IIRC in the vicinity of 38°44'00"N 90°30'21"W (between Sport Port and Creve Coeur Airport adjacent to page extension).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?
- 3,433
My letter to the editor in Today's Post Dispatch.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... 62ec1.html
Has anyone read the arbitrators' report on proposals to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome? As a charter PSL holder since 1995, I find it completely bizarre. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, necessarily, but the arbitrators seem highly biased and lazy. They didn't even bother to exercise the option to mediate a configuration acceptable to both sides.
First, they said that in order to be first-tier, the Dome must be open, because 17 of the 22 newer stadiums are open. This seems very odd to me. So fan comfort means nothing? Well, heck, let's just rip the lid off altogether and be instantly top-tier. Five domes were built since the Edward Jones Dome, and I hear they keep the lid closed for nearly all the games. Only temperate Seattle has gone from a dome back to an open-air stadium. It sounds as if they are setting up the rationale for moving to Los Angeles. Both stadiums proposed in LA are open, hence first-tier by this standard.
Next, the arbitrators keyed on the fact that people in luxury boxes would not be able to easily view the hanging giant video screens proposed by the Convention & Visitors Commission, and would therefore have to settle for individual large video screens in each of their individual suites. The Rams, on the other hand, didn't even propose a giant video screen hanging from the ceiling. I guess that makes their proposal top-tier since the luxury skybox people would not strain themselves trying to see one.
Also, the arbitrators completely dismissed the CVC argument that the Rams proposal would push upper level fans further from the field vs. the CVC proposal's distance of 623 feet. The arbitrators argued that many newer stadiums exceeded the 623 feet, hence pushing fans away from the field is a characteristic of first-tier stadiums, not a drawback.
Then they declared that the CVC must pay the Rams legal fees for their trouble. Who are these guys? Of all the things to key on, they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with this labored reasoning.
Gary Kreie • Des Peres
Here is a link to the Arbitrators report that I got from Alex's front page piece on Nextstl.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/123411141/St- ... ion-Report
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... 62ec1.html
Has anyone read the arbitrators' report on proposals to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome? As a charter PSL holder since 1995, I find it completely bizarre. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, necessarily, but the arbitrators seem highly biased and lazy. They didn't even bother to exercise the option to mediate a configuration acceptable to both sides.
First, they said that in order to be first-tier, the Dome must be open, because 17 of the 22 newer stadiums are open. This seems very odd to me. So fan comfort means nothing? Well, heck, let's just rip the lid off altogether and be instantly top-tier. Five domes were built since the Edward Jones Dome, and I hear they keep the lid closed for nearly all the games. Only temperate Seattle has gone from a dome back to an open-air stadium. It sounds as if they are setting up the rationale for moving to Los Angeles. Both stadiums proposed in LA are open, hence first-tier by this standard.
Next, the arbitrators keyed on the fact that people in luxury boxes would not be able to easily view the hanging giant video screens proposed by the Convention & Visitors Commission, and would therefore have to settle for individual large video screens in each of their individual suites. The Rams, on the other hand, didn't even propose a giant video screen hanging from the ceiling. I guess that makes their proposal top-tier since the luxury skybox people would not strain themselves trying to see one.
Also, the arbitrators completely dismissed the CVC argument that the Rams proposal would push upper level fans further from the field vs. the CVC proposal's distance of 623 feet. The arbitrators argued that many newer stadiums exceeded the 623 feet, hence pushing fans away from the field is a characteristic of first-tier stadiums, not a drawback.
Then they declared that the CVC must pay the Rams legal fees for their trouble. Who are these guys? Of all the things to key on, they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with this labored reasoning.
Gary Kreie • Des Peres
Here is a link to the Arbitrators report that I got from Alex's front page piece on Nextstl.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/123411141/St- ... ion-Report
Some developments.
