St. Louis Rams

jakektu · PostFeb 05, 2013#10012013-02-05T19:59+00:00

I don't consider the 22nd street land to be part of the CBD so would prefer a stadium there opposed to the Bottle District land, which should be more
dense. But I do think a new stadium should be near the CBD and its hotel, rail, etc amenities.

If we follow the pattern of suburban stadiums, by the time it is built in Fenton the new trend will be to have stadiums near the CBD.

moorlander · PostFeb 05, 2013#10022013-02-05T20:15+00:00

rawest1 wrote:No. The Dome is over, as far as the Rams' future there is concerned.

Yes, long term I agree. The current lease is one of the most favoarable (to the Rams) in the entire NFL. Given the time it takes to complete something of this scale (design, funding package, build out), I see the Ram's going "year to year" for at least a few years past 2015. Maybe the new stadium could open by 2020?

rawest1 · PostFeb 05, 2013#10032013-02-05T20:51+00:00

moorlander wrote:
rawest1 wrote:No. The Dome is over, as far as the Rams' future there is concerned.
Yes, long term I agree. The current lease is one of the most favoarable (to the Rams) in the entire NFL. Given the time it takes to complete something of this scale (design, funding package, build out), I see the Ram's going "year to year" for at least a few years past 2015. Maybe the new stadium could open by 2020?

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. Maybe even a year or two after.

STLEnginerd · PostFeb 05, 2013#10042013-02-05T21:33+00:00

I think a "Seattle style" stadium could work well south of 40 and East of Jefferson interchange. A lot of exposure to one of the more traveled stretches of interstates in the region, Jefferson Ave., and if they ever buid it the Chouteau Greenway. Its cutoff from the street grid which helps stem "parking creep" and gives the Rams a level of control. Add a metro station at Jefferson. It also gives some motivation to rework 22nd street interchange. The space is tighter so you'd need some massive parking garages to accommodate the cars and could tie it in to the Union station redevelopment with cross metro link track pedestrian access or something.

If the stadium is built in Maryland Heights, Earth City or whatever my only requirement would be that any public funding from the city and county be shared by St. Charles County because they'll see more economic benefit than the city would and about as much as the county. And definitely extend the metro link but on a separate bond issue so it doesn't impact a N-S Line.

tbspqr · PostFeb 06, 2013#10052013-02-06T01:06+00:00

On the surface an urban stadium is a good idea. After all, it’s the heart of the region with the concentration of mass transit, hotels nearby encourage visitors and plenty of highway access. However, the downsides of an urban stadium far outweigh the a beautiful 5 second set-up shot during pregame – aerial view of a stadium with the skyline in the background.
With the exception of Detroit and Indy, none of the new stadiums are located in an urban grid. Why? Because football stadiums don’t belong in (don’t do well, are in conflict with etc) an area that has an dense street grid (read downtown or urban).
Street grids provide excellent access promoting density. They are most efficient/effective when traffic is (O&Ds are) distributed in an even manner. A large stadium that is used a dozen or less times a year is the antithesis of evenly distributed traffic and overall usage density. Plus, no one individual block is big enough to encompass even a modest 15 acre stadium... therefore the street grid would have to be broken up into a superblock (or prevented from being re-established as in 22nd street), creating a barrier and negating the efficiency of access and capacity of the surrounding areas. Work should be toward removal of barriers (like existing superblocks and highways) and adding conductivity, not addition of more barriers and removing efficiency.
If there were any acceptable site near downtown it would have to be near GMTC – maybe between 14th and 18th on Chouteau. This area is already full of super blocks and barriers so access wouldn’t be made any worse (not a positive, just not a huge commendation of the site). Also it would be served by 2 functionally separate rail lines, Red/Blue and N/S, in essence doubling the event capacity (3 if you include Amtrak and/or eventual commuter rail). With the current single trunk line, Metrolink can’t begin to handle but a small percentage of event demand. Does anyone know the bump in rides on a rams Sunday compared to a normal Sunday? I’d assume a bump of 12k. More than doubling this to 20 or 25% (2 lines @10% each plus 5% on commuter rail) would be needed to begin to justify void the stadium would create 350 days a year and disruption to the grid/urban environment. As I said before I encourage any new stadium, regardless of location, to incorporate a mass transit plan as a fundamental part of design.
Antidotally, I don’t think region-wide hotel room-nights are affected based on proximity of stadium to hotel concentration. When I was in KC, hotels all over the metro were busy with Chiefs fans on game days, not because they were close to the stadium (as most weren’t) but because the fans would stay where they could and drive to the game. So if the stadium is downtown – you may give a slight edge to the downtown hotels, but overall number of people who are stay isn’t changed. If this were the case, there would be hotels surrounding every suburban stadium. I guess a fair comparison would be to see what bump KC hotels vs Indy hotels have on a game day. Now it may give a leg up on getting a superbowl – but stadium location shouldn’t be concerned with a once in a lifetime chance event.

