I am in complete support of your idea. I think expanding the convention center is a wonderful idea and the vacant land where the Bottle District is perfect suited for that expansion. Its just sad there isn't an existing plan to expand the convention center.
- 3,428
Nice piece Count. I like the dual idea of expanded convention space AND a connection directly to the dome to provide a place to slide a lid over a new whole in the dome roof. I wonder if the current dome roof could support the sliding lid? Or would they need to erect a whole new structure with beams spanning the dome roof just to support the sliding lid?goat314 wrote:Convention Center, Dome Expansion Into Bottle District Proposed
Michael Calhoun
December 23, 2011 1:22 AM
ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – To keep the Rams, regional leaders are gearing up to make major changes to the Edward Jones Dome and Frank de Graaf wonders — why not include the convention center and Bottle District?
“We need to do something bold once in awhile,” the downtown resident and blogger thinks.
And so De Graaf wrote an essay called “A Bold Vision for the Bottle District,” advocating for a 300,000 square foot expansion of America’s Center. He believes a total square footage of one million, along with a shiny new building, would catapult St. Louis from bland mid-size to the bold talk of the convention industry.
link: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/12/23/ ... -district/
plus audio
I've always feared that adding an opening lid on the dome might cost as much as building a whole new outdoor stadium, but maybe not if done this way. The current convention center hasn't expanded in 15 years, and its time for this upgrade. How do we get Stan involved directly so that he has a stake in the dome area success?
What new conventions would this expansion entice? Do you have any idea of what conventions this could hold in the future if it were epanded? Are we even missing out on some events because our convention center is too small?
Its not as simple as, "If you build it, they will come." Our location is beneficial, but we're not Las Vegas or Chicago. I feel that there's the same amount of risk to the city whether they expand the convention center or build a new residential/commercial district.
Why couldn't you do a partial expansion? Expand the center enough to support a retractable roof (who's going to pay for that by the way?...us?) and use the remaining land for a bottle district type development. Its about half and half
Its not as simple as, "If you build it, they will come." Our location is beneficial, but we're not Las Vegas or Chicago. I feel that there's the same amount of risk to the city whether they expand the convention center or build a new residential/commercial district.
Why couldn't you do a partial expansion? Expand the center enough to support a retractable roof (who's going to pay for that by the way?...us?) and use the remaining land for a bottle district type development. Its about half and half
- 8,905
^ That is the question.
I know we miss out on quite a few because of conflicts with the Rams. Think July-January approx 2 weekends a month.
I know we miss out on quite a few because of conflicts with the Rams. Think July-January approx 2 weekends a month.
From a 1995 story about the newly-built Trans World Dome:gary kreie wrote:I wonder if the current dome roof could support the sliding lid? Or would they need to erect a whole new structure with beams spanning the dome roof just to support the sliding lid?
sourceThe ceiling is solid, the lights can be lowered and the seats can be pushed back and used as convention hall walls. The floor is concrete, with water and electrical outlets every 30 feet. There are 10 million pounds of reinforced steel in the roof, allowing exhibitors to hang six times the weight available in other domes from the roof.
Also of note:
sourceThe Trans World Dome is also a model of modern construction design. The 10-million-pound roof was assembled separately, but is not attached to the dome. Instead, it is secured by its tremendous weight resting on Teflon-coated plates so it will slide on the building and not collapse in on the structure in the event of an earthquake.
-RBB
^Thanks for posting those articles, RBB.
I thought these paragraphs from the LA Times article were interesting:
"The economic benefits from a convention center are far greater than the economic benefits from just a stadium. Most sporting events draw from the local community, so you are really not importing dollars and yet that's the primary focus of the hospitality industry. A football team has 10 dates. We think we will end up with 180 to 200 event days a year in concerts, trade shows and conventions.
"Our average convention attendees are spending about $700 while they are here. If you get a group like True Value, that's here now, that's 6,000 people and that's between $4 and $5 million that those attendees will drop. Then you have the 500 companies exhibiting out there that will drop huge amounts of money, not only bringing exhibits in here, but with all the entertainment they will do all week. That's millions of dollars brand new to your economy.
"A football game may generate a million to a million half for any one game, but they are all local bucks. That's worth something because it keeps people working. But clearly, it's worth a lot more to add new dollars to your economy."
The point I tried to make with my article on Count On Downtown:
If we decide we want to keep the Rams, it's going to cost a lot of money. A new top tier stadium would easily cost $800 Million-$1 Billion.
The question is: Can we afford to spend this kind of money? A new stand-alone dome will only be used 10 dates a year and will not generate new money for the St. Louis metro, so the answer should probably be no.
But what if we decide we can spend $300-$500 Million and we can get a return on investment? An addition to the convention center + renovated dome will certainly generate new money. A new convention center exhibition hall will help the CVC to go after more and larger conventions and can at the same time double as a state-of-the-art parking facility, portal and sliding roof support for the existing dome.
