I think most of us would agree that a tailgating environment does not fit downtown. Having more conventions downtown definitely brings in more money. Especially money from out of town.
I say let them build carte blanche by their existing facilities in Earth City. They'll have all the tailgating space imaginable. If the state and the county are that set in keeping the Rams here, I say instead of subsidizing the costs of a new stadium, they should pay for the Metrolink Daniel Boone extension. Build the Metrolink out to the new stadium. Out-of-towners can stay downtown and still make the game without trouble.
It doesn't seem that transit, hotels, restaurants or parking really make sense for only 8 days a year. The crush of 60,000 fans can't fit on transit or in the restaurants anyway - they all work (better and best) with low numbers of consistent traffic. For the NFL, I think the Foxboro/Patriot Place model works best.
innov8ion wrote:How many parking spaces do tailgaters need for only 8 games a year?
A whole heck of a lot.
innov8ion wrote: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?
No, it is not.
That's why I feel a downtown football stadium (along with all the required parking) is a waste. If the Rams are going to build a new stadium, why not go ane area somewhat close to downtown?
-my Kosciusko proposal
-stlien's far north Landing proposal
-somewhere in the McKee area? Stadium on the NW corner of Cass/Jefferson and use the Pruitt Igoe site as parking only? (Just spitballing here)
innov8ion wrote: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...
If the county is going to build in Maryland Heights or the old Chrysler plant build the stadium and acres of parking. Let all the other stuff be built as business demands it.
t doesn't seem that transit, hotels, restaurants or parking really make sense for only 8 days a year. The crush of 60,000 fans can't fit on transit or in the restaurants anyway - they all work (better and best) with low numbers of consistent traffic. For the NFL, I think the Foxboro/Patriot Place model works best.
Be fair, you know not all 60,000 fans would take the train.
No, building out Metrolink to just a stadium isn't practical. That would be silly. But a stop on a line extension makes sense to me. The line would also serve Westport among other areas and could easily be extended into St. Charles if that miracle ever happens.
The point was using the stadium to negotiate Metrolink expansion.
One thing people forget in the location debate is the sheer amount of Rams fans that come from Illinois on game day. I have been a PSL holder since 1996, well over half of the people in my section were from Illinois. I believe at one time the number of PSL holders with Illinois addresses actually exceeded those from Missouri. I would be very curious to see the current numbers. I think an extra 20 miles makes a difference.
At any other time (before Illinois fell into the fiscal hole it dug), the outcome would have been obvious. Illinois would have offered hundreds of millions to lure the Rams across the river, and the new stadium would have been built in East St. Louis or Edwardsville. A site across from the arch would have been perfect: highway access, transit, visibility, plus a jumpstart (or centerpiece) to new metro east development... all without costing Missouri a dime.
What we're experiencing now is the acute dehydration of the Illinois cash cow. That means Missouri doesn't have to fork over as much money to keep it. I hope our officials recognize that.
I suspect the Fenton Chrysler site will be tempting.
Presbyterian wrote:I suspect the Fenton Chrysler site will be tempting.
I'm a Kool-Aide drinking urbanist as much as the rest of you, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if the Rams went to the old Chrysler plant site.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings, but I probably would not keep my season tickets. The thought of dealing with the traffic in the parking lot and on the highway is not appealling to me at all.
Presbyterian wrote:I suspect the Fenton Chrysler site will be tempting.
I'm a Kool-Aide drinking urbanist as much as the rest of you, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if the Rams went to the old Chrysler plant site.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings, but I probably would not keep my season tickets. The thought of dealing with the traffic in the parking lot and on the highway is not appealling to me at all.
No public transport options would sting like a b*tch at a Fenton site. Unless Metro did some sort of special bus runs.
What does Stan want?
1. Parking revenues
2. Retail revenues
3. Ownership of the land
4. Preexisting funding mechanisms over the land
5. NFL loan to keep the team where they are
6. Marquee visage of the stadium and the home City (that doesn’t involve binoculars in a helicopter over the stadium to see the Arch)
7. Ancillary retail draw
8. Potential for MLS team to play in the new stadium
9. Minimal new build-out apart from the new stadium itself
10. Ease of transportation access to the new stadium (both highways and mass transit)
11. Hosting a Super Bowl
In Fenton, he’ll get #3 and #8, and probably #5. Otherwise, it’s desolate. Who will drive to Fenton to go shopping or eating the other 350 days of the year? What’s the retail draw of the old Dodge Plant? That Hot Shots across I-44 is the only other retail draw in the area, and you have to cross a highway to get there. What else is there, Cracker Barrel and a QT? A whole bunch of empty industrial buildings? The Dodge Plant Site is merely a brown-field, a flood plain for the Meramec River covered in concrete.
Maryland Heights is even worse, a true green-field surrounded by farms, Creve Coeur Lake, more farmlands, a stretch of MO HWY 141, and that bridge into the Chuck. It has terrible highway access and no light rail, so that would mean even more build-out into the vacant Missouri River flood plains. What else is out there, the Earth City industrial park, Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, and some casinos? That's insulting to the fans.
Neither suburban flood plain option (brown or green) would be a site for a Super Bowl, Stan’s personal objective. The other elements are business considerations, but this factor is what he would really like to have happen: hosting the sporting world’s biggest non-Olympics event in his stadium. What are you going to do, bus everyone in from Downtown, the clear center for STL hotels? A Hilton Garden Inn two miles up 141 would be insulting to the billionaires flying in for the games on their private jets. No, it has to be Downtown, where there are ancillary retail businesses (and pre-built venues for proprietary new businesses Stan’s companies will run). Seriously, if Stan wants a Super Bowl, he better have a kickass skyline view from the stadium as well as a proximate venue to host visiting guests, one that can act as a retail hub for the rest of the year, can support a potential MLS team, and has established outdoor parking opportunities.