roger wyoming II · PostFeb 06, 2013#10062013-02-06T17:53+00:00

^ good post. I think the thing that all cities should strive for is to get rid of a sports mentality for downtown and realize that truly healthy downtowns do not rely on or even necessarily host, huge sporting facilities that take up a tremendous amount of space and return little if any real economic growth.

Siting them on downtown edges in industrial areas that are not likely to receive redevelopment is fine (and I think Lucas Field in Indy may qualify for this)so areas on the north riverfront or south of 40 elevated lanes may be okay, but I think The Bottleworks District does have hope for much better investment than a stadium.

Also, I don't see how anything can be built at the TBD site that would attract Super Bowls and Final Fours and other big time events. The footprint seems to only allow for a rather limited open air stadium, and I'm pretty sure the NFL will not bring a Super Bowl to an outdoor stadium in Saint Louis.... New York sure but not anywhere else. I just don't see how a retractable roof or another dome could be situated in TBD. Plus, I've also read that Kroenke seems to like the Patriots model... So my bet is a site like Fenton or Maryland Hts. that would allow for additional retail and ample parking is what will be proposed.

stlien · PostFeb 06, 2013#10072013-02-06T19:45+00:00

If we had a major development (office, housing, and retail) on the bottle district site, would people rather the EJ dome renovated? Or would people still rather a new "non urban" stadium?

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10082013-02-06T19:54+00:00

stlien wrote:If we had a major development (office, housing, and retail) on the bottle district site, would people rather the EJ dome renovated? Or would people still rather a new "non urban" stadium?

There aren't any other "non-urban" sites being talked about, and the EJ dome will not be renovated, so really it only leaves the choice of a stadium in the county.

flipz · PostFeb 06, 2013#10092013-02-06T19:57+00:00

I'm hoping that they agree to renovate the dome with no public money. Someone said the CVC has $200M; combine that with an equal contribution from the Rams and I think they could build something pretty nice. If they build a new stadium, I fear that the old dome will just sit there and slowly fall apart.

Side thought: Does the city publish its finances/budget online? I am curious about all of the debt that the city has and how long it will take them to pay things off. What does the city owe on the projects that it has taken on in the last 20 years (lambert, stadiums)?

roger wyoming II · PostFeb 06, 2013#10102013-02-06T20:08+00:00

flipz, I saw that $200 million figure as well somewhere here but I'm skeptical as the CVC was only proposing to pay for half of the $125 million plan it put forward in arbitration.

I'm not sure about the budget question, but overall I do believe that the city maintains a pretty decent credit rating.

gone corporate · PostFeb 06, 2013#10112013-02-06T20:22+00:00

Flipz: Look to Comptroller Green's office first, then maybe search out info on outstanding bonds by STL City. I do know the City bonds are still considered investment grade, and strict fiscal discipline practices have been underway for years. Just look to how the City did NOT back the BPV bonds with the City's "full faith and credit" like KC did, and how we aren't suffering like they are.

Meanwhile, the CVC does have a nine figure reserve that it had been building over the years in anticipation of the Dome and the Rams' lease. And even though they first pitched an idea of a $120M project (51% funded by the Rams), I would think that the CVC's reserves are closer to $200M versus $100M.

