St. Louis Rams

dredger · PostJun 20, 2013#11262013-06-20T05:33+00:00

rawest1 wrote:
dredger wrote:So anyone want to venture a guess on when Stan K's Rams is going to actually present a proposal for their new stadium?
Yeah, like I just said, "when" is definitely the big question.

The truth is right now the Rams don't have much incentive to do anything but squat in the dome. They only pay a few hundred thou a year in rent, and keep all the money generated from gameday usage. There is a lot of speculation, fueled mostly by nonspecific reports by people like Bernie Miklasz and Jim Thomas, that there is discussion going on behind the scenes. But nothing is probably going to be made official for a couple years because of the delicate nature of everything.

Either way he is going to get his revenue with current lease so not sure about the incentive part to stay quiet. Depending on what he wants and where he wants a stadium at end of day he can propose something to leverage which entity in the region is going to hand over the most.

Can recall Vikings original proposal was to build a new stadium in Blaine, MN (Twin Cities northern exburb). That proposal came several years prior to the deal that was cut last year. At the time, the Vikings proposed something similar to a Patriots stadium with a entertainment/mall venue next door surrounded by a sea of parking.

rawest1 · PostJun 20, 2013#11272013-06-20T12:45+00:00

dredger wrote:
rawest1 wrote:
dredger wrote:So anyone want to venture a guess on when Stan K's Rams is going to actually present a proposal for their new stadium?
Yeah, like I just said, "when" is definitely the big question.

The truth is right now the Rams don't have much incentive to do anything but squat in the dome. They only pay a few hundred thou a year in rent, and keep all the money generated from gameday usage. There is a lot of speculation, fueled mostly by nonspecific reports by people like Bernie Miklasz and Jim Thomas, that there is discussion going on behind the scenes. But nothing is probably going to be made official for a couple years because of the delicate nature of everything.
Either way he is going to get his revenue with current lease so not sure about the incentive part to stay quiet. Depending on what he wants and where he wants a stadium at end of day he can propose something to leverage which entity in the region is going to hand over the most.

Can recall Vikings original proposal was to build a new stadium in Blaine, MN (Twin Cities northern exburb). That proposal came several years prior to the deal that was cut last year. At the time, the Vikings proposed something similar to a Patriots stadium with a entertainment/mall venue next door surrounded by a sea of parking.

Honestly my guess is the Rams will wait until things have already been agreed-to in behind-the-scenes talks, and there's little-to-no chance to any proposal being derailed, before things start being made public. I think we're still a couple years away from something like that.

arch city · PostJun 20, 2013#11282013-06-20T20:56+00:00

New $-billion Atlanta Falcons stadium slideshow. Stadium is configured to support professional soccer and NCAA sports as well.

dweebe · PostJun 20, 2013#11292013-06-20T21:18+00:00

arch city wrote:New $-billion Atlanta Falcons stadium slideshow. Stadium is configured to support professional soccer and NCAA sports as well.

Looks like they've changed the location. Before I though they were going to put it on the north end of of the Georgia World Congress Center.

dredger · PostJul 01, 2013#11302013-07-01T05:42+00:00

Wonder of anybody has some insight or take a stab at comments from Biz Journals Rams/Stan K article. Can understand things fizzling in LA. Nor do I see someone building Stan K a stadium outright or Stan K willing to hand over a piece of the Rams to get them in LA.

But it seems way to early the game to be in Nixon's hands as reported. Need a couple good proposed stadiums to fly around first as every other city. I can't see many local leaders handing the keys over to Nixon so quickly. Maybe mistaken, so that is what I'm curious about. Does the Biz Journal article got it right?

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... d-has.html

St. Louis leaders have all but officially rejected the Rams $700 million plan to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome, and the situation is now in the hands of Gov. Jay Nixon.

