would obviously be cost-effective, and would also bring more revenue and activity throughout the year, as the MLS plays during the summer when the NFL is off.

I disagree with CS' assertion that the area would not care about soccer. I think that an MLS team in StL would have a great following and could potentially top the league in attendance on a regular basis. There is a massive built in audience.

MLS is possible, but becoming a long shot. Getting European clubs to play here would be a bigger draw. Its growing in popularity, especially with younger generations.

You also get potential opportunities with National friendlies, World-Cup qualifiers, Gold Cup, etc. here as well.

^I would probably do whatever Seattle does. Seems to be working out pretty well for the MLS with them.

beer city wrote:

the central scrutinizer wrote:

beer city wrote:So buried in the info about the stadium upgrade is a bit about soccer events. If Stan dangles an MLS team or an anual visit from the Gunners, does that make it a more desirable deal for tax payers?

No, because your average tax payer cares less about Arsenal or the MLS than they do about the Rams.

And that is my concern, outside of paying for it all himself, what would be the mix of cash and extra goodies (ie MLS or national team games, final 4's superbowls) that would be required to get people to vote for it? or is there any?

I'd take the MLS out of the discussion. With one or two exceptions, they are moving toward soccer specific stadiums of between 18 and 25 thousand, with the notable exception being Seattle, who play outdoors.

the central scrutinizer wrote:

newstl2020 wrote:I disagree with CS' assertion that the area would not care about soccer. I think that an MLS team in StL would have a great following and could potentially top the league in attendance on a regular basis. There is a massive built in audience.

I keep hearing this. I've yet to see it.

You should get out to soccer park and join the 10K people that see the MCC schools play each other in the state playoffs. HIGH SCHOOL.

the central scrutinizer wrote:

newstl2020 wrote:^I would probably do whatever Seattle does. Seems to be working out pretty well for the MLS with them.

They play in a half full stadium. Outdoors. I can't imagine any club (or the MLS) agreeing to an indoor team.

The Ram's plan calls for a roof that would open that is the same size and corresponds to the playing field. So, therefore, the area above the playing surface would technically be exposed. Who else has a situation similar to this? Oh, I don't know, maybe THE CURRENT EPL TEAM owned by the Rams owner.



Pretty easy stuff to find.

I'm sure you are going to come back with some retort about the MLS saying they won't, blah blah. I would like to see them turn down a current owner of one franchize who also owns an EPL team who is probably the wealthiest owner in the league. Sure that's going to go over well. Even the MLS is not that self destructive. If Stan wanted it and went for it full-bore it would be done within 6 months.

^I rounded up. 8K then.

And once again you miss the point. Can you name me anywhere else in the country where you think you might see that amount of fans at a high school state soccer game?

I know your schtick on this board, but when you are actively ignoring the point of the discussion it just makes you idiotic, not ironic.

the central scrutinizer wrote: I'd take the MLS out of the discussion. With one or two exceptions, they are moving toward soccer specific stadiums of between 18 and 25 thousand, with the notable exception being Seattle, who play outdoors.

This is right. Any new MLS team will be playing in a soccer specific stadium. The Sounders have 35k+ fans and growing. The other team playing in a football stadium is New England. Have you guys seen their attendance numbers? Abysmal.

I'm 100% pro MLS, but like CS said, we have yet to prove we are ready for a MLS team. Heck, we have ppl who are trying to build support for a NASL team. Now if St. Louisians were so gung ho over soccer, they would support NASL day in and day out. And if they (we) did that, maybe we'll get our MLS team sooner than later.

^If Stan K wants a team in StL to go with his new stadium and gives the Rapids to his son in order to go full bore at MLS brass about a team, do you honestly think they are going to stonewall him?

If there is a bonafide MLS team in StL do you really think they would not draw fans? Didn't the potential team in Collinsville have like 10K season ticket pledges signed? Do you think anyone associates NASL with MLS? Are they comparable in terms of quality at all? How's the UFL doing? Football is the most popular sport in America and it doesn't correllate AT ALL.

The Wilfs are actively trying to gain an MLS team in MN to play in their new stadium. With the facilities these teams will have and the money these NFL owners will be putting behind these potential new franchizes, do you really think they are going to tell them to get lost because they want smaller venues?

I know that the MLS has an opperating ideal of how they want their league to be, but landscape is changing. Cities are strapped and don't want to have to pay for more stadiums. The back-lash against government funding is only growing stronger and I wouldn't want to be in the position of being the fifth tier league competing for funding for my venues. At some point in the future they might not be fifth tier, but right now they indisputably are, and if they ever want to move from this spot they are going to have to expand in big markets in ways that might not be ideal to them. Hell, it might end up being a massive blessing if they do start acheiving the levels of popularity they want. Business is fluid and the MLS is a business. They just might have to begin changing their thoughts about how they are going to continue to expand. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see this happen. Seatlle is one of the most recent expansions, plays in a larger stadium, and is a raging success. In addition, the league parlays this venue into supporting cross-promotional matches with EPL and European teams as they sell-out the extra seating.

I just don't think the MLS can afford to be so dead set in their apparent desire to have their own venue. MLB and NFL teams shared venues up until the 90's and there are some that still do! NFL and NBA share they venues. I don't think the MLS can afford to be so rigid when they are trying to get a foothold in the extremely competetive sports landscape of America where soccer in general is starting from far behind.

There's a lot of "what-ifs" going around here.

To newstl2020's point, I think an MLS team would be viable given the right ownership (Stan). Comparing MLS to NASL is like the NBA to the D-League or MLB to the Minors. They're not the same. Personally, I wouldn't want to attend a second-rate league when there is a better product out there. I think a lot of people might feel the same.

Do any MLS teams play on turf? I feel like they mostly play on grass, which I imagine would be difficult to grow in a proposed new dome with a one small opening.

No one knows if Stan is even interested in a team, lol, so yes this is an extreme amount of what-ifs.

But to this point, if this did become the case, I am sure they could modify the proposal to include a sliding grass surface exactly like Arizona has. It not as if there would not be an ideal place to house this feature right next door at "The bottle district."

I'm not saying it is probable, or even being thought of at this point. I just think saying it won't happen or that StL couldn't or wouldn't support it makes no sense at this point.