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10122013-02-06T20:26+00:00

gone corporate wrote:Flipz: Look to Comptroller Green's office first, then maybe search out info on outstanding bonds by STL City. I do know the City bonds are still considered investment grade, and strict fiscal discipline practices have been underway for years. Just look to how the City did NOT back the BPV bonds with the City's "full faith and credit" like KC did, and how we aren't suffering like they are.

Meanwhile, the CVC does have a nine figure reserve that it had been building over the years in anticipation of the Dome and the Rams' lease. And even though they first pitched an idea of a $120M project (51% funded by the Rams), I would think that the CVC's reserves are closer to $200M versus $100M.

If you're correct about that, then I'm more sure the Rams will be staying in St. Louis than ever. If you consider any reserves of that magnitude ready to be spent, added on to the additional value of land grants, tax abatement, blighted property funding, TIF, and/or infrastructure improvement payments, it seems to me the "public contribution" can very easily reach the seemingly agreed-upon 200-300 million that would be required without any real new tax increases.

roger wyoming II · PostFeb 06, 2013#10132013-02-06T20:28+00:00

gone corporate,
sounds interesting on the CVC amount.... If they do have more to expend, I wonder why they didn't put forward a more expensive plan for arbitration?

moorlander · PostFeb 06, 2013#10142013-02-06T20:39+00:00

Do we have any idea where in Maryland Heights they are considering? What is the status of the Walmart proposal they've been bouncing around the last few years?

stlien · PostFeb 06, 2013#10152013-02-06T20:40+00:00

rawest1 wrote:
stlien wrote:If we had a major development (office, housing, and retail) on the bottle district site, would people rather the EJ dome renovated? Or would people still rather a new "non urban" stadium?
There aren't any other "non-urban" sites being talked about, and the EJ dome will not be renovated, so really it only leaves the choice of a stadium in the county.

There aren't any other "non-urban" sites being talked about?

Don't be so sure that the dome won't be renovated. And the county sites are not the only choice.

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10162013-02-06T20:47+00:00

stlien wrote:
rawest1 wrote:
stlien wrote:If we had a major development (office, housing, and retail) on the bottle district site, would people rather the EJ dome renovated? Or would people still rather a new "non urban" stadium?
There aren't any other "non-urban" sites being talked about, and the EJ dome will not be renovated, so really it only leaves the choice of a stadium in the county.
There aren't any other "non-urban" sites being talked about?

Don't be so sure that the dome won't be renovated. And the county sites are not the only choice.

There is near-unanimous consensus among all parties and journalists following this story that the CVC will reject the arbitrators' ruling. Make no mistake: the dome will not be renovated.

And so far, from pretty much everyone I've heard, from sportswriters investigating into the conversations going on "behind the scenes," to CVC members themselves appearing on radio shows and talking, the three viable sites being talked about are the Fenton Chrysler Plant area, Maryland Heights near the new 141-extension, and the Bottle District, with an open air stadium in the bottle district currently the leader in discussions.

roger wyoming II · PostFeb 06, 2013#10172013-02-06T20:48+00:00

moorlander wrote:Do we have any idea where in Maryland Heights they are considering? What is the status of the Walmart proposal they've been bouncing around the last few years?

I believe the open space by the river south of 70 and north of page. not sure about the Walmart nor about the proposal for retail by CC Park.

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10182013-02-06T20:49+00:00

moorlander wrote:Do we have any idea where in Maryland Heights they are considering? What is the status of the Walmart proposal they've been bouncing around the last few years?

I believe the farmland near the new 141 extension.

moorlander · PostFeb 06, 2013#10192013-02-06T20:49+00:00

^^^Just because the CVC rejects the ruling doesn't mean the Rams and the CVC cannot come to another, more reasonable, agreement down the road. Always start out a negotiation by asking for the world. If you're not embarrassed by what you're asking for then you're not asking for enough.