Artis Twyman, senior director of communications for the St. Louis Rams, declined to comment on the status of the updates to the Dome, and Nixon’s office didn’t immediately return calls requesting comment.

rawest1 · PostJul 01, 2013#11312013-07-01T06:12+00:00

I think to say that it's now "in the hands of Governor Nixon" is simply to say that he has taken the lead in talks concerning the Rams' future plans, something corroborated by reports by Bernie Miklasz, Jim Thomas, et. al. This, I think, is understandable given the fact that (if I recall correctly) the biggest chunk of money used to pay for the Dome is state money; therefore he is beating Slay/Dooley/etc. to the punch, or at least he has the loudest voice in talks from the side of the local leaders.

So, I think the BizJournal is merely paraphrasing what someone in the CVC told them, which is perhaps an oversimplification of the situation. These talks going on are almost certainly all "unofficial" and "off the record," and it's my guess that we won't see the tangible fruit (or evidence of failure to produce fruit) of any such discussions for over a year.

roger wyoming II · PostJul 01, 2013#11322013-07-01T16:24+00:00

I have a hard time believing Nixon's administration is spending much time or effort on this, especially when it is all but clear that the state will not be able to bring much at all to the table.

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 01, 2013#11332013-07-01T16:27+00:00

FTR I think a deal gets done. State/local contribution will be more taxes on visitors (hotels, rental cars, etc.) and Stan will foot ~half the bill. It'll be a new stadium somewhere outside the city and the EJ Dome will become a greater draw for conventions.

gary kreie · PostJul 01, 2013#11342013-07-01T17:13+00:00

Well now there definitely will be ZERO new improvements to the dome for the Rams fans. Why would CVC do that for the Rams organization for ZERO commitment in return? So much for everyone's claim that this was all about improving the fan experience.

The Rams wanted it to go exactly the way it went to get out of their 30 year commitment to the dome. They got their wish. So now what about any a commitment to the fans? Now that the CVC and the dome is out of the way, any improvement in the fan experience is strictly the responsibility of the Rams.

Mark Groth · PostJul 01, 2013#11352013-07-01T17:27+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:FTR I think a deal gets done. State/local contribution will be more taxes on visitors (hotels, rental cars, etc.) and Stan will foot ~half the bill. It'll be a new stadium somewhere outside the city and the EJ Dome will become a greater draw for conventions.

If this really happens and the rams leave STL, I can think of another phrase for FTR

Hey fans, better start buying up all those St. Louis Rams shirts before the Fenton Rams shirts get printed. They'll be collectors items someday.

innov8ion · PostJul 01, 2013#11362013-07-01T17:52+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:FTR I think a deal gets done. State/local contribution will be more taxes on visitors (hotels, rental cars, etc.) and Stan will foot ~half the bill. It'll be a new stadium somewhere outside the city and the EJ Dome will become a greater draw for conventions.

I'm guessing it will be on the Bottleworks site.

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 01, 2013#11372013-07-01T17:58+00:00

^ Is that big enough w/o demo? To my untrained eye, it looks smaller than existing dome footprint and Rams proposed closing Broadway as the arbitration found that the dome sits on the smaller stadium footprint of any in the NFL.

innov8ion · PostJul 01, 2013#11382013-07-01T18:28+00:00

^ It's plausible that it can work and less plausible that it would leave the city.

rbb · PostJul 01, 2013#11392013-07-01T18:35+00:00

^^ Alex, see my post from February for a bad photochop showing a potential new stadium on the Bottle District site:

rbb wrote:
arch_genesis wrote:not gonna host a DNC Convention in a stadium at the bottle district.

Alex Ihnen wrote:The existing dome won't be renovated, that much seems clear
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.

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.

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.
A larger stadium won't, no. but one with the same footprint will, basically:

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

-RBB

rawest1 · PostJul 01, 2013#11402013-07-01T18:40+00:00

I think it would require some demo. For whatever it's worth, I saw giant "FOR SALE" signs on the buildings on O'Fallon between 7th & Broadway when I drove by them yesterday...

stlien · PostJul 01, 2013#11412013-07-01T23:33+00:00

innov8ion wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:FTR I think a deal gets done. State/local contribution will be more taxes on visitors (hotels, rental cars, etc.) and Stan will foot ~half the bill. It'll be a new stadium somewhere outside the city and the EJ Dome will become a greater draw for conventions.
I'm guessing it will be on the Bottleworks site.

