Jockying for an MLS stadium, instead of a stadium that can accommodate both MLS and NFL, is, by definition, "half-assing" it.MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think building a quality professional soccer stadium for MLS is "half-assing" it. Allowing for a future NFL team is just permitting future growth.Greatest St. Louis wrote:Ah, the classic St. Louis mentality of "let's half-ass it for now, punt the other half down the road and hope that thirty years from now someone else might pick up the slack."
- 271
- 1,868
By that definition, building an MLS/NFL stadium that won't accommodate the MLB or NBA is also half-assing it. Or just building an NFL-only stadium.Greatest St. Louis wrote:Jockying for an MLS stadium, instead of a stadium that can accommodate both MLS and NFL, is, by definition, "half-assing" it.MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think building a quality professional soccer stadium for MLS is "half-assing" it. Allowing for a future NFL team is just permitting future growth.Greatest St. Louis wrote:Ah, the classic St. Louis mentality of "let's half-ass it for now, punt the other half down the road and hope that thirty years from now someone else might pick up the slack."
- 597
I gotta agree with Greatest St. Louis - it's half-assing and it's typical St. Louis. "Maybe we can just build BRT instead" "re-entry would be easier than merger" And now we can get an NFL team again in 30 years? It's now or never again. 47 years after not replacing a then 41 year old St. Louis Arena, the NBA has still yet to comeback around. We'd have better race relations if we had an NBA team these past 47 years, the data proves that out. Anyway, getting sidetracked, the point is if you want to be an NFL City there's no time like the present when we actually have a team already. Eric Grubman, has me at the moment at least, feeling a little more hopeful that it can be done.
- 8,155
^ whoah, there... building high-quality brt is not half-assing it if it means you can actually get it done. We've been talking about n/s forever and even Saint Louis Streetcar for a few years now. Its time for actually moving forward with action on improved transit.
- 597
I sorta get where you're coming from, let not perfect be the enemy of good enough, but St. Louis really has a tendency to settle for things and when we finally decide we do want them it turns out it would have been cheaper to do it years or decades prior. We kick the can on everything in St. Louis. Not again, not the Rams.
...and back to the beautiful game -
We are now the official affiliate of the Chicago Fire!
Or minor league for the Fire if you want to aggravate your inner Cards fan.
http://saintlouisfc.com/chicago_fire
Things kick off in April -
We are now the official affiliate of the Chicago Fire!
Or minor league for the Fire if you want to aggravate your inner Cards fan.
http://saintlouisfc.com/chicago_fire
Things kick off in April -
- 1,868
You can't just say that everything is half-assed because you could always come up with a more expansive way of doing things. I guess MetroLink was half-assed because we didn't immediately build eight different lines and commuter rail on Day 1.arch_genesis wrote:I gotta agree with Greatest St. Louis - it's half-assing and it's typical St. Louis. "Maybe we can just build BRT instead" "re-entry would be easier than merger" And now we can get an NFL team again in 30 years? It's now or never again. 47 years after not replacing a then 41 year old St. Louis Arena, the NBA has still yet to comeback around. We'd have better race relations if we had an NBA team these past 47 years, the data proves that out. Anyway, getting sidetracked, the point is if you want to be an NFL City there's no time like the present when we actually have a team already. Eric Grubman, has me at the moment at least, feeling a little more hopeful that it can be done.
I don't think we should just go ahead and build an expandable soccer stadium as a way to retain the Rams. But I also think it would be stupid to build Saint Louis FC an NFL stadium to play in just in case we have the chance to grab an expansion team in the future.
- 597
I didn't know half-assed was a technical term, sorry for any misuse. I'd just like to see St. Louis push for more and be more ambitious.
- 271
You're damn right it was. People have been talking about what additional lines it should have from the time it was built through the present day.MarkHaversham wrote:arch_genesis wrote: I guess MetroLink was half-assed because we didn't immediately build eight different lines and commuter rail on Day 1..
The Metrolink is just another example of the typical "let's half-ass it now, kick the can down the road and hope thirty years from now someone else picks up the slack." In fact, via people like Alderman Ogilvie picking up the slack, this seems to be exactly what's happening.
Let's not also do it with this pro sports facility, assuming we go through with it at all... mmmmkay?
Building a soccer specific stadium that allows us to spend less public money on a sports venue and save more of our beautiful historic buildings is NOT half-assing it. Give me a break.
There is absolutely a part of me that wants to save the St. Louis Rams. No question about it. But I would be tremendously proud of St. Louis if we told the NFL to shove it. This is a bad organization (I mean the NFL, not specifically the Rams) and a dangerous sport. And they really, really don't need our money.
Building a soccer specific stadium that lured an MLS team, saved our infrastructure, and booted the NFL wouldn't be half-assing it, it'd be incredibly forward thinking.
