I believe that over time, with the construction of the New Mississippi River Bridge and an improvement in the broader economies, including real estate development markets, we will see full redevelopment of this site. However, I do not consider the likelihood of this taking place to be anything near the short-term (i.e. within 2009). While I still have my patient and reasonable optimism for the site's build-out, I don't see squat taking place for a good while.
- 11K
What are the chances that this land will be held until the Rams demand a new stadium and then a land swap will take place?
- 549
Grover wrote:What are the chances that this land will be held until the Rams demand a new stadium and then a land swap will take place?
BPV all over again? Damn that'd be awful.
- 11K
^ Would it really? I mean, I don't think it's likely to happen, but a new football stadium would be cool and freeing up land for development adjacent to Washington Ave. instead of being blocked off by the dome would be sweet too. BPV has been frustrating and is ridiculous as it sits, but it was still a good move - IMHO.
^ If the goal is to open up land adjacent to Wash Ave to new development, you might as well just relocate the EJD and the convention center to the Bottle District site. That woud create lots of open space and development opportunties on the northern edge of downtown. Lumiere, I'm sure, would fully support such a plan. Of course, then, what do you do with the Renaissance Grand?
- 549
Grover wrote:^ Would it really? I mean, I don't think it's likely to happen, but a new football stadium would be cool and freeing up land for development adjacent to Washington Ave. instead of being blocked off by the dome would be sweet too. BPV has been frustrating and is ridiculous as it sits, but it was still a good move - IMHO.
On second thought I suppose you're right. I guess I was referring to the potential frustration of such move as being awful, not the idea itself. When (if) a new stadium is built, I hope it's not a dome and that it can have more longevity than the Edward Jones Dome, which in my mind is horrid. Football should NOT be played in a dome on artificial turf.
I think we can put this thread in time capsule and open it in 2015 to see what the real fate of this project is. The PD had a great commentary on the Edward Jones Dome yesterday. Essentially the Ram's lease is wide open in 2015.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
In my mind, it boils down to the fact that Bottle Disrict is a continuous piece of property that can support a new stadium in which its owners include Clayco Principals and the new MRB will be in place.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
In my mind, it boils down to the fact that Bottle Disrict is a continuous piece of property that can support a new stadium in which its owners include Clayco Principals and the new MRB will be in place.
- 1,364
We're gonna have to build a new stadium to keep the Rams here. At least there would be some development there, and then do something with the Edward Jones Dome land. The only other basically-empty tract of land I can think of in the city that would be large enough for the dome would be pruitt-Igoe and that's the "scary part of town" and there's no MetroLink service there.
We're gonna have to build a new Ram's stadium eventually. Might as well building it in the Bottle District which is never going to develop.
We're gonna have to build a new Ram's stadium eventually. Might as well building it in the Bottle District which is never going to develop.
Build the new Rams stadium on the BD site and cede the EJD to the CVC because they are always complaining about not having enough convention space to attract the larger conventions. Remove the seats from the dome and place 4 levels of convention space, the escalators are already in place. This would put us on par with many of the larger convention centers in the country.
Also having the new football stadium slightly further north could really spark north broadway revitalization IMO.
Also having the new football stadium slightly further north could really spark north broadway revitalization IMO.
what are you guys smoking? the days of public money being put out for stadiums, especially in STL and/or Missouri are OVER! If the Rams or any team for that matter wants a new stadium, I'm afraid they will have to build it themselves. Much like the Cardinals had to.!
- 3,235
Some Bottle District News. Probably means nothing in terms of anything happening soon.
ST. LOUIS (KMOX) –An attorney for a landowner whose entire city block north of the Edward Jones Dome was seized by eminent domain to create the Bottle District says his client has now been paid a multi-million dollar settlement.
Attorney Robert Denlow says the city of St. Louis and Clayco Construction have now paid a settlement ordered by a jury, plus interest, totalling $3.5 million
http://kmox.cbslocal.com/2010/07/22/bot ... his-money/
ST. LOUIS (KMOX) –An attorney for a landowner whose entire city block north of the Edward Jones Dome was seized by eminent domain to create the Bottle District says his client has now been paid a multi-million dollar settlement.
Attorney Robert Denlow says the city of St. Louis and Clayco Construction have now paid a settlement ordered by a jury, plus interest, totalling $3.5 million
http://kmox.cbslocal.com/2010/07/22/bot ... his-money/
- 11K
A really big box store would fit nicely here (not that it's the right thing to do).
Maybe a super center after they rename Edwards Dome to Walmart Field.
Actually, fearful that you might be right. It will be an ideal location now that the New Mississippi River Bridge broke ground. Easy Freeway access, big empty lot under one ownership with little or no demolition cost, and a city anxious for anything to be built to make up President Casino's loss revenue as well as jobs on the north side of downtown.
Actually, fearful that you might be right. It will be an ideal location now that the New Mississippi River Bridge broke ground. Easy Freeway access, big empty lot under one ownership with little or no demolition cost, and a city anxious for anything to be built to make up President Casino's loss revenue as well as jobs on the north side of downtown.
