Well if you think St. Louis flyover now, then just imagine if we lose a professional sports team. Nothing says 2nd rate city like that.
- 6,775
goat314 wrote:Well if you think St. Louis flyover now, then just imagine if we lose a professional sports team. Nothing says 2nd rate city like that.
New York a second rate city? Who'd of thunk?
Even in its prime, St. Louis was never on the level of a New York or Los Angeles. What US Cities are? Losing the Rams never did as much damage to the Los Angeles world image, as it would do to St. Louis's image if we lost them. It would just give residents another reason to bash a city that already has major ego issues and a self-hate written all over it.
As long as successive generations buy into the myth that sports=world class, we're looking forward to another 50 years or so of huge public works projects that somehow never deliver what they promise.
- 6,775
bonwich wrote:As long as successive generations buy into the myth that sports=world class, we're looking forward to another 50 years or so of huge public works projects that somehow never deliver what they promise.
Could you at least keep your cynicism in check until after we get a soccer team? After that, be as cynical as you like!
Article from the front page of today's {Friday 5/30/2008} Post Dispatch
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports ... enDocument
The main picture reminded me that Indianapolis has done a pretty poor job of building sports venues and making them last:
Market Square Arena: 1974 to 1999 (25 years)
RCA Dome: 1984 to 2008 (24 years)
Other arenas/stadiums that didn't last long:
Charlotte Coliseum: 1988 to 2005 (17 years)
Omni Arena in Atlanta: 1972 to 1997 (25 years)
Kingdome in Seattle: 1976 to 2000 (24 years)
The Miami Arena: 1988 to 2003 (15 years)
Met Center in Minneapolis: 1967 to 1990 (23 years)
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports ... enDocument
The main picture reminded me that Indianapolis has done a pretty poor job of building sports venues and making them last:
Market Square Arena: 1974 to 1999 (25 years)
RCA Dome: 1984 to 2008 (24 years)
Other arenas/stadiums that didn't last long:
Charlotte Coliseum: 1988 to 2005 (17 years)
Omni Arena in Atlanta: 1972 to 1997 (25 years)
Kingdome in Seattle: 1976 to 2000 (24 years)
The Miami Arena: 1988 to 2003 (15 years)
Met Center in Minneapolis: 1967 to 1990 (23 years)
I'm all for a new mulit-use stadium that has open views to the arch and downtown. Use the Bottle District site. Give downtown back some of it's streetscape the current dome sits on! I don't want to see millions go into improvements for the old dome and then still need to build a new one.
public money going to Zoos, Art museums, or concert/theatre halls?
For some context (rankings from the St. Louis Business Journal):
Although the Art Museum (18th ranked tourist attraction, by attendance), Science Center (10th ranked tourist attraction), History Museum (23rd ranked tourist attraction), Zoo (5th ranked tourist attraction), and Botanical Garden ((12th ranked tourist attraction) are sub-districts of the Zoo-Museum Taxing District, the Symphony is not. Nor, for that matter, is City Museum (14th ranked tourist attraction).
The Rams, FYI, rank 13th.
I would love to see St. Charles county, Jeff county and some of the counties in the Metro East join the Zoo-Museum Taxing District, imagine what could could do with the additional funds!
If AB is able to avoid a takeover, they should celebrate by building a 'Bud Dome' to keep the Rams in St. Louis. I envision a dome that looks like a Bud Light can on its side.
- 10K
JakeKTU wrote:If AB is able to avoid a takeover, they should celebrate by building a 'Bud Dome' to keep the Rams in St. Louis. I envision a dome that looks like a Bud Light can on its side.
It would be a good way to take on debt and make them less attractive to potential buyers.
- 542
The thing about the spectre of the Rams leaving is that there is really one (LA) or there are possibly two (LA, Toronto) markets that can sensibly absorb an NFL team. And Toronto really only gets brought up as an option for the Buffalo Bills. I think we're afraid of LA becuase that's where the Rams were before.
