Who are you talking about?addxb2 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2021From my understanding, this has caused Bi-State about two years of delay and $$$$ in engineering contract extensions. According to Bi-State minutes they’ve identified a short term solution that doesn’t require Smiths approval.
All of this to say, based on this I’ve come to believe Smith would prefer MetroLink die now than accommodate something as major as a station realignment.
sc4mayor wrote:^^ Getting way off topic here, but covering the tracks between 18th and just before Civic Center would be easier than west of Union Station. Also agree that a simple renovation would be better than relocating the station. The Cortex infill station cost just shy of $13 million. I imagine building a new station in the old baggage tunnel would be even more expensive than that.
Still...Metro, EWG, etc should spend not a cent on any of this until transit is expanded into North and South St. Louis. There's plenty of available land nearby to fill up with development before we need to start spending money covering rail lines.
^ I'm not sure if this is still the case but I thought there were a few bus lines that fed through 18th Street and Union Station? That could be different now with the expanded bus bays at Civic and Metro Reimagined though.
Getting back to the stadium...did anyone happen to see the Facebook comments on the KMOV post for this? F*cking brutal. One guy just answered every supportive comment with pictures of abandoned buildings in the city lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^^
I love my city and like reading on here frequently but I have never commented so I wasn’t sure how to quote and respond.
I’ve been following the soccer stadium since the very beginning before enterprise got involved and the comments on social media, usually local news stations stories, never cease to amaze me. Why do people want/think it will fail/hope it will fail. It’s good for our city and region as a whole.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love my city and like reading on here frequently but I have never commented so I wasn’t sure how to quote and respond.
I’ve been following the soccer stadium since the very beginning before enterprise got involved and the comments on social media, usually local news stations stories, never cease to amaze me. Why do people want/think it will fail/hope it will fail. It’s good for our city and region as a whole.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spotlight on the HOK website..
https://www.hok.com/news/2021-03/st-lou ... -location/
https://www.hok.com/news/2021-03/st-lou ... -location/
- 9,559
I think he was thinking Steve Smith but it’s LHM who owns US not Lawerence Groupwabash wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2021Who are you talking about?addxb2 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2021From my understanding, this has caused Bi-State about two years of delay and $$$$ in engineering contract extensions. According to Bi-State minutes they’ve identified a short term solution that doesn’t require Smiths approval.
All of this to say, based on this I’ve come to believe Smith would prefer MetroLink die now than accommodate something as major as a station realignment.
- 3,762
because every other MLS city realizes that multiple soccer fields in the middle of their downtown would be a horrible use of land?St. Louis CITY SC Will Be Only MLS Club With All Facilities in One Central Downtown Location
- 9,559
Good things ours isn’t in the middle of a downtown. It’s on the edge of downtown westurban_dilettante wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021because every other MLS city realizes that multiple soccer fields in the middle of their downtown would be a horrible use of land?St. Louis CITY SC Will Be Only MLS Club With All Facilities in One Central Downtown Location
- 3,762
^ yeah it's basically in the suburbs. at least it's not top golf.
- 6,120
^Also better than parking lots. But having so much valuable land walled off behind fencing and put to such an unproductive use is an unattractive look. I understand it to a point, much as I understand the security buffer around USGIS, but I don't honestly like it. I would be quicker to accept a public soccer field or park. I would have been content to see offices. But a college sports style campus isn't quite what I had dreamt of.
- 3,762
^^ visually, but functionally about the same for everyone not on the team. at least they didn't tear down an entire block of buildings or anything.
- 2,929
OK, let's set this straight...
Did the MLS stadium project take the place or supersede any other viable economic development project that was set for that portion of Downtown West that used to be the 22nd Street Parkway interchange or the parking lots between Pine and Olive?
Was there anything proposed here since Paul McKee released conceptual drawings in 2009 that haven't materialized?
Nope?
Nothing?
Then what's the deal? Should we wait forever for perfect urban form to materialize out of thin air?
Meanwhile, isn't this development both a better development than previous MLS stadium plans and concurrently fostering other new proximate developments, two of which include the likely redevelopment of the Butler Brothers Building and the constructive re-use of a parking lot on Washington Avenue?
And also brings back Clark Street?
Maybe the Chesterfield flood plains?
No?
Is perfect the enemy of very good?