Further, with this new hall the convention center could be in business on the 10 weekends they can currently not book because the rams are using the dome.
I think it's worth taking a good look at the opportunities the Bottle District presents, rather than give it away to a group with no ambition and vague and uninspiring plans.
I thought these paragraphs from the LA Times article were interesting:
"The economic benefits from a convention center are far greater than the economic benefits from just a stadium. Most sporting events draw from the local community, so you are really not importing dollars and yet that's the primary focus of the hospitality industry. A football team has 10 dates. We think we will end up with 180 to 200 event days a year in concerts, trade shows and conventions.
"Our average convention attendees are spending about $700 while they are here. If you get a group like True Value, that's here now, that's 6,000 people and that's between $4 and $5 million that those attendees will drop. Then you have the 500 companies exhibiting out there that will drop huge amounts of money, not only bringing exhibits in here, but with all the entertainment they will do all week. That's millions of dollars brand new to your economy.
"A football game may generate a million to a million half for any one game, but they are all local bucks. That's worth something because it keeps people working. But clearly, it's worth a lot more to add new dollars to your economy."
The point I tried to make with my article on Count On Downtown:
If we decide we want to keep the Rams, it's going to cost a lot of money. A new top tier stadium would easily cost $800 Million-$1 Billion.
The question is: Can we afford to spend this kind of money? A new stand-alone dome will only be used 10 dates a year and will not generate new money for the St. Louis metro, so the answer should probably be no.
But what if we decide we can spend $300-$500 Million and we can get a return on investment? An addition to the convention center + renovated dome will certainly generate new money. A new convention center exhibition hall will help the CVC to go after more and larger conventions and can at the same time double as a state-of-the-art parking facility, portal and sliding roof support for the existing dome.
Further, with this new hall the convention center could be in business on the 10 weekends they can currently not book because the rams are using the dome.
I think it's worth taking a good look at the opportunities the Bottle District presents, rather than give it away to a group with no ambition and vague and uninspiring plans.
- 597
^ if the bottle district site isn't available to extend the convention center, could it be extended along 9th street? Sliding roof and underground parking included?
![]()
Also would anyone know what the building in blue is?
Also would anyone know what the building in blue is?
^^ I guess if you really wanted it, you could build a structure on top of the existing convention center to accommodate a sliding roof. (An unlikely scenario.)
An addition to the convention center towards 9th Street is not feasible, unless you'd demolish the recently renovated Holiday Inn Hotel (pointed out by Robby ^) and the convention center parking garage just to the north of it, which doesn't make a lot of sense. (Apart from the fact that, realistically, it can't be done.)
If we wanted to do anything like I proposed, it would have to be done on the Bottle District site (which is, well, why I proposed it that way in the first place
).
An addition to the convention center towards 9th Street is not feasible, unless you'd demolish the recently renovated Holiday Inn Hotel (pointed out by Robby ^) and the convention center parking garage just to the north of it, which doesn't make a lot of sense. (Apart from the fact that, realistically, it can't be done.)
If we wanted to do anything like I proposed, it would have to be done on the Bottle District site (which is, well, why I proposed it that way in the first place
).- 25
You could also build up. This is what Irving, Texas did... http://www.irvingconventioncenter.com/e ... loorplans/
But that's exactly how the existing stadium/"convention center extension" was built. There was a 22-story Sheraton on 7th (which many considered the de facto "convention center hotel.") It was, IIRC, <20 years old -- and in any event, much nicer and much larger than the Holiday Inn.the count wrote:An addition to the convention center towards 9th Street is not feasible, unless you'd demolish the recently renovated Holiday Inn Hotel (pointed out by Robby ^) and the convention center parking garage just to the north of it, which doesn't make a lot of sense. (Apart from the fact that, realistically, it can't be done.)
I don't know what low-rise garages cost, but one (or two) with decent street-level appeal on the existing surface lots west of 10th would make downtown more contiguous.
- 479
I am glad that I am not the only one who was going to jump in with a history lesson. The Sheraton demolition was wasteful and extravagant, and a decision that led to years of meandering to find a large hotel replacement. Demolition of the garage (which is almost never used at capacity) and the Holiday Inn would be minor compared to what happened with the Sheraton.
After the Bottle District land is built out in the next decade, the only place to expand the convention center will be across 9th Street. I think that is a very likely scenario, and one that people concerned with the impact of monolithic structures should consider.
After the Bottle District land is built out in the next decade, the only place to expand the convention center will be across 9th Street. I think that is a very likely scenario, and one that people concerned with the impact of monolithic structures should consider.
Thanks for the history lesson. I was aware of the Sheraton demolition.
