urbanSTL

It has been proven that stand-alone football or sports venues do not typically revitalize and area on their own. However, I feel that Stan, if he is staying in STL, has a grand plan. As mentioned many times, he will likely be looking to make a venue and a district. That district may include a stadium(s), hotels, retail...etc..etc... Maybe create an area like KC has around Livestrong Sporting Park. I am not sure an area like that would flourish in North St. Louis, but you never know.

If for some reason, the land was available, would anyone have a huge issue with the south riverfront being the location for NFL & MLS? Even if that would mean demo of Chouteau's Landing and possibly the street grid, all the way to Lyon Park. Would the benefit be worth the cost?

rawest1 wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:Not to be a downer/naysayer/pontificator, but I don't think a stadium revitalizes anything. There have been some good recent articles about the limitations of stadium development to do just that - the most recent being in Atlanta, and that's 82 games. The neighborhood around Lucas Oil stadium is another. That said, Indy might be an OK example of how an NFL stadium can be urban, but enough on the edge of a downtown as to not negatively affect it.

Right.

I don't think a new stadium would necessarily have a spillover effect of revitalization in an area where it's built. But I do think perhaps the case could be made that there's so much unused/neglected land near downtown in North City and that any invested use of that land, including a football stadium, would be better than whatever's there now.

This was more along the ideas i had. The stadium alone would not do this but with the Old North being developed and Stan K looks to invest in areas around the stadium with hotels, bars, etc.

We talk about wanting to live next to Busch stadium all the time, maybe there could be demand around a new NFL / MLS stadium complex. Not saying towers but could create small demand.

dweebe wrote: I don't see much difference. It's not like those current railyards, acres of parked trailers, warehouses and already empty (or underused) lots are good for Soulard.

^+1 - it isn't as if you can see the river from street level along 7th and a large project will "kill the vibe".

However, as un-sexy as all those blocks of warehouses, parking lots, etc. are, that's displacing a LOT of functioning (such as they are) businesses.

I think the location would be good if it were vacant, but it's not

jem79c wrote:

dweebe wrote: I don't see much difference. It's not like those current railyards, acres of parked trailers, warehouses and already empty (or underused) lots are good for Soulard.

^+1 - it isn't as if you can see the river from street level along 7th and a large project will "kill the vibe".

However, as un-sexy as all those blocks of warehouses, parking lots, etc. are, that's displacing a LOT of functioning (such as they are) businesses.

I think the location would be good if it were vacant, but it's not

Depends are where you are looking at the area bounded by Russell on the North, DeKalb on the east, Sidney to the south, and 7th street to the west, is pretty vacant and has 17 acres of truck transfer station that employees about 7 people per acre that and Yellow trucking who owns it is going to cut staff and traffic there. Call me an employment snob, but in a city of 65 Sq miles, we need to squeeze every ounce of potential per acre. North of Russell I agree, lots of little manufacturing and John's Donuts, that would be nice to keep

All together that tract is about 30 acres, plenty of room to add a stadium, and Stan's retail center.

What would really be nice is instead of a traditional parking lot for tailgating, build a "green parking lot", structural soil, pavers, and trees, would hold cars for the big game weekends (35 a year if used for MLS and NFL) and could also be used as a "Fest Platz" or festival plaza, for Mardi Gras, Oktoberfest, concerts (get rid of Riverport!), etc... thus gaining a lot more use than just a big dead parking lot, and would actually look nice with or without cars, would also bring in another 30 to 40 events a year.

Of course this would also be a chance to bridge over the railroad tracks and give you another chance to access the river.

I'd guess that Soulard residents would be against stadiums on the riverfront. The bars would love it. I've always envisioned leaving the soccer match and heading to the pubs in Soulard. I think it would make Soulard a huge destination, more so than today. I do agree, that it would take away from the 'feel' and 'atmosphere' of the neighborhood. It would be a huge amount of land to acquire, but I prefer the south riverfront over the north.

At this point, I would have to say that Nixon has it about right even though I have tough time convincing myself that the best proposal for the region will come out with him negotiating. The football is in Stan K's hands and it would be nice to get a serious proposal out of the Rams - Open Air, partial or Dome stadium? Downtown, Riverfront or a sea of parking in the burbs? Football only or a something favorable to a soccer game now and then? Additional development or not? How much control or not of a stadium.

