urbanSTL

shadrach wrote:

roger wyoming II wrote:I'm a big fan of Soulard location, and love Gary's image.

A number of us have talked frequently about the spot: but it's technically Kosciusko, not Soulard. But if a new stadium got built there, most people would refer to it as Soulard.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kosci ... e6de08248a

shadrach wrote: Too bad NFL fields have to be North/South—how cool would it be for the open end zone to look out west onto the skyline!

I'm a big fan of Soulard location, and love Gary's image.

I had no idea! b/c of winds?

They don't "have" to but it is the preferred orientation. Mostly because of the sun. It's only and issue for open air games.

roger wyoming II wrote:

shadrach wrote: Too bad NFL fields have to be North/South—how cool would it be for the open end zone to look out west onto the skyline!

I'm a big fan of Soulard location, and love Gary's image.

I had no idea! b/c of winds?

I don't think the outdoor stadiums have to be north/south. But you're right that a great majority of NFL stadiums are north-south oriented. Ones that aren't:
-Cleveland is mostly east/west
-Cincinnati is at a 45 degree angle
-Dolphins stadium is mostly east/west
-Carolina is at a 45 degree angle
-Plus the Vikings are playing for a couple of years at TCF Bank Stadium and that's east-west

gary kreie wrote:I've always wondered by Illinois doesn't pursue this the way New Jersey did in New York or the way Kansas lured the MLS stadium in KC.

Because let's be honest, Illinois does not give a rat's ass what goes on south of Springfield.

I'll second the opposition. The view could be cool, and IMO, best view would be slightly north along eastside riverfront to give more dense skyline as backdrop. Adding Illinois into the mix politically seems dicey and one more hurdle to jump through. In city limits will always be my first vote with downtown as ground zero and sequential points westward. While I like the idea of boosting the bottle district site with development, the near southside is the most intruging taking into account possible MLS. Less bang for buck with metro/mass transit there though. With all due respect to RK, I'm also curious how one would quantify or support "most Rams fans come from Illinois"?

blzhrpmd2 wrote:I'll second the opposition. The view could be cool, and IMO, best view would be slightly north along eastside riverfront to give more dense skyline as backdrop. Adding Illinois into the mix politically seems dicey and one more hurdle to jump through. In city limits will always be my first vote with downtown as ground zero and sequential points westward. While I like the idea of boosting the bottle district site with development, the near southside is the most intruging taking into account possible MLS. Less bang for buck with metro/mass transit there though. With all due respect to RK, I'm also curious how one would quantify or support "most Rams fans come from Illinois"?

I agree with all of this

I've always liked the idea of an open air dual-use stadium on the Illinois riverfront directly across from the arch, which would double as a place for outdoor cafes and an observation point for the arch and city... all of this connected directly to the arch grounds by overhead gondolas and to the landing(s) by water taxis. Add a floating stage on a barge and you'd do a lot to enliven the riverfront.

^That's why I don't understand why some people are so set having it in the city. 357 days out of the year the dome is just a giant block of dead space. Move it to ESL where there's plenty of dead space and it might help change the image and kickstart some positive growth in the area.

shimmy wrote:^That's why I don't understand why some people are so set having it in the city. 357 days out of the year the dome is just a giant block of dead space. Move it to ESL where there's plenty of dead space and it might help change the image and kickstart some positive growth in the area.

The idea is to not have it be empty 357 days out of the year (MLS, concerts, international soccer, college bowl games, NCAA Final Four, higher-tier conventions, etc.)

^Well, an outdoor stadium eliminates any potential Final Four and most conventions, limits concert season, and I have yet to hear any meaningful news about an MLS team, though maybe a brand new stadium would generate momentum.

A good point was put forward about the hotel business, and while a stadium in ESL could influence more football-only visitors to stay the night in Collinsville or another Eastside town, I think the overall effect would be minimal. If the stadium is placed correctly, like say just north of the MLK, I could see a game day tradition being shutting down Eads and encouraging people to walk across.

I'm not saying that downtown wouldn't lose some business, I think that that is inevitable if the stadium moves, I just see the benefits as outweighing the cons. It's discussed often on this board how we need to re-center downtown as the center of the region, and sorry, but just hoping that more firms decide to locate downtown is not going to have that effect. Would a new stadium in ESL rejuvenate the long suffering city and spur it to a miraculous recovery? Nope, and I'm not pretending it will. But it will acknowledge the Eastside of the metro, kickstart some development on the near Eastside (ala Patriot's Place), and begin to change perceptions that could have a major long-term impact on downtown and the city. Would a new football stadium on the Eastside achieve all of this? Nope. But it'll be a significant step forward.

It's counter-intuitive to think that downtown losing something could have a long-term positive impact, but in order for it to be the center of the region again the Eastside needs something that makes many Missourians realize that you don't fall off the map when you drive across the bridge. And I think St. Louis will only benefit from East St. Louis having something to its name besides crime and urban decay. I've also seen many times on this board the fanciful hope that St. Louis could have a neighbor across the river like Cincinnati does in Covington, creating an urban riverfront on both sides of the river. Well, here's a chance to actually take a step forward in that direction. I'm not talking about building a stadium on a cornfield in Troy, I'm talking about building a stadium that is closer to downtown than the elsewhere-proposed Kosciusko site (which, while I'm here, I completely don't understand as that would seemingly replace many industrial and blue collar businesses/jobs, but I could be mistaken.)

Now the economics and politics behind building a stadium on the Eastside is a valid point and a different discussion. However, ideally, this is why I think ESL would be the best site for a new Rams stadium.

dweebe wrote:News out of Oakland

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... ep-raiders

The Raiders want a new stadium and if something doesn't happen soon, they might be leaving Oakland. Owner Mark Davis said this week that he wants to stay in the city where his team has been since 1995, but he needs to see some progress as far as stadium planning goes.

An investment group led by the world's third-largest privately held real estate firm, Colony Capital LLC, made headlines in October when they promised to redevelop the coliseum-area into a 'sports and entertainment center.'

"We are very enthusiastic about the opportunity… to develop this unique property, which we expect will become a transformational and vital urban, residential sports and entertainment center for [Oakland]," Colony CEO Thomas J. Barrack, Jr. said in October, via the Oakland Tribune.

If Colony Capital's plans fizzle out though, the Raiders will likely be leaving Oakland...
continues

The article continue to point out the Raiders are now year-to-year on their lease.

Idle threats. Where would they go?