Brokers can correct me if I'm wrong but I just don't see there being demand at the Fenton site.
Nearby Retail
(1)Gravois Bluffs at 141@30
(2)Kirkwood Commons 44@Lindbergh
(3)Sunset Hills Plaza Lindbergh@Watson
(4)Manchester Highlands 141@Manchester ***recently purchased by The Kroenke Group (TKG)

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10202013-02-06T20:58+00:00

moorlander wrote:^^^Just because the CVC rejects the ruling doesn't mean the Rams and the CVC cannot come to another, more reasonable, agreement down the road. Always start out a negotiation by asking for the world. If you're not embarrassed by what you're asking for then you're not asking for enough.

Discussions about the Dome began with both sides' proposals and *ended* with the arbitration ruling. The Dome discussions are over. Anyone who has been following what the Rams, the CVC, and the journalists covering the issue have been saying knows this is a no-brainer. It's not happening. Zero(point-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-one) chance.

As far as the "Nearby Retail" to/in Fenton somehow acting as a deterrent for developments at the Chrysler Plant site, I guess you're forgetting that we live in a region where there are currently *two* high-end strip malls underway in Chesterfield, and some of the tenants of both belong to the same store chain!! A region where a Wal-Mart will thrive and boom in one area for fifteen years (Manchester & Weidman Wal-Mart) and then suddenly close up shop and move just a mile or two west if they get the right tax incentives and a shiny bigger newer building built (Now Manchester & 141 Wal-Mart). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any of that "Nearby Retail" playing into this in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.

gone corporate · PostFeb 06, 2013#10212013-02-06T21:14+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:gone corporate,
sounds interesting on the CVC amount.... If they do have more to expend, I wonder why they didn't put forward a more expensive plan for arbitration?

Kind of in contrast to Moorlander's point two posts above:
As the offering party, it would have been unwise for the CVC to give up every dime it has on the first offer. They did come back later on with a $200M+ plan (central scoreboard, new seats at current scoreboards, east window decks, etc.) after the initial $120M project ("digital zone" on Baer Plaza) was tossed out.

Still, a nine-figure CVC reserve (my quesstimate around $150M) still does not match the amount necessary to contribute its share for the Dome's redevelopment as per the contract. It would need to seek higher fees from fans as well as a muni bond issue, which would be brought before voters for approval, and which odds-on would fail.

The only way I could see the CVC be able to get enough monies together for its end is to offer the Dome itself as an in-kind exchange to Kroenke & Co., stating its value as $250-300M, and hoping that appeases the Rams for what the contract says the CVC owes. And, this does not change how the City, County, and State still owe for the Dome's bonds. Because of the monies still due, I don't see this having any real legs.

Meanwhile, forget it being just the CVC not wanting to be on the handle for the redevelopment... I do believe that the Rams want to seek out a new stadium rather than fully redevelop the Dome into their proposed vision. For $700M, absent land costs, it would be much more manageable to create a new facility from scratch rather than amend an existing structure into a first-tier facility. This especially comes with any compensation the Rams would owe the CVC for lost revenues from conventions cancelled because the Dome was being gutted for a retractable roof section and a big-ass glass wall.

Can the Rams get a worthy site in the City for a low cost?
If so, expect them to build anew in the relative near future.

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10222013-02-06T21:30+00:00

gone corporate wrote:
roger wyoming II wrote:gone corporate,
sounds interesting on the CVC amount.... If they do have more to expend, I wonder why they didn't put forward a more expensive plan for arbitration?
Kind of in contrast to Moorlander's point two posts above:
As the offering party, it would have been unwise for the CVC to give up every dime it has on the first offer. They did come back later on with a $200M+ plan (central scoreboard, new seats at current scoreboards, east window decks, etc.) after the initial $120M project ("digital zone" on Baer Plaza) was tossed out.

Still, a nine-figure CVC reserve (my quesstimate around $150M) still does not match the amount necessary to contribute its share for the Dome's redevelopment as per the contract. It would need to seek higher fees from fans as well as a muni bond issue, which would be brought before voters for approval, and which odds-on would fail.