My bet is he’ll build in STL City somewhere in the ring around the Central Business District. I have a pretty damn good idea where, one that I’ve been studying for some time. But, it’s just an idea of my own, not backed by any external credible sources, and I sure as hell am not going to say something that could flub this deal from closing before it’s announced. Key question to ask is: who will be his partners?
^Knew that would happen. That's why I'm not sharing what I know here.
sirshanksalot: If you knew my sources for that rumor, you'd call it a done deal. And I've recognized too much blowback already from talking about this that I'm done talking about this until a press conference is convened.
gone corporate wrote:Neither Fenton nor Maryland Heights will work.
What does Stan want?
1. Parking revenues
2. Retail revenues
3. Ownership of the land
4. Preexisting funding mechanisms over the land
5. NFL loan to keep the team where they are
6. Marquee visage of the stadium and the home City (that doesn’t involve binoculars in a helicopter over the stadium to see the Arch)
7. Ancillary retail draw
8. Potential for MLS team to play in the new stadium
9. Minimal new build-out apart from the new stadium itself
10. Ease of transportation access to the new stadium (both highways and mass transit)
11. Hosting a Super Bowl
In Fenton, he’ll get #3 and #8, and probably #5. Otherwise, it’s desolate.
^ I don't think that's true. For the Metro area, 2/3rds are in MO and most of those (and most of those with $), are at I-170/I-64 and further west. In the end, NFL fans travel. You think the Patriots suffer from being in Foxboro and off a transit line? Nope. Use express buses on gameday and you're done. No need for an extra $100M to get a transit line extension for 8 games. I think it would be convenient for those day, I just don't think it makes sense dollar-wise.
Gone Corporate, Curious on why you don't think #1 & #3 work at Fenton site? Believe the site as a whole is still owned by the gov't agency that took over old Chryslers sites after bankruptcy. Has that changed? A one off sale to Stan K is very possible, resolves #3. Which leads #1, Stan K having ownership certainly means he can control parking revenues or big share of it.
Actually, I think that is truly the only advantage I see from an owners prespective on the Fenton Site.
As far as retail, I believe Patriots are really the last NFL team to try something on that order. Neither 49ers, Vikings and Falcons incorporate retail development into their stadium proposal. I believe owners realize that money is in TV and license agreements.
dredger wrote:As far as retail, I believe Patriots are really the last NFL team to try something on that order. Neither 49ers, Vikings and Falcons incorporate retail development into their stadium proposal. I believe owners realize that money is in TV and license agreements.
The Patriots got very lucky and financed/built that that development during peak of the real estate boom of the 00's. (Plus the team was constantly winning.)
^^Yeah, slipped on that, my bad. Parking and Land Ownership are possible for Fenton and Maryland Heights, whether already assembled or if that's something to still overcome. Still, I don't think he'd pass up his chance to host the Super Bowl (necessitating direct proximity to the Central Business District in Downtown) just for parking in Fenton.
Who will drive to the restaurants he starts in Fenton the other 350+ days of the year?
gone corporate wrote:^^Yeah, slipped on that, my bad. Parking and Land Ownership are possible for Fenton and Maryland Heights, whether already assembled or if that's something to still overcome. Still, I don't think he'd pass up his chance to host the Super Bowl (necessitating direct proximity to the Central Business District in Downtown) just for parking in Fenton.
Who will drive to the restaurants he starts in Fenton the other 350+ days of the year?
I think Stan K will look at it in terms of maximizing revenues on investment. Therefore As a developer himself does he see this as an real estate opportunity beyond the stadium that could result in substantial gains/profits? or does he see long term parking revenues as a better hedge
Both Fenton & Maryland Heights offer big box store but think it is way over done. Nor do I think plopping a stadium next to dome/Bottleworks is really that great of an idea. Pretty much come to the conclusion that McKee is speculating on that property but doubt if Stan K will want to give him a pay day (Not sure if McKee is on Gov Nixon's good side).
Believe the city is really the best opportunity for THF to go outside of Walmarts/Strip Malls right now. Either with his THF group is looking at investing in Casinos or maybe partnering with a locally based casino company who doesn't have a casino in the region itself. In other words, I think the north riverfront above Lacledes Landing and on the east side of I70 offers a huge development opportunity down the road. That is where I think Stan K and THF are looking hard at and crunching the numbers.
Per Fox2 report from Jaco, I was wrong in my skepticism about Nixon now leading the effort. Certainly doesn't seem his style; perhaps it is because of ties to Kroenke. Anyway, seems like everyone involved is comfortable with it.
I think it's been made known that many local and state politicians' campaigns are financed, at least in part, by Stan Kroenke, and I do have a feeling that will aid in these ongoing talks in a very real way.
Refinancing bonds for Edward Jones Dome saves state $8 million
ST. LOUIS • The agency that owns the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams play, is looking to refinance the bonds used to build the downtown complex. The move should save the State of Missouri about $8 million, St. Louis County about $4 million, and earn as much as $300,000 for the dome itself....
Interesting part.
The state currently still owes $64 million on its bonds; St. Louis County owes $32 million. Repayment concludes in 2021.