Ya know what'd be half-assing it? Building a nice but not incredible stadium that sacrifices our riverfront, empties our coffers, and only keeps the team here until the next time the greedy bastards claim they need upgrades in two decades. (I realize under a new deal the owners won't likely have the same leverage they do now, but history suggests they'll still demand the public money for upgrades anyways.)
If America had a conscience, football wouldn't even be around in two decades. It probably will be around, perhaps just as strong, but I'm really okay with moving on from these people.
There is absolutely a part of me that wants to save the St. Louis Rams. No question about it. But I would be tremendously proud of St. Louis if we told the NFL to shove it. This is a bad organization (I mean the NFL, not specifically the Rams) and a dangerous sport. And they really, really don't need our money.
Building a soccer specific stadium that lured an MLS team, saved our infrastructure, and booted the NFL wouldn't be half-assing it, it'd be incredibly forward thinking.
Ya know what'd be half-assing it? Building a nice but not incredible stadium that sacrifices our riverfront, empties our coffers, and only keeps the team here until the next time the greedy bastards claim they need upgrades in two decades. (I realize under a new deal the owners won't likely have the same leverage they do now, but history suggests they'll still demand the public money for upgrades anyways.)
If America had a conscience, football wouldn't even be around in two decades. It probably will be around, perhaps just as strong, but I'm really okay with moving on from these people.
- 271
I respect your opinion. I mean, like I said, I think by definition, pursuing a stadium that can only support the MLS instead of one that can support both the NFL and MLS is half-assing it by definition, but I see your point of view.
And like I've said all along... if there was some guarantee that within the next 5-10 years those 90 riverfront acres would be transformed into a thriving mixed-use district... some realized proposal for that area to compete directly with this stadium plan... then I'd back off my support for the stadium plan. Giving up on the NFL and our best shot at the MLS is, in my opinion, too high a cost to pay for the mere hope that maybe a handful of those buildings might get some new lofts, trendy restaurants and bars or whatever over the next couple decades.
And like I've said all along... if there was some guarantee that within the next 5-10 years those 90 riverfront acres would be transformed into a thriving mixed-use district... some realized proposal for that area to compete directly with this stadium plan... then I'd back off my support for the stadium plan. Giving up on the NFL and our best shot at the MLS is, in my opinion, too high a cost to pay for the mere hope that maybe a handful of those buildings might get some new lofts, trendy restaurants and bars or whatever over the next couple decades.
I would agree with your later point if I thought we got some tangible benefit from having the NFL. I really don't think we do.
Don't get me wrong. I rather enjoy the intangible benefits we get from it. But that's only worth so much. And I think a bad sight plan that tears down buildings in favor of surface parking AND $400-500 million is too much.
If Stan wants that same site plan with all his own money, he can have it. If the NFL wants our money, then let's have a stronger site plan. I'm not willing to sacrifice everything just so we can feel "civic pride" and like a "major league city."
It doesn't even matter if that area gets developed in the next 30 years, because I don't think having an NFL team there improves the city any more than having empty buildings there.
Don't get me wrong. I rather enjoy the intangible benefits we get from it. But that's only worth so much. And I think a bad sight plan that tears down buildings in favor of surface parking AND $400-500 million is too much.
If Stan wants that same site plan with all his own money, he can have it. If the NFL wants our money, then let's have a stronger site plan. I'm not willing to sacrifice everything just so we can feel "civic pride" and like a "major league city."
It doesn't even matter if that area gets developed in the next 30 years, because I don't think having an NFL team there improves the city any more than having empty buildings there.
- 271
Basically what you're saying is having an NFL team provides at best the same net value to quality of life in St. Louis as having those empty buildings?jstriebel wrote: It doesn't even matter if that area gets developed in the next 30 years, because I don't think having an NFL team there improves the city any more than having empty buildings there.
Yeah... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I want to add that I respect your opinion too. I'm not THAT far removed from it. I've flip-flopped all over the place on this thing, and I'm not going to be all up in arms if it happens.
But it hasn't happened yet, and right now if you asked me if I thought it was truly good for the city, I'd say no. If you guaranteed me an MLS team was coming, too, I'd still say it's probably not overall good for the city, but that'd be pretty cool.
But it hasn't happened yet, and right now if you asked me if I thought it was truly good for the city, I'd say no. If you guaranteed me an MLS team was coming, too, I'd still say it's probably not overall good for the city, but that'd be pretty cool.
It's a layered question. On the surface, I see what you're saying.Greatest St. Louis wrote:Basically what you're saying is having an NFL team provides at best the same net value to quality of life in St. Louis as having those empty buildings?jstriebel wrote: It doesn't even matter if that area gets developed in the next 30 years, because I don't think having an NFL team there improves the city any more than having empty buildings there.