First, here's part 3 of blogger Shane Gray's case for why the Rams will likely remain. This time, he focuses on why the L.A. market is not really all it's cracked up to be:
http://101sports.com/category/misc-blog ... FL-and-L.A./
Second, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority has retained the services of Goldman Sachs to begin the process of hammering out a deal for a new football stadium in St. Louis.
Third, meanwhile, as the city, county and state get their ducks in a row to start playing ball with Stan and the Rams, Kevin Demoff hosted a summit/lunch today with season ticket holders. I can't confirm these comments personally, but off the record, Mr. Demoff was rather candid. When asked point-blank about L.A., he simply said he couldn't rule anything out at this stage. However, he did reaffirm the Rams' commitment above all else to finding a situation in the St. Louis area, and he seemed to couch talk about L.A. in terms of extracting leverage (he specifically referenced the way Minnesota and Atlanta used L.A. for leverage). He held an informal poll among the attendees about preference between an outdoor stadium and a retractable roof facility (it was about 50/50 by show of hands). He said that an outdoor stadium in the Bottle District was the frontrunner. He explained that this is probably the case for a number of reasons; among them, that it's apparently easier to sell suites in an outdoor stadium, and that a new retractable roof facility would render the current Dome unusable (from a business standpoint it makes little sense that the Rams should care about that, but perhaps they realize that their best chance at securing a public contribution involves *not* building a facility that would compete directly with the Dome). He teased about the possibilities of securing concerts that Kansas City currently gets awarded with because of their Arrowhead Stadium, and about the possibility of attracting soccer games to be played there. Kevin Demoff mentioned that discussions regarding a new stadium would likely be a state issue, which jibes with what the Convention and Sports Complex Authority board chairman Shrewsbury said in the above article about Nixon "taking a very direct, hands-on role" in all of this.
First, here's part 3 of blogger Shane Gray's case for why the Rams will likely remain. This time, he focuses on why the L.A. market is not really all it's cracked up to be:
http://101sports.com/category/misc-blog ... FL-and-L.A./
Second, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority has retained the services of Goldman Sachs to begin the process of hammering out a deal for a new football stadium in St. Louis.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 92466.htmlGoldman will prepare a plan "on existing and alternative methods for maintaining or renovating current facilities, and/or constructing new facilities sufficient to retain a National Football League franchise in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area," according to the resolution unanimously approved by the Authority board Monday afternoon.
...
Goldman Sachs has basically financed or advised on the financing of every NFL stadium recently built, added authority attorney Robert Blitz. Blitz called Goldman executive Greg Carey “the guru of sports stadiums in the United States.”
Shrewsbury said the firm has “unparalleled expertise in dealing with these issues.”
...
The authority board is made up of 11 commissioners, three appointed by St. Louis’s mayor, three by the St. Louis County executive and five by Missouri’s governor.
Shrewsbury, recently named board chairman by Gov. Jay Nixon, said that Nixon is “taking a much more direct role in this, a hands-on role,” and advised the board to hire Goldman Sachs.
Third, meanwhile, as the city, county and state get their ducks in a row to start playing ball with Stan and the Rams, Kevin Demoff hosted a summit/lunch today with season ticket holders. I can't confirm these comments personally, but off the record, Mr. Demoff was rather candid. When asked point-blank about L.A., he simply said he couldn't rule anything out at this stage. However, he did reaffirm the Rams' commitment above all else to finding a situation in the St. Louis area, and he seemed to couch talk about L.A. in terms of extracting leverage (he specifically referenced the way Minnesota and Atlanta used L.A. for leverage). He held an informal poll among the attendees about preference between an outdoor stadium and a retractable roof facility (it was about 50/50 by show of hands). He said that an outdoor stadium in the Bottle District was the frontrunner. He explained that this is probably the case for a number of reasons; among them, that it's apparently easier to sell suites in an outdoor stadium, and that a new retractable roof facility would render the current Dome unusable (from a business standpoint it makes little sense that the Rams should care about that, but perhaps they realize that their best chance at securing a public contribution involves *not* building a facility that would compete directly with the Dome). He teased about the possibilities of securing concerts that Kansas City currently gets awarded with because of their Arrowhead Stadium, and about the possibility of attracting soccer games to be played there. Kevin Demoff mentioned that discussions regarding a new stadium would likely be a state issue, which jibes with what the Convention and Sports Complex Authority board chairman Shrewsbury said in the above article about Nixon "taking a very direct, hands-on role" in all of this.