(look for incoming snark on my use of "very good")
Hundreds of millions of dollars in private economic development, transforming highway interchanges and parking lots, consciously and deliberately meant to further the City of STL on a national level... and it's still not good enough. Sometimes, I really wonder if people want to cheer on the negativity.
Did the MLS stadium project take the place or supersede any other viable economic development project that was set for that portion of Downtown West that used to be the 22nd Street Parkway interchange or the parking lots between Pine and Olive?
Was there anything proposed here since Paul McKee released conceptual drawings in 2009 that haven't materialized?
Nope?
Nothing?
Then what's the deal? Should we wait forever for perfect urban form to materialize out of thin air?
Meanwhile, isn't this development both a better development than previous MLS stadium plans and concurrently fostering other new proximate developments, two of which include the likely redevelopment of the Butler Brothers Building and the constructive re-use of a parking lot on Washington Avenue?
And also brings back Clark Street?
Would you rather see this developed in Maryland Heights and keep the 22nd Street Parkway?urban_dilettante wrote:^ yeah it's basically in the suburbs. at least it's not top golf.
Maybe the Chesterfield flood plains?
No?
Is perfect the enemy of very good?
(look for incoming snark on my use of "very good")
Hundreds of millions of dollars in private economic development, transforming highway interchanges and parking lots, consciously and deliberately meant to further the City of STL on a national level... and it's still not good enough. Sometimes, I really wonder if people want to cheer on the negativity.
Ding ding ding. I’ll have been back in St. Louis for a year on March 15th and the only thing I loathe so far is the unending, relentless cynicism, negativity, and really just pissy attitudes from so many people here (not speaking to UrbanSTL specifically, but the wider region).gone corporate wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021OK, let's set this straight...
Did the MLS stadium project take the place or supersede any other viable economic development project that was set for that portion of Downtown West that used to be the 22nd Street Parkway interchange or the parking lots between Pine and Olive?
Was there anything proposed here since Paul McKee released conceptual drawings in 2009 that haven't materialized?
Nope?
Nothing?
Then what's the deal? Should we wait forever for perfect urban form to materialize out of thin air?
Meanwhile, isn't this development both a better development than previous MLS stadium plans and concurrently fostering other new proximate developments, two of which include the likely redevelopment of the Butler Brothers Building and the constructive re-use of a parking lot on Washington Avenue?
And also brings back Clark Street?
Would you rather see this developed in Maryland Heights and keep the 22nd Street Parkway?urban_dilettante wrote:^ yeah it's basically in the suburbs. at least it's not top golf.
Maybe the Chesterfield flood plains?
No?
Is perfect the enemy of very good?
(look for incoming snark on my use of "very good")
Hundreds of millions of dollars in private economic development, transforming highway interchanges and parking lots, consciously and deliberately meant to further the City of STL on a national level... and it's still not good enough. Sometimes, I really wonder if people want to cheer on the negativity.
It’s exhausting...I was away for 13 years and came back to a, physically, much different (and better) city.
Same old sh*tty attitude, though.
I have to say this is one of if not the best-designed stadiums meant to reconnect the urban fabric and provide a place that fosters community. I think it's important to remember that St. Louis will never reach its peak industrial era density and end to end street walls of dense urban buildings. A lot of stadiums are publically funded costing unnecessary taxpayer money, broken promises, and destroys city blocks/communities. A lot of people focus on the region as a whole, but it's so fragmented, you have to focus on building off of the projects that make a difference in the surrounding vacinitygone corporate wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021OK, let's set this straight...
Did the MLS stadium project take the place or supersede any other viable economic development project that was set for that portion of Downtown West that used to be the 22nd Street Parkway interchange or the parking lots between Pine and Olive?
Was there anything proposed here since Paul McKee released conceptual drawings in 2009 that haven't materialized?
Nope?
Nothing?
Then what's the deal? Should we wait forever for perfect urban form to materialize out of thin air?
Meanwhile, isn't this development both a better development than previous MLS stadium plans and concurrently fostering other new proximate developments, two of which include the likely redevelopment of the Butler Brothers Building and the constructive re-use of a parking lot on Washington Avenue?
And also brings back Clark Street?