- 66
It'll be interesting to see what happens in this area of town over the next few years. The Rams will either renovate their stadium, move to another spot in town, or move out of town.
If the Rams decide to renovate the stadium, the surrounding area may get a lift as well, but there's no guarantee in that. I must say, though, that a large piece of unbuilt land between a newly renovated NFL stadium and recently built casino would sound appealing to investors.
But if the Rams decide to move out into the county, or into the Metro East, a ton of land opens up for DT St. Louis. If utilized to its fullest potential, the new land, coupled with the "Bottle District land," could be used for future high-rises and entertainment districts. That, or it could be used to serve as another lengthy sore-spot in St. Louis' downtown before succumbing to some underwhelming project.
So, which would you prefer -- the Rams remain in DT, or move elsewhere within the region?
For me, keeping the Rams in St. Louis is important, but keeping them in downtown isn't. I think I'd rather have the land to work with.
If the Rams decide to renovate the stadium, the surrounding area may get a lift as well, but there's no guarantee in that. I must say, though, that a large piece of unbuilt land between a newly renovated NFL stadium and recently built casino would sound appealing to investors.
But if the Rams decide to move out into the county, or into the Metro East, a ton of land opens up for DT St. Louis. If utilized to its fullest potential, the new land, coupled with the "Bottle District land," could be used for future high-rises and entertainment districts. That, or it could be used to serve as another lengthy sore-spot in St. Louis' downtown before succumbing to some underwhelming project.
So, which would you prefer -- the Rams remain in DT, or move elsewhere within the region?
For me, keeping the Rams in St. Louis is important, but keeping them in downtown isn't. I think I'd rather have the land to work with.
- 712
Either way more of the street grid needs to be restored. It takes a long time to walk around the convention center and stadium. Between the superblock and the elevated highway, it's pretty isolated at the moment.
If anyone is hoping to move the Rams across the river, I just want to repeat that we should avoid making any of Nashville's Mistakes, and do our best to build a good view into any new venue,
![]()
If anyone is hoping to move the Rams across the river, I just want to repeat that we should avoid making any of Nashville's Mistakes, and do our best to build a good view into any new venue,
Are you suggesting the dome would be torn down if the Rams move? If so, don't count on that since it is part of the convention center, and less than 20 years old at this point. If not, you may want to clarify your post.jaynovahawk07 wrote: But if the Rams decide to move out into the county, or into the Metro East, a ton of land opens up for DT St. Louis. If utilized to its fullest potential, the new land, coupled with the "Bottle District land," could be used for future high-rises and entertainment districts. That, or it could be used to serve as another lengthy sore-spot in St. Louis' downtown before succumbing to some underwhelming project.
I would say removing I-70 from downtown, between Poplar St Bridge and MRB, is more important then keeping the rams in the city, either at a rebuilt Edwards Dome or a Riverfront open air stadium. Ideally, I think you could do both. That would truly open up some ideas and bring back a better street grid to the river.
- 196
My bet is that the Rams will build a new stadium and put it here. This Bottle District will probably never happen 
- 66
When you say "here," you mean what? DT St. Louis or somewhere else in the metro?
- 284
My personal pipe dream runs along the lines of jaynovahawk's. Rams move to the 'burbs. Dome gets torn down. Elevated highway comes down to a boulevard. All of a sudden, you've got like 20 square blocks of "new" land on the northern edge of downtown. Throw in the new bridge and, maybe, McKee's Northside, and there's a lot of opportunity there.
I realize that the Dome is also used for conventions. But, let's be realistic, it's only a handful a year that actually need it, most of which could be accommodated in the Scottrade. Compared to the benefit that would come from some new office buildings and condos and a restored street grid, I'd make that trade any time.
If the Dome stays where it is, it's going to be a lot harder to develop the Bottle District into anything useful, because it'll always be separated from downtown by a wall of giant, little-used boxes. Maybe it could be a sort of sports-bar district. But who'll be there on a Tuesday night in February?
I realize that the Dome is also used for conventions. But, let's be realistic, it's only a handful a year that actually need it, most of which could be accommodated in the Scottrade. Compared to the benefit that would come from some new office buildings and condos and a restored street grid, I'd make that trade any time.
If the Dome stays where it is, it's going to be a lot harder to develop the Bottle District into anything useful, because it'll always be separated from downtown by a wall of giant, little-used boxes. Maybe it could be a sort of sports-bar district. But who'll be there on a Tuesday night in February?
- 1,610
stlwriterman wrote:My personal pipe dream runs along the lines of jaynovahawk's. Rams move to the 'burbs. Dome gets torn down. Elevated highway comes down to a boulevard. All of a sudden, you've got like 20 square blocks of "new" land on the northern edge of downtown. Throw in the new bridge and, maybe, McKee's Northside, and there's a lot of opportunity there.