- 597
what in the hell is so appealing about the bottle district? 17 measly acres staring at the rear end of the Edward Jones Dome? If that's the best that can be done to keep the rams downtown just renovate the Dome.
Do the Count's idea for a new exhibition hall with a sliding roof, and with whatever's left over use it to improve the aesthetics of the building inside and out.
Do the Count's idea for a new exhibition hall with a sliding roof, and with whatever's left over use it to improve the aesthetics of the building inside and out.
Centralized downtown location, all highways in the region converge there, and also, the areas immediately surrounding appear sparsely used... I wonder how expensive that land would be to purchase and use.arch_genesis wrote:what in the hell is so appealing about the bottle district? 17 measly acres staring at the rear end of the Edward Jones Dome?
There is no basis that the Count's idea (much as I liked it, too) would make the Dome a "top-tier" football facility, per the lease. That was the point of arbitration. The Dome will not be renovated.arch_genesis wrote:If that's the best that can be done to keep the rams downtown just renovate the Dome. Do the Count's idea for a new exhibition hall with a sliding roof, and with whatever's left over use it to improve the aesthetics of the building inside and out.
- 11K
^ How expensive will the Bottle District be? It's owned by Paul McKee, who purchased it with help from Missouri taxpayers. He paid $3M and got half of that back when the City's Board of Alderman allowed the BD to be added to NorthSide and thus qualify for the tax credit McKee wrote for NorthSide.
- 8,155
Not sure what to make of this as there will be few if any state $$ coming to the table for this.rawest1 wrote:Kevin Demoff mentioned that discussions regarding a new stadium would likely be a state issue, which jibes with what the Convention and Sports Complex Authority board chairman Shrewsbury said in the above article about Nixon "taking a very direct, hands-on role" in all of this.
Me neither, I was pretty intrigued by it. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.roger wyoming II wrote:Not sure what to make of this as there will be few if any state $$ coming to the table for this.rawest1 wrote:Kevin Demoff mentioned that discussions regarding a new stadium would likely be a state issue, which jibes with what the Convention and Sports Complex Authority board chairman Shrewsbury said in the above article about Nixon "taking a very direct, hands-on role" in all of this.
- 11K
My take (today): Kroenke wants to stay and will put up his money to do so. This will make increasing the state (and maybe city/county) share more appealing as it will be marketed as leveraging private money. Kroenke will get as much as he possibly can. The Goldman Sachs consultants will promote a "middle of the road" deal for an NFL stadium and local political leaders will say, "well, if this is what it takes to have an NFL team...".
So maybe, $250M from Kroenke, $250M from NFL, and $100-$150 local, towards renovation.Alex Ihnen wrote:My take (today): Kroenke wants to stay and will put up his money to do so. This will make increasing the state (and maybe city/county) share more appealing as it will be marketed as leveraging private money. Kroenke will get as much as he possibly can. The Goldman Sachs consultants will promote a "middle of the road" deal for an NFL stadium and local political leaders will say, "well, if this is what it takes to have an NFL team...".
Maybe, but former CVC Chair Dan Dierdorf, Rams beat writer Jim Thomas, columnist Bernie Miklasz, and Rams VP Kevin Demoff have all rather clearly expressed at different times that the leading project is an open-air stadium in the Bottle District, and that Dome renovations are pretty much out of the question at this point. It's possible that they are all being fed misinformation and/or lying, but that seems illogical to me.stlien wrote:So maybe, $250M from Kroenke, $250M from NFL, and $100-$150 local, towards renovation.Alex Ihnen wrote:My take (today): Kroenke wants to stay and will put up his money to do so. This will make increasing the state (and maybe city/county) share more appealing as it will be marketed as leveraging private money. Kroenke will get as much as he possibly can. The Goldman Sachs consultants will promote a "middle of the road" deal for an NFL stadium and local political leaders will say, "well, if this is what it takes to have an NFL team...".