Would you rather see this developed in Maryland Heights and keep the 22nd Street Parkway?urban_dilettante wrote:^ yeah it's basically in the suburbs. at least it's not top golf.
Maybe the Chesterfield flood plains?
No?
Is perfect the enemy of very good?
(look for incoming snark on my use of "very good")
Hundreds of millions of dollars in private economic development, transforming highway interchanges and parking lots, consciously and deliberately meant to further the City of STL on a national level... and it's still not good enough. Sometimes, I really wonder if people want to cheer on the negativity.
So a nearly 100% privately financed stadium replacing parking lots and barely used highway ramps is a bad thing? Got it.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021because every other MLS city realizes that multiple soccer fields in the middle of their downtown would be a horrible use of land?St. Louis CITY SC Will Be Only MLS Club With All Facilities in One Central Downtown Location
Someone go down there to tell them to stop all work right now and relocate the project to Chesterfield Valley.
^Hahaha.
There is always someone who is not happy. That would not be me.
There is always someone who is not happy. That would not be me.
Amazing to think how much has changed in 13 years. Especially in the Central Corridor.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021Ding ding ding. I’ll have been back in St. Louis for a year on March 15th and the only thing I loathe so far is the unending, relentless cynicism, negativity, and really just pissy attitudes from so many people here (not speaking to UrbanSTL specifically, but the wider region).gone corporate wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021OK, let's set this straight...
Did the MLS stadium project take the place or supersede any other viable economic development project that was set for that portion of Downtown West that used to be the 22nd Street Parkway interchange or the parking lots between Pine and Olive?
Was there anything proposed here since Paul McKee released conceptual drawings in 2009 that haven't materialized?
Nope?
Nothing?
Then what's the deal? Should we wait forever for perfect urban form to materialize out of thin air?
Meanwhile, isn't this development both a better development than previous MLS stadium plans and concurrently fostering other new proximate developments, two of which include the likely redevelopment of the Butler Brothers Building and the constructive re-use of a parking lot on Washington Avenue?
And also brings back Clark Street?
Would you rather see this developed in Maryland Heights and keep the 22nd Street Parkway?urban_dilettante wrote:^ yeah it's basically in the suburbs. at least it's not top golf.
Maybe the Chesterfield flood plains?
No?
Is perfect the enemy of very good?
(look for incoming snark on my use of "very good")
Hundreds of millions of dollars in private economic development, transforming highway interchanges and parking lots, consciously and deliberately meant to further the City of STL on a national level... and it's still not good enough. Sometimes, I really wonder if people want to cheer on the negativity.
It’s exhausting...I was away for 13 years and came back to a, physically, much different (and better) city.
Same old sh*tty attitude, though.
I feel like a big thing that also gets missed when talking about having the training facility and HQ in the city is that the tax money from employees and players is now going to go to the city instead of some other municipality in the county like with the Blues.
Also there is still such an insane amount of space to build developments in and around the stadium site and SOMA, like the parking lot between the Drury and Maggie O's or the parking lots across from the stadium on 20th and Pine. Point being the SOMA development of training fields and training facility isnt taking up the small amount of open space in Downtown West, there is still tons of empty lots in the area that can be developed to compliment the area.
Also there is still such an insane amount of space to build developments in and around the stadium site and SOMA, like the parking lot between the Drury and Maggie O's or the parking lots across from the stadium on 20th and Pine. Point being the SOMA development of training fields and training facility isnt taking up the small amount of open space in Downtown West, there is still tons of empty lots in the area that can be developed to compliment the area.
- 3,762
people complain endlessly that there's too much green space and that we don't need more green space but then we get a shitload more green space that isn't even open to the public and everyone is like "hooray" because "investment" and "sports" and the apologies fly. look, i'm as happy as someone who doesn't really give a damn about pro sports can be about the new MLS team, and the stadium looks pretty good. but the practice fields are a terrible use of space directly adjacent to downtown that should be developed in an urban fashion, especially considering the promised windfall from the new stadium. i mean, all these little concessions and the perpetual drawing up and then disregarding of urban plans is a big part of why St. Louis has such piecemeal urbanity. also, haven't we been through this "well, it's better than a parking lot/highway interchange" debate before? "better than a parking lot" and "better than a highway interchange" are incredibly low bars.
ouch. i was totally gonna do that but i can tell from your snark that it would probably be a waste of my time so now i'm totally not gonna do that.Someone go down there to tell them to stop all work right now and relocate the project to Chesterfield Valley.