Is the current problem with DT a lack of land? I get the thought, but wouldn't a better "fantasy" be to fill in all the gaps that currently exist within the CBD? Bringing 60,000 (ok, 45,000) Rams fans downtown 8 times a year can still be a value to DT if for no other reason than forcing them to drive in and notice new construction on their way to the parking garage/parking lot. After the current surplus of land is dealt with, then we can worry about restoring new city blocks.
- 284
I'd agree that downtown's problem is certainly not a lack of land. But the land we have is mostly small scattered lots. And the vacant buildings are mostly beat-up and expensive to fix. So if you want to build a new office building or condos - and, like it or not, a lot of people prefer that to rehabs - you don't have many options.ricke002 wrote: Is the current problem with DT a lack of land? I get the thought, but wouldn't a better "fantasy" be to fill in all the gaps that currently exist within the CBD? Bringing 60,000 (ok, 45,000) Rams fans downtown 8 times a year can still be a value to DT if for no other reason than forcing them to drive in and notice new construction on their way to the parking garage/parking lot. After the current surplus of land is dealt with, then we can worry about restoring new city blocks.
I realize that adding supply in a high-vacancy market like downtown seems like a paradox, but in the long term (and it's a long-term play we're talking about) it could create room for the kind of new development that otherwise goes to the suburbs. A football stadium that gets used ten times a year just doesn't bring that much bang for the buck.
- 3,235
The problem with downtown is not a lack of land but instead the mismanagement of land use. Too many stadiums, highways, gateway mall, parking lots and garages are taking up too much space that can be utilized in a more effective manor.
- 6,775
I'm not up to date on this, but didn't they give up on this a few years ago? When they replaced the roll-up Astroturf with the Field Turf they have now, which (I believe) stays in place year 'round.stlwriterman wrote:I realize that the Dome is also used for conventions.
- 712
The problem with a bunch of free land in one place is that it is too easy for a developer to make into a couple superblocks. Urban renewal turned such spaces into horrible nonsense. Open land that doesn't come in small parcels could be made into something absurd.
How likely is it for that much land to magically be returned to a two-way street grid and given over to a mixed-use concentration of diverse stakeholders? How much more likely is it for something like an "urban" Wal-Mart or something like that to go in instead? Or Lumiere expands across their tunnel and fills in the exact same footprint as the dome with something that generates tax revenue but does nothing for the neighborhood. Show me a ballpark village plan that looks better than the original Chinatown that used to be there. Or at least show me a plan that has an intact street grid.
Giving the CVC sole control of the dome could be a great thing. If the Dome was converted into an actual convention space instead of an arena (think of all the room created by removing seats), it could be used a lot more often and a lot more creatively. It could even be made to have two or three levels. Then bust a few streets through the place and add a boulevard and better integration with the Landing, and we'd be good to go. That'd be a lot better than 8 games a year.
If the CVC and downtown increased its conventions and made that huge facility approachable in all directions (not just south), it could anchor the Bottle District instead of cutting it off from downtown. Bust Delmar (Convention Plaza) and 7th street through the building, and make 8th street an interior hallway with big entrances at both ends and a nice crosswalk on the restored Delmar. Put all those loading docks inside the parking garage or somewhere else. It doesn't have to be an ugly monster, it was just designed that way.
Why not build on what we have instead of erasing it to create a dubious pipe dream? Don't ask how we can fill in all that space, but ask instead how the Bottle District could be made to enhance a convention experience, and in turn how the convention center could better enhance the vitality of the Bottle District.
How likely is it for that much land to magically be returned to a two-way street grid and given over to a mixed-use concentration of diverse stakeholders? How much more likely is it for something like an "urban" Wal-Mart or something like that to go in instead? Or Lumiere expands across their tunnel and fills in the exact same footprint as the dome with something that generates tax revenue but does nothing for the neighborhood. Show me a ballpark village plan that looks better than the original Chinatown that used to be there. Or at least show me a plan that has an intact street grid.
Giving the CVC sole control of the dome could be a great thing. If the Dome was converted into an actual convention space instead of an arena (think of all the room created by removing seats), it could be used a lot more often and a lot more creatively. It could even be made to have two or three levels. Then bust a few streets through the place and add a boulevard and better integration with the Landing, and we'd be good to go. That'd be a lot better than 8 games a year.
If the CVC and downtown increased its conventions and made that huge facility approachable in all directions (not just south), it could anchor the Bottle District instead of cutting it off from downtown. Bust Delmar (Convention Plaza) and 7th street through the building, and make 8th street an interior hallway with big entrances at both ends and a nice crosswalk on the restored Delmar. Put all those loading docks inside the parking garage or somewhere else. It doesn't have to be an ugly monster, it was just designed that way.
Why not build on what we have instead of erasing it to create a dubious pipe dream? Don't ask how we can fill in all that space, but ask instead how the Bottle District could be made to enhance a convention experience, and in turn how the convention center could better enhance the vitality of the Bottle District.