- 597
not gonna host a DNC Convention in a stadium at the bottle district.
Maybe, maybe not. Didn't seem to stop them from picking Charlotte (where the Carolina Panthers play outdoors).arch_genesis wrote:not gonna host a DNC Convention in a stadium at the bottle district.
- 11K
The existing dome won't be renovated, that much seems clear, and I have no idea how a larger footprint stadium is supposed to fit in the Bottle District - it simply won't.
^ Have to agree, can't pin down the article but I swear a PD article noted that possiblie options included Fenton, Maryland Heights, Bottleworks and fourth idea of riverfront stadium. I do believe their is space for an open air stadium north of Pinnacle and south of the New MRB as Geofksu expressed.
As far as CVC, can't recall what sportswriter expressed an opinion that would be favorable for everybody if CVC would simply reject the arbitration decision and say thanks but no thanks. I agree with that thought. The same sport writer also seem to know nothing about econmoics in my opinion. In others words, NFL being able to suck up a lot of cash and keep it doesn't mean necessarily mean its a good thing for everybody else. It just means that the NFL has done a terrific job of making money for themselves.
As far as CVC, can't recall what sportswriter expressed an opinion that would be favorable for everybody if CVC would simply reject the arbitration decision and say thanks but no thanks. I agree with that thought. The same sport writer also seem to know nothing about econmoics in my opinion. In others words, NFL being able to suck up a lot of cash and keep it doesn't mean necessarily mean its a good thing for everybody else. It just means that the NFL has done a terrific job of making money for themselves.
arch_genesis wrote:not gonna host a DNC Convention in a stadium at the bottle district.
You know, that's one of the questions I had right after news that a new stadium was the likely outcome; what's going to happen to the current Ed Jones Dome? I wonder if they're simply going to renovate it to be less football-centric and keep it around.Alex Ihnen wrote:The existing dome won't be renovated, that much seems clear
Keep in mind that the $100-200M that the CVC has been saving up was specifically for the renovation of the dome; presumably the CVC will not own or necessarily even be involved with the new stadium. Now they may want to contribute that money to the construction of the new stadium so that fewer new taxes are necessary, but I don't think they're necessarily obligated to do so. Maybe they'll take some or all of that money and use it to turn the Dome into a better place to host DNC-scale conventions and Final 4-type NCAA events. Or for that matter, and I don't know if it's possible to do so, maybe they use some of that money to buy down the bond payments.
Also, someone close to the Rams (can't remember if it was Kevin Demoff or maybe Dan Dierdorf) mentioned that one of the reasons a downtown stadium would be open-air would be so as not to compete with the convention center. It would make sense that the CVC would continue to use the Ed Jones dome even after its NFL career is over.
A larger stadium won't, no. but one with the same footprint will, basically:Alex Ihnen wrote:The existing dome won't be renovated, that much seems clear, and I have no idea how a larger footprint stadium is supposed to fit in the Bottle District - it simply won't.
The question is, can you build a quality open-air stadium in the same footprint as the current one?
I would like to see the stadium remain downtown. The majority of NFL stadia are in the downtown area, and most seem to make things work just fine. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they moved out to the 'burbs, but IMO it would make game day slighly less special. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd much rather my gameday experience be in an exciting downtown environ than a stadium in a field surrounded by a sea of parking.
-RBB
- 11K
^ I haven't seen a full list, but I don't think the majority of NFL stadiums are in a downtown.
- 8,155
^^ would the EJD or new outdoor stadium footprint fit under the Arch? That would be one way to activate the grounds, plus the new highway ramps are in the works. [any pranksters please feel free to files away for April Fool's Day.]
