urbanSTL

I don't think anybody is kidding themselves on what the Rams/Dome by itself can support/sustain for development. What I'm trying to get across is that a political means and leverage to remove at least a portion of I70 is plausible when political discussion turns to the Rams and dome lease. Its only matter of time before the discussion happens.

To me, the city should propose to the Rams an idea that should focus on the surrounding infrastructure (embracing River to City) and connecting Dome to Lacledes Landing/Pinnacle as well as improvements to the dome itself. I definitely think the city should pass if the only thing that Rams want is a new stadium (It makes a lot more sense when you got some 80 plus baseball or hockey or basketball games, but the region can't afford it for 8-12 football games).

dredger wrote:I don't think anybody is kidding themselves on what the Rams/Dome by itself can support/sustain for development. What I'm trying to get across is that a political means and leverage to remove at least a portion of I70 is plausible when political discussion turns to the Rams and dome lease. Its only matter of time before the discussion happens.

I agree, but only if this section is permanently closed. Otherwise, if it's merely covered or otherwise relocated, the ROI is a massive loser. Hundreds of millions of dollars (possibly billions) in infrastructure improvements would not lead to hundreds of millions dollars in investment in the immediate area, and even if it did, the net present value of said investment would be a loser. I agree it needs to come down, but only if it makes sense financially.

Clearly, the demand isn't there to develop even modestly the BPV, which is in a much more attractive area (I would argue) than anything north of the dome or east of Broadway. There's also very attractive development parcels in Midtown and Downtown West, both of which are closer to more intensive institutional or moderately affluent residential bases that continue to sit undeveloped or unrehabbed. If/when those areas are grabbed up (the low hanging fruit from a development perspective), then there would be justification for a demolition/burial of 70.

Royalty wrote:

dredger wrote: Clearly, the demand isn't there to develop even modestly the BPV, which is in a much more attractive area (I would argue) than anything north of the dome or east of Broadway. There's also very attractive development parcels in Midtown and Downtown West, both of which are closer to more intensive institutional or moderately affluent residential bases that continue to sit undeveloped or unrehabbed. If/when those areas are grabbed up (the low hanging fruit from a development perspective), then there would be justification for a demolition/burial of 70.

I don't know that the BPV site is more attractive. We used to hear the same words about the possibility of a thriving restaurant district along Washington Avenue. Demolition of I-70 downtown, the new bridge, and a one-of-a-kind development in that district, could draw people from the entire area -- like City Garden did. I remember a lot of people thinking it would be a disaster.

Alex Ihnen wrote:The Bottle District is poorly located for commercial/retail development. The super block of the dome/convention center and I-70 are real barriers. BPV, in comparison, is much better located, surrounding by standard city blocks and established office/retail space.

How about after I-70 becomes a boulevard?

gary kreie wrote: Roughly quoting or paraphrasing, he said <<St. Louis has to decide what it wants in terms of a new stadium that can be used for more than 8 dates per year. The U2 concert was in Baseball stadium, Kiel center has the frozen four – those things could be in a dome, but it was bypassed. Final 4 and other events bypassed the dome because it is older than venues in Indy, KC, Nashville. Open air would be good, but it won’t pay if used 8 times per year. Whether it is in downtown or Fenton. It is a decision for St. Louis, St. Louis County, and the state of Missouri. The Rams are just users 8 games per year.

What advantage would the dome have over Kiel for the Frozen Four? The U2 concert at Busch was remarkable. I can't see how a dome would be any better for shows.

gary kreie wrote:He was Implying we need a new stadium, it needs to be downtown, and it needs to have a dome so it can be used at least 40% of the time, not just 8 days per year, and it needs to have the amenities to compete with other cities with new stadiums -- not what Dallas has, but something to compete with Indy, Nashville, upcoming new stadium in Minneapolis, etc.

I'm not sold on the need. At least with the examples that the Rams rep provided. If the Rams want a new stadium so bad, why don't they pay for it? Many corporations don't pay taxes -- in fact they receive tax subsidies while you and I shoulder the burden. But on the other hand it's ok to cut social services. Whatever...

I live downtown and I've never been to a Rams regular season game in almost 10 years. I suppose I don't really care about the Rams and I'm not sure there's any net benefit of having them here. They'd have to prove that to the taxpayers.

Since we approved Busch stadium on promises the Cardinals couldn't deliver, money-grubbing sports teams leave a bad taste in my mouth. Instead of just delaying BPV, why don't the Cardinals pay the public back what they owe us? When the time is right, and if it's the right thing to do, we can build BPV instead of the Cardinals.

^Don't those examples suggest that we don't need any dome, let alone a new one, to host events like these? Clearly the venues already exist downtown for those sorts of events because, you know, they happened. It would seem to me that they would make a stronger case by talking about events St. Louis lost out on because of inadequate facilities. Did they mention anything they think we missed because the event required a dome-like environment and the current dome wasn't sufficient?

dredger wrote:1) Better roof as being suggested. However, my twist - why not see what the budge number would be to add a roll in/roll out grass field like Phoenix has? This opens up the EJ Dome for soccer and maybe a MLS team in the near future. Not sure if it is even doable to cut a notch out on the north side on EJ Dome. But you do have space to the north and you won't know unless you ask!