So consolation for Rams fans lies in that there are other franchises that have no business being where they are, starting with the Jaguars and the Saints.
Would multiple teams relocate after the LA slot gets filled? I doubt it. Where? Vegas? The league wants to avoid LV for reasons of appearance irrespective of whether that's well-founded or not. Salt Lake is too small. San Antonio couldn't lure the Saints a while back. Portland doesn't seem ike the sort of place that's going to pony up for a $1B football stadium. Memphis is too close to Nashville and also can barely support the Grizzlies. I think I've heard talk about the league and Mexico City, but who knows.
I think that the "buy us a new publicly-funded stadium or we'll move" ploy worked better when the league was smaller. There just aren't a lot of markets outside LA poised to absorb the 6 or 8 teams you hear moving rumors about.
So consolation for Rams fans lies in that there are other franchises that have no business being where they are, starting with the Jaguars and the Saints.
Would multiple teams relocate after the LA slot gets filled? I doubt it. Where? Vegas? The league wants to avoid LV for reasons of appearance irrespective of whether that's well-founded or not. Salt Lake is too small. San Antonio couldn't lure the Saints a while back. Portland doesn't seem ike the sort of place that's going to pony up for a $1B football stadium. Memphis is too close to Nashville and also can barely support the Grizzlies. I think I've heard talk about the league and Mexico City, but who knows.
I think that the "buy us a new publicly-funded stadium or we'll move" ploy worked better when the league was smaller. There just aren't a lot of markets outside LA poised to absorb the 6 or 8 teams you hear moving rumors about.
Some interesting stuff I found on wikipedia.
Apparently the Redskins aren't happy about FedEx field, which opened in 1997, and are talking about moving to a domed stadium located where RFK Stadium is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedExField
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfk_stadium
Apparently the Redskins aren't happy about FedEx field, which opened in 1997, and are talking about moving to a domed stadium located where RFK Stadium is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedExField
Many fans feel FedEx Field does not compare favorably with RFK Stadium; Sports Illustrated's rankings of "NFL Fan Value Experience" rated FedEx Field 28th out of 32 NFL stadiums.[3] In January 2007, the Washington Post reported that Redskins owner Dan Snyder was meeting with Washington D.C. officials about building a new stadium to return the team to the capital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfk_stadium
Site future
On November 15, 2006, local news outlets reported preliminary, informal talks between members of the government of the District of Columbia and Redskins owner Daniel Snyder about tearing down RFK Stadium and building the Redskins a new domed stadium on the site after the Nationals and D.C. United move to new stadiums in the city in 2008 and 2010 respectively. Reports say that Snyder would sell off the FedExField site and use that money to build the new stadium which would seat between 90,000 and 100,000 fans.[1] Mayor Adrian Fenty has stated he is preparing a written proposal to the Redskins ownership to bring the team back to the District.
EDIT:
There is a good post and comments over at
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/?p=3567
After reading, I could accept the fact the the current dome is a failure simple for the fact that it is a FOOTBALL stadium. If it were a basketball stadium then it can work.
I would love to see a new stadium build on the EAST Side. As one commenter said: "Great views of the city" and if people are paying a minimum of $80 a ticket per game... most want to do something other than park and walk in a dome. And i guess that is why tailgating is so popular.
But, maybe a retractable roof could spur a turnaround. That is why I live 2 blocks from the dome, and DONT go to any games. I dont need to be stuffed inside without seeing any sky while watching footbal!?
There is a good post and comments over at
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/?p=3567
After reading, I could accept the fact the the current dome is a failure simple for the fact that it is a FOOTBALL stadium. If it were a basketball stadium then it can work.
I would love to see a new stadium build on the EAST Side. As one commenter said: "Great views of the city" and if people are paying a minimum of $80 a ticket per game... most want to do something other than park and walk in a dome. And i guess that is why tailgating is so popular.
But, maybe a retractable roof could spur a turnaround. That is why I live 2 blocks from the dome, and DONT go to any games. I dont need to be stuffed inside without seeing any sky while watching footbal!?