On a more serious note, yes, that was my thought.... that it might make better sense for the CVB to go ahead and put in some further significant investment to better position the dome for its post-Rams future and not to put its available funds to a new stadium.
On a more serious note, yes, that was my thought.... that it might make better sense for the CVB to go ahead and put in some further significant investment to better position the dome for its post-Rams future and not to put its available funds to a new stadium.
- 1,792
Isn't the real question what the true goals of the Rams organization is
If the goal is to simply make the most money its hard to deny moving to LA as the way to go.
If they think the best route is to be the one stop shop for all thing game day related then, parking, hotel retail and ticket sales then you have to go for a Gillette style suburban complex in Maryland Heights or Fenton.
But if you take what they have said at face value and that the real target is to win a Superbowl. Then IMHO the stadium has to be near downtown. A Superbowl is a week long event with player meet and greets, coaches press conference and general festivities. These thing require a incredible amount of convention type space. And if traditionally mild winter Dallas has shown us anything it is that a inconveniently time winter storm can create a huge headache for the event. The new stadium has to be downtown near or connected via metrolink to hotels and convention center.
A bottle district plan would almost certainly be accompanied with some demolition of properties in Columbus Square to make room for a larger footprint. Many of which were constructed very recently. I can't imagine them settling for the same footprint and still asking for public moneys.
I personally would prefer a stadium built over some of the surface lots south of 40. Maybe even between Tucker and 8th. If it was built at grade to Tucker the UPac tracks could run underneath. It utilizes a lot of the game day infrastructure that the cardinals use the other half of the year and covering a piece of the "Byzantine Morass" might act as a stitch reconnecting downtown to south city neighborhoods. the only negatives I can think of are it would leave the stadium with an east west orientation which isn't ideal for an open air stadium (i prefer a retractable roof anyway) and it would probably kill once and for all the idea of Chouteau's Greenway which would be better but i think i'm being realistic here.
If the goal is to simply make the most money its hard to deny moving to LA as the way to go.
If they think the best route is to be the one stop shop for all thing game day related then, parking, hotel retail and ticket sales then you have to go for a Gillette style suburban complex in Maryland Heights or Fenton.
But if you take what they have said at face value and that the real target is to win a Superbowl. Then IMHO the stadium has to be near downtown. A Superbowl is a week long event with player meet and greets, coaches press conference and general festivities. These thing require a incredible amount of convention type space. And if traditionally mild winter Dallas has shown us anything it is that a inconveniently time winter storm can create a huge headache for the event. The new stadium has to be downtown near or connected via metrolink to hotels and convention center.
A bottle district plan would almost certainly be accompanied with some demolition of properties in Columbus Square to make room for a larger footprint. Many of which were constructed very recently. I can't imagine them settling for the same footprint and still asking for public moneys.
I personally would prefer a stadium built over some of the surface lots south of 40. Maybe even between Tucker and 8th. If it was built at grade to Tucker the UPac tracks could run underneath. It utilizes a lot of the game day infrastructure that the cardinals use the other half of the year and covering a piece of the "Byzantine Morass" might act as a stitch reconnecting downtown to south city neighborhoods. the only negatives I can think of are it would leave the stadium with an east west orientation which isn't ideal for an open air stadium (i prefer a retractable roof anyway) and it would probably kill once and for all the idea of Chouteau's Greenway which would be better but i think i'm being realistic here.
- 11K
Looking at the host cities for Superbowls, it's not clear that it needs to be near a downtown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbowl# ... .2Fregions
Based on a quick search - roughly 1/2 are downtown or adjacent to their downtowns (16 out of 31). However I would say only 6 are remotely 'urban' in nature - Georgia Dome, Bank of America Stadium, Soldier Field, Ford Field, Mercedes-Benz Superdome and our current EJD. *Lambeau is 'urban' in nature (in that it isn't surrounded by parking) but not downtown.* The rest are either separated by highways or rivers (like Pittsburgh or the two Ohio stadiums) or surrounded by surface parking and "off to the side" like Jacksonville. For what its worth - the 16 'downtown' stadiums average 68k, while 15 suburban ones 72k.Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I haven't seen a full list, but I don't think the majority of NFL stadiums are in a downtown.