It's highly unlikely the MLS would be interested. Just about all the teams are playing in, or have plans to build, soccer-specific stadiums of 20-25K seats.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Unfortunately for the Rams, he says he's keeping the Jags in Jacksonville, meaning they appear to be out of the running to move to LA.

Of course he would say that. I wouldn't read too much into it. He can maximize the franchise's value by moving it to LA, or even STL in the event that the Rams move.

Still holding out hope that the Chargers will be playing in LA next year..
Sick of this speculation.

Let the conspiracy theories begin....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... estination

I know many think this conspiracy is out there, but I do think it is odd that the Kahn purchase of the Jags was kept a secret until the last minute. There was not a leak, no clues were out there that he was buying the Jags or even interested. On top of that Silent Stan has been completely quiet on the subject and has not 100% committed to St. Louis, just saying he wants to stay, but not saying a move is 100% out of the question. I'd have to think that any NFL owner would love to be in a position to go to one of the biggest markets in the US, even if you have to crush the hearts of the people in your home state (not his home town). We will see if Stan (named after STL icon Stan Musial) is all about money and business or if he has loyalty to the State of Missouri and St. Louis.

rawest1 wrote:Question: Just what, specifically, does our 'dreary dome' not have that the Georgia Dome, or the Louisiana Superdome, does?

Answer: A good football team.


Start winning games, and the place is no longer dreary, and is in fact a blast.

Simple as that.

True, a better team would make the experience better, but as a season ticket holder and huge Rams fan... I hate the Dome. I wish we had an outdoor stadium or atleast a retractable roof.

midcoaststl wrote:

rawest1 wrote:Question: Just what, specifically, does our 'dreary dome' not have that the Georgia Dome, or the Louisiana Superdome, does?

Answer: A good football team.


Start winning games, and the place is no longer dreary, and is in fact a blast.

Simple as that.

True, a better team would make the experience better, but as a season ticket holder and huge Rams fan... I hate the Dome. I wish we had an outdoor stadium or atleast a retractable roof.

When you ask someone why they hate the dome, they can't seem to come up with really good answers -- even the Rams. Usually, they just want to be outside for football or have outside lighting. But I bet there are just as many who would prefer to be indoors this time of year. I personally think the dreariness is 40% dim lighting, and 60% bad team. The sound acoustics are better than they used to be, but still domelike. Other than that, I'm not sure what the Dallas or Indy stadiums have that the dome doesn't have other than maybe a couple more bars, a big hanging TV screen, more really bad seats up high, newer concrete, and consistently better teams.

Would a new outdoor stadium make that much of a difference to the Rams and fans?

rawest1 wrote:If we had an outdoor stadium, I'm willing to bet even fewer St. Louisans would pay to come see this garbage football team in person than already do right now, particularly this time of year.

I agree.

I don't think we want anything to do with what is happening with the Vikings stadium. Not to mention the state is potentially footing the majority of the bill for the public portion. After seeing what happened with Aerotropolis I would love to see that one go to Jeff City for a vote. Although this state is so ass-backwards a stadium would probably fly through with no qualms from either side.

newstl2020 wrote:I don't think we want anything to do with what is happening with the Vikings stadium. Not to mention the state is potentially footing the majority of the bill for the public portion. After seeing what happened with Aerotropolis I would love to see that one go to Jeff City for a vote. Although this state is so ass-backwards a stadium would probably fly through with no qualms from either side.

Especially after Minnesota taxpayers footed a good part of the new Twins stadium and UofM Gophers football stadium couple years back.

Another tidbit on the Vikings stadium proposal, I believe the Minnesota DOT has budgeted another $100 million for road improvements for the new stadium if not mistaken. Heck, MoDOT could budget half of that in remove I-70, rebuild Memorial drive to take its place and rebuild the 22nd street interchange for west downtown in one shot. which would probably be a lot better deal for St. Louis then what Minnesota is going to get for their $100 million dollars in free roads to a stadium.

But like you say, who knows with Jeff City. They would probably throw in a sweetener for some kind of KC stadium improvement to bankrupt the state all in one shot. Which gets me to thinking, will Ohio be the only looking sane after convincing Sears to move 6,200 jobs with a $400 million dollar deal.

So what do we think CVC might offer the Rams to upgrade the EJD?

I'm wondering if they might offer (over the next few years) to close the street along the South end of the dome and build an attached parking garage (also with links to the Embassy Suites) that would include other amenities as well right against the dome at the concourse levels attractive to fans -- such as a microbrewery, Rams store, another Bud Light Zone with TV feeds for all other games going on, high end restaurant, and big windows to let more light in to the South end.

Also, move the video scoreboards to the upper corners, or hanging over the field, and use that prime viewing space where the boards are now for special seating, like the Champions Club in Busch, or something unique like, I don't know, a giant Ram cannon or something -- for a little excitement. And offer some translucent panels in the roof, or something that opens. Paying for it will be the hard part unless the Rams offer to contribute also.