Mill204 wrote:JJCoolbean wrote:A big outdoor stadium with a grass field would also be great for the next time the USA hosts the World Cup, which is something that should happen within the next 20 years. Also, big soccer matches and even a bowl game could be an option if the stadium is top-notch. The Dome could still be used for college basketball.
Great, but not completely necessary. The
Potiac Silverdome in Detroit hosted some of the 1994 World Cup games despite being a domed stadium: they trucked in and installed a low light growing
natural turf specially for the soccer matches.
My one wish, if a new dome is to be constructed, is that it would be flooded with natural light from every possible angle. I can't count the number of convention centers I've visited that are nothing more than box dungeons with the AC turned way down low. The best convention centers are those that let in an abundance of natural light.
I didn't mean to imply that only non-dome stadiums could host soccer. In the World Cup in Japan there was a stadium which was a dome and, as with the NFL stadium in Arizona, the field was natural grass and slide inside on a large plate. As I understand it, FIFA wasn't thrilled with the Silverdome experience and they are not eager to use such an arrangement with strips of grass laid over artificial turf as happened in Detroit. By the way, the Edward Jones Dome is going to host a USA Womens exhibition match later this year using the Silverdome method. So the dome with stripes of grass method is not entirely dead, at least in the womens game.
My preference for an open-air stadium is that it is cheaper to build than a dome and much cheaper to build than a retractible roof stadium. St. Louis weather isn't any more severe than Chicago, Green Bay, New England, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York and some other teams in the NFL and NCAA that play outdoors in the winter. So, unless there is the possiblility of a Super Bowl or some other reason for the extra cost of the roof, I wouldn't want the extra expense. Plus, the outdoor stadiums are football-specific and have great atmospheres. Just like the Edward Jones Dome, the multi-purpose domes I've been to are like the multi-purpose baseball/football stadiums of the 1960s and 1970s in that they lack the atmosphere of the outdoor, football-specific stadiums. Soccer has the same basic sightlines and requirements and so, if the MLS ever becomes a big deal, it could be home to a St. Louis MLS club. But that is just my opinion.
As for the Edward Jones Dome as a convention center, I agree that it is not ideal. However, I imagine that it would be a hard sell politically to tear it down so soon after it was built. In addition, even though it is not perfect, it still can host events and without football upgrades could be made for convention-specific changes. For instance, your lighting concerns could be addressed. It would be nice to have a better convention center, but it would cost a lot, both in terms of money and political currency, and I'm not sure if it would raise St. Louis' standing in attracting new conventions to the extent that it would be worth it.
Personally, I would rather the convention center and football stadium operate independently. I'd like to see the convention center not have to compete with football over dates. Finally, I like the idea of a future football stadium adding to the number of venues in St. Louis and not just replacing one venue for another.
I find it interesting and sad that since well past the early days of dreaming about the potential of the Bottle District, the Pinnacle Casino d'ment has shot-up and already and changed the skyline of STL before the West Countyfolk had even gotten wind of it even being in the making.. Sure - that's gambling dollars at work for you, but also an example of a "will" and a "way" at work. Obviously, TBD has no will or way at this time.. I pray it all comes out of hibernation very soon....