Stadium planning shouldn't be based around a one week in 50 year event - a superbowl. If we were San Diego of Miami... where we could get them once or twice a decade - sure... but creating yet another superblock downtown - under the premise of a one week mega event - is ill advised.
Here's my analysis, following the ultra-scientific method of looking at Google Maps (and edited to fit better in the post):Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I haven't seen a full list, but I don't think the majority of NFL stadiums are in a downtown.
Code: Select all
Stadium Urban env (in City Location Team(s) Opened
proper, downtown
or nearby)?
Arrowhead Stadium No Kansas City, MO Kansas City Chiefs 1972
Bank of America
Stadium Yes Charlotte, NC Carolina Panthers 1996
Candlestick Park No San Francisco, CA San Francisco 49ers 1960
CenturyLink Field Yes Seattle, WA Seattle Seahawks 2002
Cowboys Stadium No Arlington, TX Dallas Cowboys 2009
Edward Jones Dome Yes St. Louis, MO St. Louis Rams 1995
EverBank Field Yes Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville Jaguars 1995
FedEx Field No Landover, MD Washington Redskins 1997
FirstEnergy Stadium Yes Cleveland, OH Cleveland Browns 1999
Ford Field Yes Detroit, MI Detroit Lions 2002
Georgia Dome Kinda Atlanta, GA Atlanta Falcons 1992
Gillette Stadium No Foxborough, MA New England Patriots 2002
Heinz Field Yes Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Steelers 2001
Hubert H. Humphrey
Metrodome Yes Minneapolis, MN Minnesota Vikings 1982
Lambeau Field No Green Bay, WI Green Bay Packers 1957
Lincoln Financial Field Kinda Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia Eagles 2003
LP Field Yes Nashville, TN Tennessee Titans 1999
Lucas Oil Stadium Yes Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis Colts 2008
M&T Bank Stadium Yes Baltimore, MD Baltimore Ravens 1998
Mercedes-Benz
Superdome Yes New Orleans, LA New Orleans Saints 1975
MetLife Stadium No East Rutherford, NJ New York Giants 2010
O.co Coliseum Kinda Oakland, CA Oakland Raiders 1966
Paul Brown Stadium Yes Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Bengals 2000
Qualcomm Stadium No San Diego, CA San Diego Chargers 1967
Ralph Wilson Stadium No Orchard Park, NY Buffalo Bills 1973
Raymond James Stadium No Tampa, FL Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1998
Reliant Stadium No Houston, TX Houston Texans 2002
Soldier Field Yes Chicago, IL Chicago Bears 1924
Sports Authority Field Kinda Denver, CO Denver Broncos 2001
Sun Life Stadium No Miami Gardens, FL Miami Dolphins 1987
University of
Phoenix Stadium No Glendale, AZ Arizona Cardinals 2006
Urban Stadiums 14
Kinda Urban Stadiums 4
Non-Urban Stadiums 13"Urban" = in the City limits, in the downtown area or immediately adjacent.
"Kinda Urban" - In the City limits, typically close to downtown but not in the core.
"Not Urban" - Outside of the City limits, typically a more suburban environment.
This doesn't address the amount of surface parking nearby; I'm thinking more of the surrounding neighborhoods. I also didn't analyze the size of the site on which it sits.
So, 14 are in or right next to the downtown of their city. Better than half are either downtown or are close by.
-RBB
- 1,610
Off the top of my head:Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I haven't seen a full list, but I don't think the majority of NFL stadiums are in a downtown.
Chicago
Cincy
Indy
Jacksonville?
Atlanta
Houston
Pittsburgh
Seattle
St. Louis
Green Bay (LOL!)
Minnesota
Detroit
Nashville