urbanSTL

I'd like that area just as well. Particularly if we had a frequent Grant's Farm style tram setup from the Stadium Station for games/events.

dweebe wrote: Given the Twin City's economic health: I'm guessing this development would have be built anyway. And the other examples you're talking about are only in the planning/proposed stages....

I honestly don't think there's a place to build a new Rams stadium in St. Louis and hope it will be a magic bullet. I'm not trying to be negative nancy, but the Edward Jones Dome did little for downtown and even the super-busy Busch Stadium took 8 years to get the first phase of Ballpark Village going.

Detroit's will happen as the Ilitch family is commited to a quick pace... no junky Cordish to slow them down. And Pittsburgh's development is underway with office and entertainment leasing... its a bit like the successful Banks development in Cincy in between the two riverfront stadiums... again though it is hard to know how much can be attributed to good planning of the stadium projects or are simply taking advantage of favorable economic climate. Again in Detroit you have a committed billionaire who has decided to pull the trigger on developing his holdings while certainly Minneapolis, and arguably Cincy and Pitt, appear to have more greater downtown momentum.

Anyway, I generally share your skepticism and previously was more in the camp of perhaps putting it across the River (shout out to KtheK!) if it wouldn't fit in Bottle District, but I think I'm now more open to the idea that a well-designed stadium (which I think would include factors just not in architecture and siting but also programming, etc.) might possible spur surrounding development. If Kroenke decided to take the Ilitch route (leverage a publicly-subsidized stadium to commit to large-scale surrounding redevelopment) he certainly has the means and capacity.

^I think the area was border by Broadway, Mullanphy, Cass, and 1st street.

roger wyoming II wrote:Here is a new article out from NYT on the new Vikings stadium and related Downtown East project:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/reale ... .html?_r=2

It gives a good overview of how that downtown is moving forward in a gear that is leaving ones like ours behind.

Officials broke ground this month on the city’s largest real estate project in two decades, a $400 million mixed-use development going up next to the new stadium.

The five-block project, called Downtown East, includes plans for two 18-story office towers for Wells Fargo, a six-level parking ramp, about 24,000 square feet of retail space, 193 apartments and a four-acre urban park near the stadium’s northwest corner....

Mayor Hodges said Downtown East was part of a broader citywide goal to double the number of downtown residents, now 35,000....

Ultimately, Downtown East is a chance to spur the development that the 31-year-old Metrodome failed to generate, said Michael Langley, chief executive of the Minneapolis St. Paul Regional Economic Development Partnership. “This is an opportunity for a huge do-over,” he said.

If we were capable of accomplishing something similar, where would be the best site?

Ha... this was from a while back on the thread.... I see I'm living a Groundhog Day!

Pruitt Igoe?

Lewis, Ashley, Carr, and 3rd is what I was specifically referring to. There is a railroad that would have to be moved and a substation as well. But with some awesome rehab/redev potential just north of the site and plenty of room for parking at the end of Cass, the Landing adjacent, etc., & etc., this is my premier spot.

Heard the radio ad on ESPN 101 from the Rams- but it was about their support for the CityRiverArch project and asking their fans to donate at least $50 to the project in exchange for a VIP event at Rams Park

I'd like to see if go on the riverfront, either north or south, preferably south, but less likely than north. I'd prefer without question, that the Rams get out of the Dome and build a venue. That way, the team is tied to St. Louis, via the venue. I do not want to deal with any lease or lease expiration down the road. Once the venue is Kroenke's, he'll own it and have to deal with it's upkeep, not the taxpayers.

It will almost certainly happen that way. There is no chance the Rams will be in the Dome any longer than 10 more years, and that's only if talks and plans are in place to get a new stadium.

And because St. Louis isn't going to pay more than half (and probably not that) of the cost of the new stadium, ownership will almost certainly be given to Kroenke. He'll pay for most of it. The public will pay for some and get him the needed land.

That's not a sure thing of course, but I believe if they stay, that's how it will happen. And I'm very confident that they're staying.

I wouldn't mind some serious public money for infrastructure for the site I like. I just think the potential to improve on what we already have there is greater. It's a more "downtowny" experience than Kosciusko, which is super, undoubtedly cheaper, and would be a lot of fun also. It's only about 10-13 blocks to Stadium Station and we're talking full on outdoor football, so I guess we'd just have to toughen up. I'm not married to any idea. I'd walk the Eads in mid-December for some MNF!

I'd like to see, as part of the deal, the stadium be made to house a soccer team as well. It would be in Kroenke's best interest, to have another tenant in the facility.

I think the fact that the CVC was willing to put up $200 million, the taxpayers should be willing to swallow $300 million for a new venue, that will hopefully, drastically improve a blighted or less that nice area near Downtown and maybe create new investment in that area. I'd love to see a stadium put an area like Old North, with a lot of potential, over the top. With the new bridge, it is possible.

It shouldn't take a $500 million commitment from the public to get this done. $200-400 million (as you noted, the CVC at one point had half, though some of that may be committed elsewhere now) I would think would be the tops. Especially if land and ownership is part of the deal.

Kroenke will probably pay a big portion, and he'll get another 1/4-1/3 loaned to him via the NFL G4 stadium fund.

Whatever. The Dome isn't very good. We know that.

But if he had gotten to experience it when the team was good, it would have ranked higher.

There's little in the way of specifics, but on 920 AM Jim Thomas notes that there are 'talks' going on between the city and the Rams. He downplayed the possibility that this will lead to anything significant in the near future - Jim pointed out this AM that any effort to build a $1B stadium (which is probably a minimum point-of-entry for a new NFL venue these days) would take years even without politics being involved - but expressed that it's a small positive sign of progress.

-RBB

jstriebel wrote:Whatever. The Dome isn't very good. We know that.

But if he had gotten to experience it when the team was good, it would have ranked higher.

These rankings almost always rate the "atmosphere", not the structure. The rankings go up and down depending on team play and crowd support. That's why Busch Stadium often ranks in the top 5 baseball stadiums. Is it the bricks? Or is it the atmosphere and traditions generated by the occupants?

I still haven't heard what physically is so horrible about the dome vs. other venues, other than the dim lighting.

I too don't see what's so wrong with the dome other than the product on the field