I want to make my position on paying for enhancements to the Dome clear: new local public dollars spent to make the facility “top tier” will be subject to the prior vote of the people. If the CVC gets an agreement with the Rams, YOU will get the final say.
I want to make my position on paying for enhancements to the Dome clear: new local public dollars spent to make the facility “top tier” will be subject to the prior vote of the people. If the CVC gets an agreement with the Rams, YOU will get the final say.
The real question is whether the City foregoing the Amusement Tax (this is how the new Busch Stadium was largely paid for), would meet the Mayor's criteria for a vote. I doubt it.
Here's the plan for the new stadium as presented to the Rams today.
Some Highlights-
Cost: 120 million dollars (The St. Louis Rams would foot 52% of the bill)
• Build a new, three-story structure on Baer Plaza that would be connected to the Dome via a bridge over Broadway. It would include a 20,000 square-foot lobby, a rooftop beer garden and a new entrance for fans headed to Dome's club seats and luxury suites.
• Install large glazed window panels that would allow more natural light inside the Dome, which critics have complained is too dark.
• Replace about 1,800 existing seats and four suites with 1,500 new club seats.
• Put retractable bollards on Broadway that would let CVC shut down the street to vehicle traffic and making it safer for fans to enter and leave the Dome. The CVC said this change also would address NFL concerns that the milling crowds outside of the Dome could be a terrorist target.
Also in the plan are aesthetic improvements to entrances, stairwells and corridors; updated locker rooms for cheerleaders and officials, and the replacing the Dome's outdoor smoking area with a plaza that CVC President Kathleen "Kitty" Ratcliffe described as "kind of a tailgate area without the cars."
First impression, its within the realm of doable and affordable. Expecting Rams to get a little bit more out of it at the end of the day. I also don't think a new stadium in St. Louis really gives Stan K a whole lot more revenue then what an upgraded stadium gives him. In that end, doubt he will demand anything beyond what the lease requires if Rams are to stay in St. Louis
Second impression, here is another squandered chance to turn I-70 into an at grade Boulevard or at least the portion from Washington Ave to the new Mississippi Bridge (already given up on Arch Grounds in the foreseeable future). That would do so much more to enhance things then closing N. Broadway down during game time. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence in that CVC, Stan K, McKee (Bottleworks) and Pinnacle will sit down anytime soon and realize what development potential their is if I-70 was removed between the respective properties/development.
On side note and pure speculation, do you think McKee is talking to THF - Stan K's development company in regards to Bottleworks? Do you think McKee is going to talk about RAMS lease tomorrow night? I would be pursuing that conversation if I was McKee.
ttricamo wrote:^agreed. I hope its "stay". Was anyone aware that the state, the city, and the county still pay upwards of $24M per year for the Dome?
[NOTE: I wrote this draft at lunch today and posted it this evening before I saw the links to what the CVC proposed. They nearly stole my idea for glass windows at the top of the dome, before I had it.]
Yeah, but at $280 million, that seems like we got quite a bit of stadium, compared to the one in Indy for $720 Million. They don't look that different, except for an opening lid and a big window on the end. Pretty expensive doors and windows.
I recall when the EJD was built, the entire dome roof sat on a few temporary towers that rose from the field area. The walls and seating were built separately. When the walls were complete, they lowered the dome down onto the outer walls and removed the temporary towers.
What if we put the towers back temporarily, unhook the dome roof from the walls, and jacked it up about another 40 more feet. Then put new 40 foot vertical beams between the top of the walls and the raised dome roof, lower the roof onto them, take out the temporary towers, and put windows all the way around between the beams and the dome bottom. (I'm sure architects are chuckling at my naivete.)
That wouldn't cost more than what Stan has hiding in his sofa right now, right?
^ I love it. From the images, the windows with natural light would be quite small. I also think it must be possible to replace the actual surface of the dome with a translucent material. I grew up going to games in the Hoosier/RCA Dome and that fabric let a lot of light in.
Why should taxpayers fund this project? They play what 7 games a year and they are horrible.
That being said I was in New Orleans when the Saints won the Superbowl. People were really happy especially considering the Saints were a horrible franchise forever. It was the right time for the win considering Katrina. I suppose if we knew for certain they would win within the next few years then it could be worth it at least for our sense of pride. But don't think that these events are good for our economic development. Will we be hosting bowls year round at the EDJ after this upgrade? New Orleans spent a lot upgrading the Superdome because their team now wins and because they host a lot of events at that facility -- including things like the Essence Music Festival. As I recall currently the EDJ is one of the worst places to watch a football game. So what do people think?
This is hard to explain. You are either in the camp that says "Football does nothing advantageous for the city, etc, it doesn't matter if we have a team or not" or "Football places you in a social tier as a city which is important to maintain due to the nation's perception of the game and its societal importance."
I do not believe that football makes or breaks our city (especially given their complete inneptitude for the majority of their time here), but I don't think we can afford to lose them on a national level.
Remember, it is as much about what other people think as what we think (unfortunately). In order to keep "top tier" status, we need to invest in the things required to do so. It would be great if that wasn't the case, but it is and at this point you may as well get it done with and move on to creating a great sport culture around the Rams. (Like we do with the Cards and Blues)
No one moved here for the Rams or the Cardinals. Buffalo has a team and so does Detroit. I don't think you can argue that having a team helped those cities grow because they are declining as St. Louis is as well. But are their stadiums good enough that they host other events that would have otherwise been in other cities with better stadiums? It seams that in New Orleans, from anecdotal experience, the Superdome is a part of their tourism strategy.
I am asking from a design standpoint if we spend a lot of money can we host college bowl events and stuff -- concerts and things -- at the EDJ? It's horrible now but can it be fixed? I have never been in the stadium. I don't watch football.
If we upgraded the stadium, the Rams started winning, and we hosted a lot of other events that couldn't have otherwise been at other local St. Louis venues then I think this could be a good idea. But that depends upon a cost benefit analysis which I am sure the public will never be able to view.
I like the plan too. I don't want to give this board all the credit, but we have been pointing out on this board for some time that a 26' high hanging video screen would work in the dome and hang no lower than the one that was then planned for Dallas. I even sent a note to CVC hoping they would consider it many years ago after seeing what Dallas was planning. We could have been the first stadium with a center hanging video screen even before Dallas. So I'm thrilled that they are proposing a 26' high screen hanging from the dome ceiling now.
Here is one of my earlier posts suggesting this from back in 2006.
And a more recent one with a list of things I'd like to see, some of which line up with the CVC list. I guess I don't get the sky bar with the glass floor over the field until 2025. Oh well. That would put us in the top of the top tier.
doug wrote:Why should taxpayers fund this project? They play what 7 games a year and they are horrible.
That being said I was in New Orleans when the Saints won the Superbowl. People were really happy especially considering the Saints were a horrible franchise forever. It was the right time for the win considering Katrina. I suppose if we knew for certain they would win within the next few years then it could be worth it at least for our sense of pride. But don't think that these events are good for our economic development. Will we be hosting bowls year round at the EDJ after this upgrade? New Orleans spent a lot upgrading the Superdome because their team now wins and because they host a lot of events at that facility -- including things like the Essence Music Festival. As I recall currently the EDJ is one of the worst places to watch a football game. So what do people think?
Drove by Superdome last week at night (before giving my keys over to the hotel valet and hitting the Quarters). The lighting they done on the outside is pretty impressive considering the structure was looking down and out even before Katrina. Especially if you don't mind the car emblem on one side of superdome.
But can't imagine they spent much more that what is being proposed for EDJ nor do I think it is a bad idea for the CVC propose what it did. With a few more dollars and creativity you could do better job modifying the roof. At the end of the day, I think New Orleans got a lot better deal then Indy did.
Sorry Count, would rather see McKee propose a mixed use development and I-70 raised section torn down before seeing a retractable roof come into play. Plenty of parking to be had and some creativity use could expand the convention center without another super block building/garage.
^^^I did not say anywhere in what I wrote that people move or would move here specifically for the Cardinals or Rams.
I said it affects the perception of our city on a national level. Which losing the team WOULD affect. I don't think you can discount this factor when discussing the dome and the team. If you write this off automatically I think you are foolish.
^ I think the question is what does this "perception of our city on a national level" mean? If it doesn't mean that the economy expands, if it doesn't mean that people move here...well, what does it mean? What is it worth? People keep saying it matters what others think of us (STL), but if it's not jobs, people or money, then it would appear to really only matter to us what others think of us. I'm missing something.
For the record. I want the Rams to stay. I only think that the question of how much we're each expected to pay (me, my wife, each of my kids, my retired neighbors, etc.) to keep them here. The City and County already pay $6M/year each. The State pays $12M - of our money. It doesn't make me mad or anything, I just want a conversation of what it's worth and why.
People already think we are the most dangerous city. Screw perception. Show me the money. We should know if these upgrades will make it rain in St. Louis. Will we get stuff we couldn't before: new tourism.
The economics are extremely hard to quantify, which is why most people including myself probably refer back to the issue of perception.
How do you economically qualify momentum? How do you economically qualify the pride the city gets in a team? How many years down the line does this economic benefit extend? What happens if companies move here 50 years from now for numerous reasons, but one of which is the fact that they can entertain clients at their suite at whatever stadium the Rams use 50 years from now? What is the economic qualification of having a team with a storied history (like the Steelers) if the team succeeds in building such a history down the line?
Do we want to lose an asset (of any economic quality) with the chance of never getting it back when we have the chance to keep it at the lowest cost? These things only get more expensive and attempting to get this again down the line (for a third time) will be exponentially more expensive. And make no mistake, if we do grow as we all hope and get to be a much bigger city, the NFL will be something that people want and demand.
You quantify momentum and pride with jobs, income, increased tax base...
I don't know about 50 years, but the team's been here for 15 - any news that a company moved here even in part because of the Rams?
IMO - everyone misses how much this costs the community. It's currently an up-front subsidy of $24M per year. I think having an NFL team is great. I also think that those who want it should pay for it. And the money individuals spend on game tickets, that corporations spend on advertising? Those expenses simply go elsewhere in the community. Money spent on the Rams is spent in lieu of other things. Having an NFL team does not increase the amount of spending in a community.
If we spent 24 million a year for 15 years -- that would be a pretty significant payment on some great public transportation. Or a lot of bike lanes. A rehabbed Arcade, Chemical Building. We could do a lot with 24 million in taxpayer funding each year. The building at 1015 Locust was on EBay for what 1.5-2 million?
Alex Ihnen wrote:You quantify momentum and pride with jobs, income, increased tax base...
I don't know about 50 years, but the team's been here for 15 - any news that a company moved here even in part because of the Rams?
IMO - everyone misses how much this costs the community. It's currently an up-front subsidy of $24M per year. I think having an NFL team is great. I also think that those who want it should pay for it. And the money individuals spend on game tickets, that corporations spend on advertising? Those expenses simply go elsewhere in the community. Money spent on the Rams is spent in lieu of other things. Having an NFL team does not increase the amount of spending in a community.
What about the people who visit St. Louis to go to the NFL games? The people who would visit us to go to another NCAA Final Four? A superbowl????
Without a team, who's going to visit us again? What, are we going to book another robotics convention? A monster-truck ralley?
It's a FOOTBALL STADIUM. We need a football team to play there.
FYI: the robotics competition brought 15,000 participants (likely more people with parents/etc. tagging along) to St. Louis for almost a week. The impact of that event was much greater than that of an NFL game.
doug wrote:If we spent 24 million a year for 15 years -- that would be a pretty significant payment on some great public transportation. Or a lot of bike lanes. A rehabbed Arcade, Chemical Building. We could do a lot with 24 million in taxpayer funding each year. The building at 1015 Locust was on EBay for what 1.5-2 million?