Very interesting.... Kahn purchased Fulham of the EPL. I know this is not relevant to the Rams now, but it is interesting to find out Kahn has an interest in soccer. Would he have been the guy, who finally brought soccer back to STL. I still hold out hope, that soccer is part of a grand plan, that Stan has for STL. If he were to move the Rams, I would be very disappointed to think, what could have been, had Kahn won his bid to buy the Rams. In an age where US businesses are being bought up by foreign entities, it is interesting to see how many Americans own EPL teams.

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/espnfcuni ... 74?cc=5901

I agree with your assessment on the south location.

Regarding stadiums, I bet a significant number of the stadiums in MLS are NFL and MLS, multi-use venues. I think, once St. Louis showcases itself with Real Madrid-Inter and the other game allegedly coming (per KMOX this morning/no other info), MLS will want to make STL happen. I think MLS sees a great market (like Seattle) and would like to get a team in this soccer-rich market. I think we need to get MLS here ASAP. Cities like KC are passing up STL, as great soccer cities. KC KS is now bidding to get the US Soccer National training facility.

http://www.ussoccer.com/news/federation ... enter.aspx

Can anyone tell me, how many MLS owners, if any, own multiple teams? Stan owns the Rapids and Arsenal. Would he really want to own another team?? Would he be more likely to find a team that is willing to move or bring in an expansion team. A team that pays rent to him, versus owning the team. I will say this. There are a few MLS teams that you never hear about. The Colorado Rapids are on that list. I know they won the Cup in 2010, but I still hear little about the team and/or players, especially in regards to the USMNT.

PS- Back to the Rams. In case anyone has interest.... There have been feuding communities on Facebook for some time. It can get a bit petty at times, but the 2 groups do post some interesting articles and once in a while, make some good points, regarding the 'Rams relocation' debate. Check these 2 groups out:

"Bring back the Los Angeles Rams" & "The Demise of Bring back the Los Angeles Rams "

As I said, the debate between the two sides has gotten very juvenile, but there are interesting reads once and a while. Obviously, one side thinks the Rams are returning to LA for sure. The other side thinks STL will keep them. Both are good places to get a hold of articles on this topic, put out locally and nationally. Outside of that, it is a
p-ssing match.

Despite every number suggesting they shouldn’t, why do American cities keep building sports stadiums funded with public money?
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics ... lem-62665/

Congress Threatens To Leave D.C. Unless New Capitol Is Built
http://www.theonion.com/articles/congre ... apitol,98/

dweebe wrote:

beer city wrote:Depends are where you are looking at the area bounded by Russell on the North, DeKalb on the east, Sidney to the south, and 7th street to the west, is pretty vacant and has 17 acres of truck transfer station that employees about 7 people per acre that and Yellow trucking who owns it is going to cut staff and traffic there. Call me an employment snob, but in a city of 65 Sq miles, we need to squeeze every ounce of potential per acre. North of Russell I agree, lots of little manufacturing and John's Donuts, that would be nice to keep

All together that tract is about 30 acres, plenty of room to add a stadium, and Stan's retail center.

Drove around the area yesterday and I respectfully withdraw my proposal and agree with Beer City. His more southern proposal of a new stadium site bounded by Russell/7th/Sidney/the river would be a perfect location for a combo NFL/MLS stadium. There are a number of open spaces along with low density businesses that could easily be relocated elsewhere in the city.

The area I listed is dense with more businesses that should be retained. In addition he's right in trying to keep (and maybe even build up) the current Broadway stretch.

The only problem I saw was the electrical substation and all the high power lines running through the area.

Excellent - now I just need to collect a huge finder fee from Stan -

On the MLS front - still not looking good for the cradle of American footy

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer ... =sc_bf2_a3

SI likes Beckham's potential expansion efforts in Miami - where MLS already failed once.

We will need someone with a lot of cash who likes St. Louis, while we are listed as a potential, it does not look like we are on Garber's radar

I can't wait until the day when this thread focuses on offense, defense and special teams.