This is what I tried to convey:
It's highly unlikely that A. A sliding roof construction would be built on top of the existing convention center and B. that the Holiday Inn would be razed. It is privately owned and has recently been completely renovated. Therefore, we can pretty much forget about extending the convention center in that direction for the next 30 years (unless we'd be able to buy out the owner).
I agree with eco that the demolition of the Sheraton was wasteful and with Bonwich that demolition of the Holiday Inn would be much less of an "atrocity".
Today's facts however, dictate that en extension of the Convention Center to the West faces serious obstacles, at least for the next three or so decades. (I agree you could do something on the lot of the parking garage, but that lot is really not large enough.)
In the meantime, a perfectly located, ready-to-build site just to the north is still available.
On a side note: Eco, would you happen to have a photo of the old Sheraton? I have not been able to find any pictures on the web.
This is what I tried to convey:
It's highly unlikely that A. A sliding roof construction would be built on top of the existing convention center and B. that the Holiday Inn would be razed. It is privately owned and has recently been completely renovated. Therefore, we can pretty much forget about extending the convention center in that direction for the next 30 years (unless we'd be able to buy out the owner).
I agree with eco that the demolition of the Sheraton was wasteful and with Bonwich that demolition of the Holiday Inn would be much less of an "atrocity".
Today's facts however, dictate that en extension of the Convention Center to the West faces serious obstacles, at least for the next three or so decades. (I agree you could do something on the lot of the parking garage, but that lot is really not large enough.)
In the meantime, a perfectly located, ready-to-build site just to the north is still available.
On a side note: Eco, would you happen to have a photo of the old Sheraton? I have not been able to find any pictures on the web.
Is there any evidence that St. Louis needs more convention space? Is the current convention space at capacity? Or over-booked? It sounds like it's always an uphill battle for the RCGA to land big conventions, and that when they do land the bigs ones the America's Center is sufficient for hosting them. Have there been any studies that show St. Louis is somehow at a disadvantage by not offering more convention space?
Not that the almost incomprehensible stupidity of the Sheraton saga should serve as any kind of precedent, but the Holiday Inn's numbers are much smaller. The Sheraton was built in 1977 at a cost of $20M and had renovations in 1985 that were estimated between $2M and $5M. It was demolished in 1990, eliminating 614 rooms and costing the City several if not dozens of large conventions.
We've got lots of archive photos but I can't find any that are digitized. I'll see what I can do.
And OT, but I can't find the other thread: The streetlights on Tucker north of MLK were illuminated for the first time this week and look pretty cool. (The old ones give off pink light; these give off white -- and brighter -- light.)
We've got lots of archive photos but I can't find any that are digitized. I'll see what I can do.
And OT, but I can't find the other thread: The streetlights on Tucker north of MLK were illuminated for the first time this week and look pretty cool. (The old ones give off pink light; these give off white -- and brighter -- light.)
There does seem to be the logic of "build it and they will come" at work with convention center expansion ideas...it may be that st Louis is turning away conventions due to limited space, Idk, but I do know know that in Atlanta for example expansions generally followed periods of maximizing the existing space...
Can't find the article online, but Wall Street had a good article in their weekend edition about the ever increasing size of convention centers and the actual decrease in convention space needs. Somewhere there is losers in the game.
The problem with the convention space discussion is that you could still get a lot more bang for the buck over the long run if they would just tear down the raised section of I-70.
The problem with the convention space discussion is that you could still get a lot more bang for the buck over the long run if they would just tear down the raised section of I-70.
You are correct. Why, oh why, would you want to build a convention center mega-block in the Bottle District (west of one and north of another), further blocking off the city from the river and effectively killing any need for I-70 removal.dredger wrote:The problem with the convention space discussion is that you could still get a lot more bang for the buck over the long run if they would just tear down the raised section of I-70.
If (and this is a big 'if) I-70 were ever removed, I would damn sure want the Bottle District to exist an example of why that was necessary and why that was the right move. Businesses and residences do that -- a faceless utility access to a convention extension does not. Bring on the mid/high-rises, I say. Because the more people we have living downtown, the less need there is for ugly highway infrastructure to exist to carry them out of the city.
why oh why???