The only way I could see the CVC be able to get enough monies together for its end is to offer the Dome itself as an in-kind exchange to Kroenke & Co., stating its value as $250-300M, and hoping that appeases the Rams for what the contract says the CVC owes. And, this does not change how the City, County, and State still owe for the Dome's bonds. Because of the monies still due, I don't see this having any real legs.

Meanwhile, forget it being just the CVC not wanting to be on the handle for the redevelopment... I do believe that the Rams want to seek out a new stadium rather than fully redevelop the Dome into their proposed vision. For $700M, absent land costs, it would be much more manageable to create a new facility from scratch rather than amend an existing structure into a first-tier facility. This especially comes with any compensation the Rams would owe the CVC for lost revenues from conventions cancelled because the Dome was being gutted for a retractable roof section and a big-ass glass wall.

Can the Rams get a worthy site in the City for a low cost?
If so, expect them to build anew in the relative near future.

Thanks for the analysis.

To answer your closing question, I believe they can, and I believe that site is the Bottle District.

moorlander · PostFeb 06, 2013#10232013-02-06T21:36+00:00

rawest1 wrote:
moorlander wrote:^^^Just because the CVC rejects the ruling doesn't mean the Rams and the CVC cannot come to another, more reasonable, agreement down the road. Always start out a negotiation by asking for the world. If you're not embarrassed by what you're asking for then you're not asking for enough.
Discussions about the Dome began with both sides' proposals and *ended* with the arbitration ruling. The Dome discussions are over. Anyone who has been following what the Rams, the CVC, and the journalists covering the issue have been saying knows this is a no-brainer. It's not happening. Zero(point-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-one) chance.

As far as the "Nearby Retail" to/in Fenton somehow acting as a deterrent for developments at the Chrysler Plant site, I guess you're forgetting that we live in a region where there are currently *two* high-end strip malls underway in Chesterfield, and some of the tenants of both belong to the same store chain!! A region where a Wal-Mart will thrive and boom in one area for fifteen years (Manchester & Weidman Wal-Mart) and then suddenly close up shop and move just a mile or two west if they get the right tax incentives and a shiny bigger newer building built (Now Manchester & 141 Wal-Mart). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any of that "Nearby Retail" playing into this in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.

You sure think you know a lot don't you?

rawest1 · PostFeb 06, 2013#10242013-02-06T21:38+00:00

moorlander wrote:
rawest1 wrote:
moorlander wrote:^^^Just because the CVC rejects the ruling doesn't mean the Rams and the CVC cannot come to another, more reasonable, agreement down the road. Always start out a negotiation by asking for the world. If you're not embarrassed by what you're asking for then you're not asking for enough.
Discussions about the Dome began with both sides' proposals and *ended* with the arbitration ruling. The Dome discussions are over. Anyone who has been following what the Rams, the CVC, and the journalists covering the issue have been saying knows this is a no-brainer. It's not happening. Zero(point-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-one) chance.

As far as the "Nearby Retail" to/in Fenton somehow acting as a deterrent for developments at the Chrysler Plant site, I guess you're forgetting that we live in a region where there are currently *two* high-end strip malls underway in Chesterfield, and some of the tenants of both belong to the same store chain!! A region where a Wal-Mart will thrive and boom in one area for fifteen years (Manchester & Weidman Wal-Mart) and then suddenly close up shop and move just a mile or two west if they get the right tax incentives and a shiny bigger newer building built (Now Manchester & 141 Wal-Mart). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any of that "Nearby Retail" playing into this in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
You sure think you know a lot don't you?

There's no need to make this personal, but to answer your question I have been following this issue quite obsessively for the past two years.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 06, 2013#10252013-02-06T22:34+00:00

It seems like a lot if money, but with CVC funds, Kroenke, the NFL G4 program and the region's relatively low rental car/hotel tax, one can start to see $500M-$700M. IMO the real question is what what Stan wants. If it's a downtown stadium then he'll pitch in more, maybe the convention center expands and keep conferences going during construction.

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode