urbanSTL

Kevin B wrote:I think there's reasonable cause to upgrade the Convention Center even without a football team, what with that 5-6 month gap for football no longer an issue, they could turn the place into a legitimate, large-scale convention space.

Did you know that America's Center just completed a $48million renovation?


http://explorestlouis.com/meetings-conv ... novations/

Projects completed in Phase 1 include:

Plant and operating improvements
Roof replacement
New escalators and upgraded elevators
Fire safety improvements and new security cameras
Interior finishes upgrades
Installation of more than 700 new signs
Restroom renovations
Kitchen renovations
Phase 2 of the renovations are now underway and scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012.

Projects in Phase 2 include:

HVAC & Lighting system improvements
Emergency power system upgrade
Ballroom renovations
Exhibit hall improvements
Upgrades to waste management system
Overhead and man door replacement and improvements
Utility improvements and floor sealing in the exhibit halls.

As we've all heard the Rams state, they want a facility that can attract NCAA tournaments, Olympic trials, etc. I don't see how the Fenton sight is conducive to that. Its miles from available hotel and retail space. I can see why they may want the Bottle District. Downtown is where everything is.

Does Bottle District provide enough space to include a stadium and sea of surface parking?

Does 22nd Street interchange?

pat wrote:As we've all heard the Rams state, they want a facility that can attract NCAA tournaments, Olympic trials, etc. I don't see how the Fenton sight is conducive to that. Its miles from available hotel and retail space.

Finally, someone is paying attention.

jakektu wrote:Does Bottle District provide enough space to include a stadium and sea of surface parking?

Does 22nd Street interchange?

Depend on your definition of "sea". BD is about 17 acres.

22nd interchange - 30+ acres.

And with an NFL stadium, I would think that, just the stadium would need at least 15 acres.

moorlander wrote:

Kevin B wrote:I think there's reasonable cause to upgrade the Convention Center even without a football team, what with that 5-6 month gap for football no longer an issue, they could turn the place into a legitimate, large-scale convention space.

Did you know that America's Center just completed a $48million renovation?


http://explorestlouis.com/meetings-conv ... novations/

Sorry -- I said "Convention Center" but I meant the Edward Jones Dome.

In their original plan presented to the Rams, the CVC came up with a total investment of $124 million, with the CVC bucking up just a shade under half that at $59.52 million.

Without a football team, you can knock out Baer Plaza, ditch the humongous new video screen and scrap other football "essentials" as well. Add in that a large amount of the cost (from the attached financial plan in the link) is associated with building out/improving private suites and lounges, and suddenly the price for a more visually-pleasing/open downtown events space is quickly approaching the ~$60 million CVC was willing to invest in the upgrades.

And I really don't want to see a new Bottle District stadium with team-controlled parking lots/garages surrounding it...

The more I think about it, the more it seems like the Bottle District may be a defacto option for the Rams. Its downtown and close to everything (hotels, retail, night life, highways, etc.). Its under the control of McKee who I'm sure would leap at the chance to get a huge developer for his long-stalled project. It a bare, open-space black eye for a city that would love to keep the Rams and tends to cater to its largest corporate citizens.

There's a long way to go, but say they do build a new stadium and it ends up at the Bottle District. What would be the best design for it?

Is there any way they could build it there and have it be good for an urban environment?

pat wrote:The more I think about it, the more it seems like the Bottle District may be a defacto option for the Rams. Its downtown and close to everything (hotels, retail, night life, highways, etc.). Its under the control of McKee who I'm sure would leap at the chance to get a huge developer for his long-stalled project. It a bare, open-space black eye for a city that would love to keep the Rams and tends to cater to its largest corporate citizens.

There's a long way to go, but say they do build a new stadium and it ends up at the Bottle District. What would be the best design for it?

Is there any way they could build it there and have it be good for an urban environment?

Therein lies the problem. In order for a stadium to succeed in a downtown setting, it has to embrace the neighborhoods in which it exists. Busch Stadium hasn't even been able to do that after 50 years; it's doubly difficult for a football stadium where pre-game ritual (tailgating/barbecuing) is so embedded in the culture.

For it to even attempt to be a positive for the urban environment, Kroenke would have to lead the effort (and succeed) in getting the elevated lanes removed and replaced with a street-level boulevard stretching from Poplar to Cass. And it couldn't use the remaining space for parking lots and garages (which goes against ownerships's goals). Right now you've got a massive superblock (the existing 12 blocks of the EJD and Convention Center) which is only really active 8-days a year for football. Oh, and there'd be no opportunity for new business/residential adjacent to the stadium either -- unless, again, Rams ownership opted to do it.

Even if the Rams did successfully push for a new boulevard, that's basically 6 N-S blocks of blank walls, limited activity and extremely specialized use. So in a word, no -- try as they might, they cannot create a football stadium at the Bottle District that meets the Rams goals and simultaneously improves the urban environment.

Why is everyone so glued with the Bottle District site?



I propose a new site, 47 acres (13 acres for new Stadium) bounded by Carr Street/Laclede's Landing to the south, Interstate 44/70 Viaduct to the west, Cotton Belt and Power Station buildings to the east, and Cass Ave to the north:










And behold the proposed Dome on the Landing - a entertainment/mixed-use district extension of Laclede's Landing:







Stan, I'm waiting by the phone...

I like the Landing option.

But so im clear, I'd rather the EJ dome renovated.

stlien wrote:

jakektu wrote:Does Bottle District provide enough space to include a stadium and sea of surface parking?

Does 22nd Street interchange?

Depend on your definition of "sea". BD is about 17 acres.

22nd interchange - 30+ acres.

And with an NFL stadium, I would think that, just the stadium would need at least 15 acres.

top 5 in parking meaning at least 15,000 parking spaces. That'll be the gripe you hear from PSL holders, and fans faced with a tax increase on their tickets, if we're building a new stadium. They'll get over it, but that's what fans want.

stlien wrote:I like the Landing option.

But so im clear, I'd rather the EJ dome renovated.

Geoffksu, share Stlien's sentiments on your idea. However, got a few changes for your proposal that would change my mind about a renovated EJ being the first option.

1) Keep stadium location as is but go open air
2) Tear down raised section of I-70 and put in blvd
3) Scale down the entertainmnet and move into Bottlework District mixed use proposal, maybe the scaled down entertainment section could be a nice restaraunt/bar row woven into the mid rise residential/street level retail but facing the stadium with wide, open air cafe sidewalks.

I think your idea for the stadium placement is great but the entertainment complex is another BPV in the making. At the same time, your site offers a mass of parking/tailgating grounds between the stadium and river as well as to the north that gives something that a lot of the NFL teams desires, control of the parking/tailgating revenue. You can also incorporate some river trail improvements leading to that new beach just to the south (parking lot given to great river greenways by Pinnacle).

In other words, your proposal with some tweaking offers the best of several things -
1) New open air stadium for Rams that stays in the City, a desireable out for the CVC but a viable proposal from the city.
2) An area that offers land to Rams for desireable parking/tailgating revenue, pretty much takes away the only desireable reason for why the Rams would want to go to Fenton or Maryland Heights
3) Gets crowds closer to river, the right improvements offer some pretty good connections to Lacleade Landing, Arch Grounds, and so on
4) Opens the door for a very strong reason why leadership should see the rasied section of I-70 go.
5) Bottelworks would fit nicely for anyone who wants a great location the includes Wash Ave/Convention Center, Lacledes and a casino, football stadium and Arch Grounds as well as easy connetions to a great trail system. Throw in some legitimate developements that Stan K development company could get his hands into from THF partnering on Bottleworks, THF reviving Pinnacle Phase II plan, to THF talking to Drury Inn on its Wash Ave idea being floated.

Pruitt–Igoe is interesting but its too far from the urban core to be truly "downtown" (lacks the 'urban benefits' visitors demand as it's over a mile from hotels and metrolink). The site is also too to urban to offer the suburban amenities that Maryland Heights or Fenton offer (highway access, 200 acres of land, proximity to most PSL holders).
Laclede's Landing is a dream in the sense that it COULD signify the death of I-70 elevated lanes, and BD could fill in that vacant ugly hole. However I don't like the idea of either as those areas should be for urban development ... not more super blocks. I dream of the Daniel Libeskind bottle district... and north of Lumiere being high rise condo towers overlooking the river or an urban corporate campus. A football stadium at either location would kill any chance of downtown extending north.

Yearly parking revenues at a place like KCs Arrowhead amounts to less than Brandford's salary... I don't think its as much an issue as overall control of the venue. Even thus, its going to be a problem acquiring real estate downtown at a price stan is comfortable ... he is going to the county (I'd bet MH... as its a green field and there is less retail build out in that part of the metro). I would love to see a "sports complex" build on the site - including a MLS soccer specific stadium.
Any plans should include a rail component. Fenton is adjacent to the proposed Eureka Pacific commuter rail line. Maryland Heights could be connected to metrolink by extending the red line from the airport to earth city. Laclede's Landing could be a northern anchor to a Downtown streetcar.

We can top this.

Or we can tear up more of downtown for parking instead of highrise condos. Or we can extend the metrolink to maryland heights and postpone a north-south line. Or we can send the Rams to Fenton and try to explain why we built a stadium all the way out there away from hotels and transit and nightlife when we're bidding for the 2024 Olympics.


And we can top this.


Or we can just continue with more of this.

stlien wrote:I like the Landing option.

But so im clear, I'd rather the EJ dome renovated.

Would the CVC ever commit to any major renovations that would threaten convention business over the next couple years.

That's why I think a new stadium is more likely. The CVC can't afford the renovations needed for the Rams. And where do the Rams play for the next few years? They'd rather play out the time in the dome while a new stadium is being built. Just makes more sense

Give Stan the 22nd street land for new stadium and parking (and MLS?).

Bottle District and Landing are too close to existing Dome and CBD. Those sites should be available for better more dense future development.

If a new stadium was built on the bottle district site I'd think having the dome and convention center next door would be a big selling point for a Super Bowl bid.

9 stadiums have opened since 2002.
1 is in the CBD (Ford Field in Detroit - and on the outskirts);
2 are near, but not IN, their respective CBDs (CenturyLink Field in Seattle and Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy);
2 are located within the city limits away from the CDB – at/near the end of a mass transit line (Reliant Stadium in Houston and Lincoln Financial Field in Philly);
4 are not even in their "Namesake" Cities (MetLife not in New York, Cowboys not in Dallas, University of Phoenix not in Phoenix, and Gillette not in Boston).

For one reason or another, most new stadiums aren’t downtown. As I see it: Baseball stadiums work downtown (to a degree), as do arenas. Football Stadiums don’t. Convert the existing dome into an extension of the convention center which happens to have 30,000 seats for ‘various’ events like motocross etc (as opposed to what it is now - a separate facility which happens to have a common door/tunnel). Build the new stadium where they work best – middle of a parking lot next to a highway. Add rail service, a hotel or two and various other amenities to the site. Stan is happy, the region keeps the rams and downtown isn't choked off a its northern end.

^ 22nd street interchange is next to a highway with plenty of room for parking, existing rail service, easy access to downtown hotels and amenities

^Some justification behind spending $10 million more on highway improvements; behind getting rid of the awkward suburban style 22nd street interchange (at least in my mind) was to bring the area more 'urban form' (re-establish city grid, open up urban development opportunities etc). What’s the point of redoing the intersection to get surface lots and super blocks? Stan would still probably demand large scale interchange to get his new football stadium there… so really I don’t see any net gain. You're still cutting off and suburbanizing downtown. If something doesn't work downtown, don't put it downtown... football stadiums surrounded by surface lots don't belong downtown. I'd rather not spend the money on the 22nd street interchange unless there is a benefit (and just getting rid of it for the sake of getting rid of it is not a benefit).