urbanSTL

My pipe dream is similiar to Stlwriterman. However, I think Stan K could still have an open air stadium near downtown as long as it is next to the river, can be on either side of the river, and situated within walking distance of Metrolink station or part of a future Wash Ave street line extension. In other words, north of Pinnacle's casino on the river with the field running north/south. That still leaves you with a chance to have a view of the Arch from an oper face on the south endzone. Of course, my pipe dream continues along with Stlwriterman, rip out I-70, knockdown the stadium and replace street grid to instead of another generic entertainment district such as Bottleworks

RobbyD wrote:It's just that fickle fans aren't as likely to brave the elements in Dec to watch a 10 loss team, IMO...

Maybe the answer is a better football team? Outdoors seems to work just fine for New England, the Giants & Jets, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Philly, Chicago, etc. All have much colder weather than here.
That said, an inexpensive retrofit of the Dome would be an OK solution. I just doubt the Rams would go for it if they think they can get a better deal (either here or elsewhere).

Dredger's idea is a good one. Something more "downtown adjacent" than right smack downtown would have less of a deadening effect on the 355 days there isn't a Rams game, but still carry the advantages of MetroLink and downtown hotels, etc. Put it either the near north riverfront or the east side by the Casino Queen. Or, hell, just give them the Chrysler plant.

Fenton has to be high on Stan K's list for some straight forward reasons. Big piece of available property having freeway access with little or no remedial work before construction. Simply build and design stadium for a futre roof.

That being said, their is four big players directly or indirectly impacting Bottleworks future in my opinion - Obviously Bottleworks property owners, CVC and how it want to proceed with stadium plans, Stan K desire and McKee's northside deal. Getting them together for a long range plan to support a boulevard in place of I70 with or without a stadium would be ideal an ideal for future outcome. The biggest catalyst for any discussion will mostly likely be the new MRB. Which is back on schedule for 2014.

We don't need a new stadium. PERIOD.

Anyone who has attended a Ram's game this season can see the improvements over last year. The upgrades to the dome are quite noticeable and the that place ROCKS when a quality team is defending it's turf.

What would a new stadium have that the dome doesn't have? The Dallas Stadium has that big drop video screen, but the current dome could support a pretty large one of those now and hang no lower than the Dallas one. (I've done the math.) The people sitting in the upper regions of the Dallas Stadium seem to be much farther from the field than the upper regions of our dome. If a new stadium would just add more food venues, then forget it.

I just wish they would shine brighter lights up onto the inside of the dome to better simulate outdoor lighting. The current lighting seem to be too dim and dreary. I know some current season ticket holders who will dump their tickets if they go to an outdoor stadium, but I haven't heard any people who don't currently have tickets say they would buy them if we replace the dome with an open air stadium. In January playoffs, its nice to have a dome.

I don't get the rationale for a new stadium in Fenton. That site needs to be used for a major employer.

Is there any official update on The Bottle District development? I remember hearing about the idea awhile ago, but haven't seen any construction or heard any updates. I even remember visting an "official" Bottle District website, giving updates and news, but that website appears to have disappeared. I imagine the sluggish economy is partly to blame, but the project seemed really cool and would be a nice addition to Downtown.

Anybody in the know have any news?

yeah, I think the project is on extreme hold right now. I hope that the new Tucker Blvd./ I-70 entrance to downtown pushes forward development for the general area.

Very interesting idea thrown out by Bryan Burwell. He is saying that Rams owner and real estate mogul Stan Kroenke could somehow get ahold of the Bottle District land adjacent to the Edward Jones Dome. I don't know exactly how much of this is based in reality, but it seems like there is at least some momentum behind the idea.
Could be exactly the thing to revive this dormant project.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... z1XIBd0Xtu

I don't know too many shrewd billionaires. But I have a feeling they're not too keen on building a half billion dollar stadium in a down economy with a current stadium that works perfectly fine.

sad that the NCAA doesn't consider Lacledes Landing and Washinton Ave to be prime entertainment districts. I think they would be impressed by what has changed since the Final Four we held in 2005.

Love this - "If you give a shrewd developer like Kroenke a valuable plot of prime downtown real estate, I guarantee he won't use it for a cruddy softball field that no one ever plays on."

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Five years ago we were calling DeWitt/Cordish shrewd developers. What would make Kroenke any different?

It's his profession when it wasn't Bill DeWitt's?
He's worth billions because of his effectiveness with real estate?
The Cardinals only proposed Ballpark Village to ensure that they would get their new stadium?

I'm not a Kroenke apologist by any means, nor am I trying to stir up an argument, but I do think that there are some differences between what Burwell describes and the Ballpark Village debacle.

I'm not sold on this being the best (or most realistic) idea yet though.

I posted this in the Rams thread as well.