But the beauty is in reclaiming the highway ramp space is that the practice fields could easily be replaced by development if the area does take off. I don't see anything that says the practice fields must remain there for "X" number of decades.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Mar 09, 2021people complain endlessly that there's too much green space and that we don't need more green space but then we get a shitload more green space that isn't even open to the public and everyone is like "hooray" because "investment" and "sports" and the apologies fly. look, i'm as happy as someone who doesn't really give a damn about pro sports can be about the new MLS team, and the stadium looks pretty good. but the practice fields are a terrible use of space directly adjacent to downtown that should be developed in an urban fashion, especially considering the promised windfall from the new stadium. i mean, all these little concessions and the perpetual drawing up and then disregarding of urban plans is a big part of why St. Louis has such piecemeal urbanity. also, haven't we been through this "well, it's better than a parking lot/highway interchange" debate before? "better than a parking lot" and "better than a highway interchange" are incredibly low bars.
ouch. i was totally gonna do that but i can tell from your snark that it would probably be a waste of my time so now i'm totally not gonna do that.Someone go down there to tell them to stop all work right now and relocate the project to Chesterfield Valley.
Would I prefer if someone was going to build urban scaled mixed use developments in that area that redid the street grid? Yes. But let's be honest about the Market/Jefferson/I-64/20th Street area: that's not going to happen now or in the near future. Hopefully the Butler Brothers building does get redone and then we work on the Olive/Jefferson/MLK/20th Street area to the north.
^ Yep...where did this thought come from that a grass field couldn’t be built on in the future?
And if it’s not?
The vast majority of the field/training space (outside of the smaller field next to the highway ramps) fit inside of one block between 22nd, 21st, Market and Clark (I’m not losing any sleep over Eugenia not getting reconnected). One block.
I agree that the fencing and not having them open to the public is a disappointment...but I also understand the reasoning. The public would treat it like sh*t.
And if it’s not?
The vast majority of the field/training space (outside of the smaller field next to the highway ramps) fit inside of one block between 22nd, 21st, Market and Clark (I’m not losing any sleep over Eugenia not getting reconnected). One block.
I agree that the fencing and not having them open to the public is a disappointment...but I also understand the reasoning. The public would treat it like sh*t.
- 991
People also complain endlessly that there's too much empty space (because in St. Louis there is) and that we don't need more empty space but then we get a development that takes up space and some people are like "this is actually bad because it's not perfect" because "what if we need the space for something else later" and the grievances fly.
As others have already said before me, there's so many empty parking lots and empty buildings nearby that the supply of property for development greatly outweighs demand.
As others have already said before me, there's so many empty parking lots and empty buildings nearby that the supply of property for development greatly outweighs demand.
I wonder if this would be viewed differently if they put walls and a roof over the practice fields and called it an office building? I think the complaint against open space isn't with the grass, it's the two-fold issues of it not drawing people to the area (having some parks is good, but no one is driving down to see blocks of grass and seas of parking spaces) and reducing the density of homes/offices/stores/restaurants (maybe counter-intuitively) making the area less walkable.
The practice fields aren't a park, they're an active workplace. In addition to Khakis's observation of additional tax money, it's also players/trainers/maintenance people that will be regularly commuting to and working (and hopefully at least a few living) downtown everyday just like with any other workplace. Yes the density isn't great, but right along the hard barrier of the highway and railyard is exactly where less-dense land uses should go (including parking), no one is going to be complaining about the long walk past the soccer fields on their way to gaze upon the beauty of the highway viaduct or enjoy the cacophony of the train coupling.
The practice fields aren't a park, they're an active workplace. In addition to Khakis's observation of additional tax money, it's also players/trainers/maintenance people that will be regularly commuting to and working (and hopefully at least a few living) downtown everyday just like with any other workplace. Yes the density isn't great, but right along the hard barrier of the highway and railyard is exactly where less-dense land uses should go (including parking), no one is going to be complaining about the long walk past the soccer fields on their way to gaze upon the beauty of the highway viaduct or enjoy the cacophony of the train coupling.
- 2,386
GoneCorporate on the money. Glad to see the pandemic hasn't changed everything.