I agree with what you are saying in principle. I would love if we funded all the things you listed at a level 4 times what we fund the dome. But isn't this just robbing peter to pay Paul (Besides the transpo example)? This suggests we take funding from one private entity and give it to another. You want the chemical building and arcade building rehabbed (as do i) and other people (many many more, most likely) want the Rams to remain in StL. What exactly is the argument against funding the Rams here? That you personally think the money should go to other private interest projects that you support? (once again with the exception of your transpo example.)
Regarding transpo, what are the times you see the metro-link in highest use? Immediately before and after Cardinals games. Just saying.
Alex Ihnen wrote:You quantify momentum and pride with jobs, income, increased tax base...
I don't know about 50 years, but the team's been here for 15 - any news that a company moved here even in part because of the Rams?
IMO - everyone misses how much this costs the community. It's currently an up-front subsidy of $24M per year. I think having an NFL team is great. I also think that those who want it should pay for it. And the money individuals spend on game tickets, that corporations spend on advertising? Those expenses simply go elsewhere in the community. Money spent on the Rams is spent in lieu of other things. Having an NFL team does not increase the amount of spending in a community.
My point is not that any company would ever say even at a small level "We are moving to StL because they have the Rams!" - that would be asinine. Coming out and saying a company is moving somewhere due to even in part a sports team would most certainly draw scruitiny. But would a company move to St. Louis over Memphis because ONE piece of the larger puzzle is that they have the option to entertain clients and company employees in a suite at an NFL venue? Possibly even though no one is actually saying it, and I prefer to not take that option off the table.
doug wrote:If we spent 24 million a year for 15 years -- that would be a pretty significant payment on some great public transportation. Or a lot of bike lanes. A rehabbed Arcade, Chemical Building. We could do a lot with 24 million in taxpayer funding each year. The building at 1015 Locust was on EBay for what 1.5-2 million?
I agree with what you are saying in principle. I would love if we funded all the things you listed at a level 4 times what we fund the dome. But isn't this just robbing peter to pay Paul (Besides the transpo example)? This suggests we take funding from one private entity and give it to another. You want the chemical building and arcade building rehabbed (as do i) and other people (many many more, most likely) want the Rams to remain in StL. What exactly is the argument against funding the Rams here? That you personally think the money should go to other private interest projects that you support? (once again with the exception of your transpo example.)
Regarding transpo, what are the times you see the metro-link in highest use? Immediately before and after Cardinals games. Just saying.
The argument is that funding a rehabbed Arcade, Chemical Building, etc. would have a much more significant positive economic impact on the city and region than funding an NFL team.
Regarding corporate relocation, you seem to be saying that of course we'll never know if it plays any role whatsoever and no corporation will ever say so even if it's true, but it's possible, so that's good enough? I just disagree. St. Louis isn't dead without the Rams. If it were the only pro sports game in town? That would be more of an argument. You're talking about entertaining 8 (now 7) days a year.
^Based on what metrics? To me this seems to have the same holes you point out regarding funding the rams.
Companies and residents would locate there? Maybe. Do you have a gaurantee? No, otherwise these projects would already be moving along.
Don't get me wrong I think those buildings are vital pieces of the puzzle and agree with your assertion that they would make a huge impact on the city, but how can you say with any certainty that this would do any more good than keeping the rams? Those projects would likely cost much more than $124 mil. Also, what about the employees of the Rams organization and the players on the team? There are about 100 players (incl practice squad) in addition to coaching staff, trainers, front office, media, etc that live here SOLELY because of the team's presence. Not saying the $$ the state would spend is worth keeping these ~200 people, but how many units would be in the chemical building? About the same if I had to guess.
Not to mention I would imagine the tax bracket of the Ram's personell is on average much higher than those that would move into this building (from a residential standpoint).