I disagree with the assessment of needing a new entertainment district 100%. Why do we have to build another entertainment district? We already have2 different ones in Washington Ave and Lacledes Landing so why don’t we take the funds and use them to expand these 2 areas. We could also use the funds to create a good connection between the Landing/Wash Ave by tearing out I-70 resulting in a non-interrupted pedestrian flow between them.
 
Indy doesn’t have a special entertainment district like Ballpark Village that is designed to spend and contain your money within the special district. Instead they have a well built vibrant downtown full of shops, restaurants, bars, etc that extends into other parts of downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. If we built a seamless connection, build on some of the vacant land and parking lots on the Landing, and also build on parking lots on and around Washington Ave then we would have the entertainment district without building a development from scratch that may compromise the health of our existing areas downtown.
 
In addition, downtown does not need the Rams located downtown. If you go to the bars on the Landing and Wash Ave they are occupied by people watching football on TV and not regular ticket holders of Rams games. Most of the fans that arrive early tailgate and many don’t stick around after the game. Therefore the amount of money spent at the bars and restaurants as a result of the Rams being located downtown is minimal. Combine this with the fact the Rams only have 8 regular season games and 2 preseason games at home. For the other 355 days of the year the dome sits void of any football games and sucks the life out of the area since it’s a hulking structure that causes a barrier in downtown.

MLS Stadium? or is that not enough land..

stlien wrote:MLS Stadium? or is that not enough land..

Interesting thought,

Have to agree with Downtown2007 on the fact that the area doesn't need another entertainment district and second, taxpayers foot a new stadium bill one way or another either up front or loss tax revenue for the foreseeable future. At the same time, don't think it could hurt to see what Stan K could do with empty lots if it means that the Rams stay in Edwards Dome vs moving out of town or the really bad idea of building them a new stadium.

As far as Walmart, I think McKee was trying to get a Walmart Marketplace grocery store in the mix already (assume location would be close to where the old Schnucks was demolished for the new Tucker Ave alignment). Don't see the demographics to support a full blown super wallyworld anytime soon, maybe I'm wrong on that one.

What I do think is viable and what Downtown2007 states in his initial comments, what if you could roll in an at grade Memorial Blvd proposal that replaces I-70 from Wash Ave to the New Mississippi Bridge and try to incorporate Laclede's Landing as part of any plan to improve Edwards Dome. Otherwise, you will see MoDOT build a freeway interchange at Wash Ave as part of the Arch Grounds improvement. Maybe the push will also revive Pinnacle Phase II proposal of apartments/condos/shops that was floated before the bottom fell out or at least get a beach built - (talk about a preseason tailgate spot, start at the beach, go to the game and finish the night at the casino - you couldn't find a better way to give away what money you had).

^now we are talking. Improve the areas we have already established and connect them. Demand and development will sprout in the surrounding areas and branch outward.

^ Indy deserves major props for being able to conceive a plan and implement it. I worked and lived downtown in the 90s as plans for the mall and White River/ Canal Walk were being developed.... I came back about a decade later and was amazed to see these actually took root and moved Indy from Cow Town to and Actual Town with some real excitement.

But Indy is chain heavy and doesn't have Saint Louis' authenticity. As the economy rebounds, the balance for us it to retain this character while adding chains... after all, if money is to be made chains will come.

Have to agree with Downtown2007 on the fact that the area doesn't need another entertainment district...

Yes, retail and residential -- NEW residential -- is the line that's going to connect the existing dots in downtown St. Louis now and through the next decade.

...what if you could roll in an at grade Memorial Blvd proposal that replaces I-70 from Wash Ave to the New Mississippi Bridge and try to incorporate Laclede's Landing as part of any plan to improve Edwards Dome. Otherwise, you will see MoDOT build a freeway interchange at Wash Ave as part of the Arch Grounds improvement. Maybe the push will also revive Pinnacle Phase II proposal of apartments/condos/shops that was floated before the bottom fell out or at least get a beach built...

I've thought about this a lot. More so than the effect on the main CBD between Washington and Poplar, I'm most excited about the potential transformation north, where the elevated lanes of I-07 are and would no longer be. The pieces are there -- Laclede's Landing, EDJ, America's Center, Pinnacle II, the Bottle District, Old North, the Trestle Project, the Trailhead at the Laclede Power Center, William A. Kerr Foundation, the new Mississippi River Bridge, hopefully some new river's edge activity -- to really make a push towards a new North and to remove the prevailing "not past Cass" attitudes and warnings.

I can't remember where I saw these buildings, but someone around here posted them and I couldn't help thinking a development like this would be perfect for the Bottle Works area:





Possibly opening south towards the dome there may be an opportunity for some public pavement-level shops, bars and restaurants, but for the most part the interior belongs to the tenants. Facing east, along a new Memorial Drive Blvd. is the main face, looking out at the river (okay, the casino).