Steven Malagda wants to know why cities insist on constructing - and expanding - convention centers and meeting facilities:
The convention business has been waning for years. Back in 2007, before the current economic slowdown, a report from Destination Marketing Association International was already calling it a “buyer’s market.” It has only worsened since. In 2010, conventions and meetings drew just 86 million attendees, down from 126 million ten years earlier. Meantime, available convention space has steadily increased to 70 million square feet, up from 40 million 20 years ago.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_s ... nters.html
Steven Malagda wants to know why cities insist on constructing - and expanding - convention centers and meeting facilities:
The convention business has been waning for years. Back in 2007, before the current economic slowdown, a report from Destination Marketing Association International was already calling it a “buyer’s market.” It has only worsened since. In 2010, conventions and meetings drew just 86 million attendees, down from 126 million ten years earlier. Meantime, available convention space has steadily increased to 70 million square feet, up from 40 million 20 years ago.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_s ... nters.html
- 5,433
Joe Bonwich has posted many valuable history lessons on this forum over the years. He's called to mind many of the Great White Fathers'* mistakes during his time here. But few of those mistakes, in my opinion, are as egregious as the decision to expand the convention center to the east, effectively wiping out the then-13 year-old Sheraton Hotel. As you pointed out, not only was a fairly modern (at the time) hotel senselessly demolished, but many years and many millions of dollars were wasted in various attempts to secure another convention hotel. Meanwhile there is quite the deadzone north of Washington Avenue from 9th Street west. What in the hell were our leaders thinking (or smoking)?ecoabsence wrote:I am glad that I am not the only one who was going to jump in with a history lesson. The Sheraton demolition was wasteful and extravagant, and a decision that led to years of meandering to find a large hotel replacement. Demolition of the garage (which is almost never used at capacity) and the Holiday Inn would be minor compared to what happened with the Sheraton.
Perhaps I'm getting old, or maybe I've just taken Bonwich's salient observations about St. Louis' many wrong-headed attempts at downtown revitalization to heart. I don't know about the wisdom of expanding the convention center at a time when the industry seems to be waning at best. But I'm not necessarily opposed to Frank de Graaf's concept, especially when (1) I'm really skeptical that the Bottle District will ever get built, or that it will succeed if it's built, and (2) I don't ever see our leaders doing something as bold and brilliant as eliminating the elevated and depressed sections of Interstate 70, no matter how sound the idea is, how well it's worked out for other cities that have eliminated redundant highway connections in dense urban settings, and no matter how "right" the supporters of the idea are.
Oh, and I want the Rams to stay here, so if there is a way to keep them in their current home AND improve its appeal beyond the 10 (or 9!?!) home games a year, that would be great as well.
Keeping the Rams here may not be worth the public investment, but improving our convention center in conjunction with stadium enhancements is at least deserving of serious discussion.
* Credit due to Bonwich for the GWF reference. I believe he coined the term.
Thank you, SEMO. We've been at this quite a while, no? Your kid is probably almost in high school by now, and I've have one that just got (gulp!) married.
- 5,433
Yes, I guess we've been at this for quite a long time, going back to the Front Porch forum moderated by the late and great Greg Freeman. Time certainly flies. And it looks like congratulations are in order since one of your children tied the knot!bonwich wrote:Thank you, SEMO. We've been at this quite a while, no? Your kid is probably almost in high school by now, and I've have one that just got (gulp!) married.
My son isn't quite in high school yet, but I'm already starting to think about how I'm going to pay for it all if he stays in Catholic schools. He's already halfway to 16, and that is frightening enough. I guess it's been a long time since we've chatted here. I welcomed my second child into the world in September 2010, so my not-so-little guy now has a 16 month-old sister! And, to repeat an answer to a question asked by the doctor in attendance when my wife had her last Ultrasound, no, we won't be going for a tiebreaker!
I just had to use Great White Fathers to make my point above.
Their influence has diminished somewhat in recent years, and thankfully advocates for the urban environment have made a significant impact during that time. But St. Louis' traditionally stodgy mindset remains in place among many people in leadership positions. Unfortunately, it's still difficult to overcome, which is why I see the re-imagining of Interstate 70 as a longshot even though I wholeheartedly support the concept. And I can't help but be skeptical about the Bottle District's chances for success when Ballpark Village is still a mudhole, the local and national economic outlook is still precarious, and most of St. Louis' many success stories developed in a more organic fashion over the last decade.- 11K
"I just had to use Great White Fathers to make my point above. Their influence has diminished somewhat in recent years, "
Maybe, but who's driving the city to find $578M for the Arch grounds - by far the biggest effort happening now.
Maybe, but who's driving the city to find $578M for the Arch grounds - by far the biggest effort happening now.
Indeed. But because they're the people who view themselves as "paying for it," the Arch grounds renovation ain't going to put a boulevard where it should be -- and I (and probably you by now) have serious doubts that said boulevard will ever exist. Not to mention that any semblance of "public participation" in the renovation of a National Park has been eliminated, because they're paying for it and they don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.Alex Ihnen wrote:"I just had to use Great White Fathers to make my point above. Their influence has diminished somewhat in recent years, "
Maybe, but who's driving the city to find $578M for the Arch grounds - by far the biggest effort happening now.
- 11K
^ Well, I've always had serious doubts. And they're not f'ing paying for it. Taxpayers are via TIGER grants, MoDOT funds...