As a city supporter, a new stadium with great views of the city, etc would be cool, but as a sports supporter I still don't get the bad rap the dome gets. I seems the disdain for the Dome is just displaced disdain for the team. I've been going to Rams' games since 95 and I don't see how the stadium detracts from watching football. It may not be as pretty, but a true fan shouldn't care.
To the above post, it sounds like you don't go to games because you are not interested in football or the Rams, not because you don't like the dome. If the Cards played at Affton Atheletic Association I bet people would still go watch. Not for venue but because they are fans.
To the above post, it sounds like you don't go to games because you are not interested in football or the Rams, not because you don't like the dome. If the Cards played at Affton Atheletic Association I bet people would still go watch. Not for venue but because they are fans.
- 6,775
Blzhrpmd2 wrote:As a city supporter, a new stadium with great views of the city, etc would be cool, but as a sports supporter I still don't get the bad rap the dome gets. I seems the disdain for the Dome is just displaced disdain for the team. I've been going to Rams' games since 95 and I don't see how the stadium detracts from watching football. It may not be as pretty, but a true fan shouldn't care.
To the above post, it sounds like you don't go to games because you are not interested in football or the Rams, not because you don't like the dome. If the Cards played at Affton Atheletic Association I bet people would still go watch. Not for venue but because they are fans.
For me, it has nothing to do with the game or the team. It's just that the dome is so dark and dreary. It feels like you are watching in someones poorly lit basement rec room.
On a bright, sunny, 50 degree autumn day, it feels like you are stuck inside, because your mom won't let you go out and play.
Blzhrpmd2 wrote:
To the above post, it sounds like you don't go to games because you are not interested in football or the Rams, not because you don't like the dome. If the Cards played at Affton Atheletic Association I bet people would still go watch. Not for venue but because they are fans.
No, I grew up going to the Jets Games every year at the Meadowlands. It was an experience to go every time. Tailgating, parking lot football, being in the stadium when it was hot (beginning of season) then when it was blistering cold (end of season). All of it added to the value of the ticket.
Being an inside dome with no outside activities... i feel like i am getting ripped off on my ticket price. Overall, it just cant compare.
O yea, and it is VERY dreary in that dome.
My first pro football game was the Vikings vs 49ers at the old Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington MN. Early December, sunny sky but about 2 foot of fresh snow on the ground and a strong wind roaring out of the north.
I was 7 and wore my snowmobile suit. Took my thermos of hot chocolate but couldn't understand why I could have any of the "Jack" my dad and uncle were drinking. It was cold as hell and Vikings barely won, but it was a great time.
Like I've said before: football should be played on Gods green grass and under His blue sky.
I was 7 and wore my snowmobile suit. Took my thermos of hot chocolate but couldn't understand why I could have any of the "Jack" my dad and uncle were drinking. It was cold as hell and Vikings barely won, but it was a great time.
Like I've said before: football should be played on Gods green grass and under His blue sky.
Somewhat OT: The NY Yankess are about 1/2 done with their new stadium and are just now asking for $400 million in public money.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 5331.story
So what can they threaten to do? Move to San Antonio and leave one 35 year old stadium and a half finished new stadium in the Bronx?
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 5331.story
So what can they threaten to do? Move to San Antonio and leave one 35 year old stadium and a half finished new stadium in the Bronx?
Put the stadium on the east side or inner suburbia. We don't need this ugly bastard downtown, nor do we need parking lots of tailgating hoosiers.
- 10K
I think the Busch family should buy the Rams after the InBev deal goes through. They'll have a little money to burn at that point.
- 6,775
DeBaliviere wrote:I think the Busch family should buy the Rams after the InBev deal goes through. They'll have a little money to burn at that point.
I have this thought in the back of my head, wondering if they would start a brewery?
^ Why not buy out the guys trying to rebuild Lemp as a local beer? Oh the irony.
- 52
They should buy the team now as a defense against the InBev pursuit.
Heads would explode...it would be funny to watch.
Heads would explode...it would be funny to watch.