I might counter by saying the Rams haven't really improved my quality of life in a decade. I'm stupidly loyal, but the fun moments watching the Rams have been few and far between. They don't really increase the overall attitude or quality of life without being competitive, and unfortunately we've dealt with a historically inept franchise.
But let's throw that out because yeah, they might get good. And if they're a team that can contend, it does make things fun and lively around here.
That said is it $400 million worth of quality? (We'll ignore the buildings for now.) I'm not sure about that. Not when you consider what that $400 million could do. And I'm not talking about pie-in-the-sky stuff. I know you're not going to get anyone on board with saying "oh hey, we don't have a football team, let's invest that same money in our startups!"
But we have realistic infrastructure needs. Realistic educational needs. Realistic public safety needs. Lots of needs that could realistically see SOME of that money. Things that combine to increase our quality of life in the short-term and certainly build a better city that increases our quality of life in the long-term.
I like the Rams because they're here, but I can get my civic pride and quality of life boost from the Cardinals and the Blues and plenty of things that aren't sports. (And I'd suggest to you that I'm one of the absolute most diehard sports fans on these boards. Not competing for the title, just saying I'm definitely up there.)
Greatest, I feel like you answered your question a bit in the BPV thread.
That's a great point. With $400 million in public dollars on the table to build a football stadium that doesn't bring economic benefits, it's going to be significantly harder to spend public money on projects that do.Greatest St. Louis wrote:I think as long as this new NFL stadium proposal is on the horizon, they're probably not going to be talking much about public money for anything else downtown for a while.
- 271
Right, and I guess my counter would always be, again.... if this were a matter of "these funds can go toward a stadium. absent that, we will put them toward x to fix our schools or y to fund public transit," then I'd be more amenable to your point of view.
That's just not the reality of the situation.
That's just not the reality of the situation.
- 8,155
^ I believe it is the reality of the situation. The stadium plan would continue to rely on hotel taxes to pay for the new stadium; if the stadium does not move forward those same hotel taxes will pay for something else, perhaps once again as an obligation to a bond issue for something else. It is doubtful that the hotel taxes will go away; what they pay for should be an important debate.
Maybe not. We don't know where the funds would go. It's fair to assume SOME of them might go towards some good things, though. And you yourself pointed out how public funds for good things are probably off the table as long as they're going to a stadium deal.Greatest St. Louis wrote:Right, and I guess my counter would always be, again.... if this were a matter of "these funds can go toward a stadium. absent that, we will put them toward x to fix our schools or y to fund public transit," then I'd be more amenable to your point of view.
That's just not the reality of the situation.
- 271
"Maybe" and "we don't know" and "might" simply isn't good enough for me to compete with a defined, working proposal that has the right political and business backing (like this stadium deal does, or will as it goes forward). In my opinion, the cost is just too high. But like I've said, I appreciate your guys's points of view.
That's all I'm gonna say further on the issue for now, until more news breaks about David Peacock's progress with the stadium proposal. I'll let anyone else have the last word in this discussion (which I think was mostly a decent one, as far as online forum debates go) if they want.
That's all I'm gonna say further on the issue for now, until more news breaks about David Peacock's progress with the stadium proposal. I'll let anyone else have the last word in this discussion (which I think was mostly a decent one, as far as online forum debates go) if they want.
St Louis FC opens on Sat April 11 against Pittsburgh Riverhounds - Also they are eligible for the US Open Cup - which means they could draw against an MLS team which would be fun to see.
Buy a scarf
Go to the park
Have fun
Buy a scarf
Go to the park
Have fun
- 8,909
And we have our first controversy. Everyone hates the new unis (kits).
![]()
![]()
![]()
- 3,766
I'm not a big fan of the red in the uniforms, but that is probably related to the Chicago Fire affiliation. I preferred the dark blue with the green and white, no red.
I noticed a large crowd at Union Station. Did anybody attend? If so, how was it.
Anybody have an idea how ticket sales are going? STL is going to have to have a great showing with regards to ticket sales, if we ever expect Don Garber to really take us seriously.
I noticed a large crowd at Union Station. Did anybody attend? If so, how was it.
Anybody have an idea how ticket sales are going? STL is going to have to have a great showing with regards to ticket sales, if we ever expect Don Garber to really take us seriously.
I hate posting this, because I want to have a good attitude toward soccer here.....But could those uniforms be more uninspired or less creative? Play up the fleur-de-lis, or the stripes or something.
The uniforms are bland. The colors are whacky.
If they wanted to be inspired by the flag—which is a great option—they should have done that from the get go. Instead they went with an uninspired (but fine) logo in the colors of one of the connected club teams.
None of their visual identity makes much sense to me, and that's a shame.
But I'll support them anyways.
If they wanted to be inspired by the flag—which is a great option—they should have done that from the get go. Instead they went with an uninspired (but fine) logo in the colors of one of the connected club teams.
None of their visual identity makes much sense to me, and that's a shame.
But I'll support them anyways.