Doesn't solve the parking issue. Isn't that a big factor?

dweebe · PostJul 02, 2013#11422013-07-02T02:27+00:00

stlien wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:FTR I think a deal gets done. State/local contribution will be more taxes on visitors (hotels, rental cars, etc.) and Stan will foot ~half the bill. It'll be a new stadium somewhere outside the city and the EJ Dome will become a greater draw for conventions.
I'm guessing it will be on the Bottleworks site.
Doesn't solve the parking issue. Isn't that a big factor?

Just makes the situation even worse.

stlien · PostJul 02, 2013#11432013-07-02T02:36+00:00

^ exactly. It would make more sense to build directly east of the bottle district site, on the other side of 70...if they want to stay north. But I have a feeling, they'll want to leave that area all together.

gary kreie · PostJul 02, 2013#11442013-07-02T03:34+00:00

stlien wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:FTR I think a deal gets done. State/local contribution will be more taxes on visitors (hotels, rental cars, etc.) and Stan will foot ~half the bill. It'll be a new stadium somewhere outside the city and the EJ Dome will become a greater draw for conventions.
I'm guessing it will be on the Bottleworks site.
Doesn't solve the parking issue. Isn't that a big factor?

What parking issue?

dweebe · PostJul 02, 2013#11452013-07-02T03:35+00:00

stlien wrote:^ exactly. It would make more sense to build directly east of the bottle district site, on the other side of 70...if they want to stay north. But I have a feeling, they'll want to leave that area all together.

That's why I keep pimping the Kosciusko area over and over. Butt the new stadium up against 7th street across from Soulard Market and then leave everything between there and the river as a giant parking lot area owned by the team. Tons of room for tailgating but leaves Soulard area bars as an option.

PostJul 02, 2013#11462013-07-02T03:41+00:00

gary kreie wrote:What parking issue?

-No revenue stream for the team.
-Tailgating for Rams games is disjointed as everyone is spread around a bunch of small lots. Tailgating for some people is the biggest part of the game day experience.

dredger · PostJul 02, 2013#11472013-07-02T05:26+00:00

stlien wrote:^ exactly. It would make more sense to build directly east of the bottle district site, on the other side of 70...if they want to stay north. But I have a feeling, they'll want to leave that area all together.

I think this is a great riverfront location and also leaves intact and support two areas that are ripe for development, Bottleworks and Laclede's Landing. The site is still within walkable distance from Metrolink station and would still have great highway access that is central to the region not to mention the new MRB. Reconfigure the flood wall to incorporate a section for tailgating between the stadium and the river (new set of cobbles). Signature TV shot is the Arch in the background of the end zone.

Heck, put in the stadium, develop Bottleworks and Lacledes Landing, more convention space with EDJ, a Drury signature residential tower and you might get a few people who actually realize that removing raised section of I-70 is not a bad idea

flipz · PostJul 02, 2013#11482013-07-02T15:31+00:00

Build it in the county and use the CVC reserves to improve downtown.

stlien · PostJul 02, 2013#11492013-07-02T15:33+00:00

Some officials don't want county because of lack of transit, hotels etc. Other parties want county because of more space. Tricky situation.

innov8ion · PostJul 02, 2013#11502013-07-02T15:39+00:00

dweebe wrote:
gary kreie wrote:What parking issue?
-No revenue stream for the team.
-Tailgating for Rams games is disjointed as everyone is spread around a bunch of small lots. Tailgating for some people is the biggest part of the game day experience.

How many parking spaces do tailgaters need for only 8 games a year? And from an urbanist perspective, is that the best use of permanent space in a downtown's core? What about the other 357.25 days?

It's likely that the requisite tailgating space can be cleared out in the industrial area just north/east of the stadium. There seems to be a fair amount of underutilized space in that general location.

And what purpose does the additional space in the county serve? To build the transit, hotels, restaurants, and other retail/services that already exist downtown? Right...

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode