6,123
Life MemberLife Member
6,123

PostMar 10, 2021#576

gone corporate wrote:
Mar 09, 2021
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. 
Your criticism is valid and the stadium project is in sum fantastic. I'm sorry if I let minor quibbles about certain aspects of it get in the way of that. I'm completely in favor of getting rid of the vestigial highway. And while I have some small complaints about certain demolitions that seem to me unnecessary, I will try to shut up (mostly) and I will absolutely cheer for the team and hope they make bundles of cash and win buildings full of trophies. I'll even try to fork over for a seat in the stands if they don't. Perspective is a good thing. I see the gem, even if I talked too much about the flaws. So . . . let's play ball! Or . . . what do you say at the beginning of a soccer match? Crimminy, I played soccer and followed the Steamers in my early youth, but that's all so long ago I've forgotten. Clearly I need a reminder. ;-)

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 10, 2021#577

I will always favor granular, mixed use development that truly activates the city 18/365. This is (currently) the opposite of all that. Even if you don’t think a shortfall is a big deal overall, we should still be allowed to call it out.

I try avoid trolling this (or the ballpark village) thread but thought I’d drop a reminder here that this site is supposed to be ‘dedicated’ to urbanism in St Louis.

474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostMar 10, 2021#578

^SP, they don't usually say anything, They just blow a whistle.

Am I remembering incorrectly or did the description of the training facilities indicate that there would be some sort of public overlook for the fields? I imagine there will be people down there trying to catch a glimpse of the players, especially about this time 2 years from now when we are getting close to the first game.

7,809
Life MemberLife Member
7,809

PostMar 10, 2021#579

imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
I will always favor granular, mixed use development that truly activates the city 18/365. This is (currently) the opposite of all that. Even if you don’t think a shortfall is a big deal overall, we should still be allowed to call it out.

I try avoid trolling this (or the ballpark village) thread but thought I’d drop a reminder here that this site is supposed to be ‘dedicated’ to urbanism in St Louis.
So since the current site is unacceptable to you, where exactly is the proper place for a soccer stadium and the supporting facilities?

2,687
Life MemberLife Member
2,687

PostMar 10, 2021#580

This site would be infinitely more boring if the only conversation was “Wow. Perfect. No complaints. I’m so lucky to live here.”

Side note: It’s fairly obvious that they need to prioritize the grass quality, but I was really hoping they’d be open to the public at times.

7,809
Life MemberLife Member
7,809

PostMar 10, 2021#581

addxb2 wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
This site would be infinitely more boring if the only conversation was “Wow. Perfect. No complaints. I’m so lucky to live here.”
I'm just asking that since Downtown West is apparently a bad spot for the MLS stadium, where is the "correct" location?

443
Full MemberFull Member
443

PostMar 10, 2021#582

It’s a pipe dream, but a neighborhood stadium in south city would be dope. Maybe the empty lot left by the demolition of Forest Park Hospital? The awful strip mall along Manchester in Dogtown?

I think the location is fine though

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 10, 2021#583

dweebe wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
I will always favor granular, mixed use development that truly activates the city 18/365. This is (currently) the opposite of all that. Even if you don’t think a shortfall is a big deal overall, we should still be allowed to call it out.

I try avoid trolling this (or the ballpark village) thread but thought I’d drop a reminder here that this site is supposed to be ‘dedicated’ to urbanism in St Louis.
So since the current site is unacceptable to you, where exactly is the proper place for a soccer stadium and the supporting facilities?
Wow. Did you really just miss the entire point I was trying to make?

sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostMar 10, 2021#584

imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
I try avoid trolling this (or the ballpark village) thread but thought I’d drop a reminder here that this site is supposed to be ‘dedicated’ to urbanism in St Louis.
We discuss everything from urbanism to national politics and just about anything else in between here.  I think a large redevelopment project that replaces significant freeway infrastructure (and even rebuilds some street grid) is an appropriate topic for this site...even if it doesn’t fit your Jane Jacobs definition of urban redevelopment.

If we’re going to stick with what only fits in the little slogan at the top then the mods are gonna be really busy deleting threads.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 10, 2021#585

sc4mayor wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
I try avoid trolling this (or the ballpark village) thread but thought I’d drop a reminder here that this site is supposed to be ‘dedicated’ to urbanism in St Louis.
We discuss everything from urbanism to national politics and just about anything else in between here.  I think a large redevelopment project that replaces significant freeway infrastructure (and even rebuilds some street grid) is an appropriate topic for this site...even if it doesn’t fit your Jane Jacobs definition of urban redevelopment.

If we’re going to stick with what only fits in the little slogan at the top then the mods are gonna be really busy deleting threads.
Got it. I’ll start posting lasagne recepies tomorrow 🙂

My point, though, was about not criticizing someone for validly pointing out the urban shortcomings of a project.
Where did I mention anything about not discussing the project on this site?
At a loss here....

7,809
Life MemberLife Member
7,809

PostMar 10, 2021#586

imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
sc4mayor wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
I try avoid trolling this (or the ballpark village) thread but thought I’d drop a reminder here that this site is supposed to be ‘dedicated’ to urbanism in St Louis.
We discuss everything from urbanism to national politics and just about anything else in between here.  I think a large redevelopment project that replaces significant freeway infrastructure (and even rebuilds some street grid) is an appropriate topic for this site...even if it doesn’t fit your Jane Jacobs definition of urban redevelopment.

If we’re going to stick with what only fits in the little slogan at the top then the mods are gonna be really busy deleting threads.
Got it. I’ll start posting lasagne recepies tomorrow 🙂

My point, though, was about not criticizing someone for validly pointing out the urban shortcomings of a project.
Where did I mention anything about not discussing the project on this site?
At a loss here....
We can certainly discuss it. 

I'm asking the question: If this project location is not ideal and a poor use of urban land, where should an MLS stadium have gone?

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 10, 2021#587

dweebe wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
sc4mayor wrote:
Mar 10, 2021

We discuss everything from urbanism to national politics and just about anything else in between here.  I think a large redevelopment project that replaces significant freeway infrastructure (and even rebuilds some street grid) is an appropriate topic for this site...even if it doesn’t fit your Jane Jacobs definition of urban redevelopment.

If we’re going to stick with what only fits in the little slogan at the top then the mods are gonna be really busy deleting threads.
Got it. I’ll start posting lasagne recepies tomorrow 🙂

My point, though, was about not criticizing someone for validly pointing out the urban shortcomings of a project.
Where did I mention anything about not discussing the project on this site?
At a loss here....
We can certainly discuss it. 

I'm asking the question: If this project location is not ideal and a poor use of urban land, where should an MLS stadium have gone?
A better question might be how the details could be tweaked for the project to be better in its current location.

Personally I won’t invest much thought into this latest silver bullet that I feel will shine for a while and eventually wane, leaving an urban void / maintenance albatross. Happy to be proven wrong.

Those who care should be allowed the space on here to discuss their specific concerns without being dismissed with hollow ‘I don’t think so’s or ‘I don’t agree’s

7,809
Life MemberLife Member
7,809

PostMar 10, 2021#588

imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
dweebe wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
Got it. I’ll start posting lasagne recepies tomorrow 🙂

My point, though, was about not criticizing someone for validly pointing out the urban shortcomings of a project.
Where did I mention anything about not discussing the project on this site?
At a loss here....
We can certainly discuss it. 

I'm asking the question: If this project location is not ideal and a poor use of urban land, where should an MLS stadium have gone?
A better question might be how the details could be tweaked for the project to be better in its current location.

Personally I won’t invest much thought into this latest silver bullet that I feel will shine for a while and eventually wane, leaving an urban void / maintenance albatross. Happy to be proven wrong.

Those who care should be allowed the space on here to discuss their specific concerns without being dismissed with hollow ‘I don’t think so’s or ‘I don’t agree’s
Besides leaving 1900 Olive intact, how could the details be tweaked for the project to be better in its current location?

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 10, 2021#589

dweebe wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
imran wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
dweebe wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
We can certainly discuss it. 

I'm asking the question: If this project location is not ideal and a poor use of urban land, where should an MLS stadium have gone?
A better question might be how the details could be tweaked for the project to be better in its current location.

Personally I won’t invest much thought into this latest silver bullet that I feel will shine for a while and eventually wane, leaving an urban void / maintenance albatross. Happy to be proven wrong.

Those who care should be allowed the space on here to discuss their specific concerns without being dismissed with hollow ‘I don’t think so’s or ‘I don’t agree’s
Besides leaving 1900 Olive intact, how could the details be tweaked for the project to be better in its current location?
I could make a list for you and do alternate renderings if I hadn’t written this project off. I came here to stand up to what I perceive as a form of bullying.

53
New MemberNew Member
53

PostMar 10, 2021#590

BellaVilla wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
It’s a pipe dream, but a neighborhood stadium in south city would be dope. Maybe the empty lot left by the demolition of Forest Park Hospital? The awful strip mall along Manchester in Dogtown?

I think the location is fine though
there actually is a plan (and I know this because my coach is good friends with Kavanaugh) to build 2 turf fields somewhere in south city, I can't exactly remember where though. :( 

9,563
Life MemberLife Member
9,563

PostMar 10, 2021#591

Perfect place for a neighborhood stadium in south city
09647957-4A7B-4FC9-B0E3-322144919299.jpeg (1.22MiB)

7,809
Life MemberLife Member
7,809

PostMar 10, 2021#592

This could have also worked. Has the same footprint as downtown.


1,680
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,680

PostMar 10, 2021#593

I do too agree with the fields.  If the public can't even rent them for money, it feels very exclusionary, especially for what used to be 'public space' (by token of cars of course).  Also, yeah, the fields could live in many other places in the city and keep the earnings tax in the city at the same time.  Yes, that takes money, acquisition, imagination.

It's too far gone to even waste my time bantering it.  I just feel like it was a bit of a 'well, I guess we'll throw in three fields'.

I'm grateful for something replacing highway interchanges and vacant land.  But there is quite a bit of creativity left on the table in my opinion.

134
Junior MemberJunior Member
134

PostMar 10, 2021#594

-MLS wants/requires desires downtown stadiums.
-The training facility supports their team and academy, so you're going to have full fields / activity year round.
-The stadium will be used for other efforts than just soccer, so there should be activity there year round.
-It's not a silver bullet, no one is pinning the survival of downtown on this effort.
-It enhances downtown west, provides more activity (Union Station must love it) and provides a link between North & South of Market (Schlafly must love it).
-It replaces a parking lot and off-ramps, with an owner that is fronting most of the money/investment...which is exactly what this forum begs for, but is critical about this?
-With the MLS and the NGA, it wouldn't be a shocker to see some investments to replace other empty lots/parking in Downtown West area.
-The stadium will provide a well designed entrance to downtown from the west, while connecting downtown to midtown.

This area of town is shaping up to be a lot of fun.

474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostMar 10, 2021#595

If I had to guess, the practice fields will be available to some groups/events. Saying they are not accessible to the public at this point is just expectation setting, IMO. People see green space and think "park". This isn't that. But if you wanted to have a charity soccer game and needed a venue, I bet they would be willing to listen.

4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostMar 10, 2021#596

pop_scientist wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
-MLS wants/requires downtown stadiums.
They may prefer central locations and no longer encourage stadiums in ex-urban outposts (like Sporting KC), but they don't require Downtown stadiums. Recent examples of this include San Jose, LA, Miami, and Nashville. 

134
Junior MemberJunior Member
134

PostMar 10, 2021#597

wabash wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
pop_scientist wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
-MLS wants/requires downtown stadiums.
They may prefer central locations and no longer encourage stadiums in ex-urban outposts (like Sporting KC), but they don't require Downtown stadiums. Recent examples of this include San Jose, LA, Miami, and Nashville. 
Fair enough..."requires" is probably too harsh. "Desires" is probably a better term.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMar 10, 2021#598

dweebe wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
addxb2 wrote:
Mar 10, 2021
This site would be infinitely more boring if the only conversation was “Wow. Perfect. No complaints. I’m so lucky to live here.”
I'm just asking that since Downtown West is apparently a bad spot for the MLS stadium, where is the "correct" location?
just a reminder but i didn't say that downtown west is a bad location for the stadium. my complaint is with the vast swath of private green space adjacent to the stadium.

2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostMar 10, 2021#599

^ I think the following may be one of the most important comments on the stadium site's viability and importance: 
Khakis wrote: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.
(Hell of a first comment; cheers, Khakis.) 

I remember one of the biggest issues the City had when the Rams were relocated to Inglewood was the massive decrease in City Earnings Tax revenues from the losses of games. 
Very rough example: Peyton Manning's salary was based on playing 16 games/year. When the Colts played in STL, the City would get 1% of 1/16th of Peyton Manning's total salary in City Earnings Taxes. His salary in 2015 was $15MM. So, the City garnered revenues of $9,375 (15M/16x0.01) from Peyton Manning from that 2.5 hour game. Now, add-in the rest of the Colts, and the City makes an easy multiple six/seven-figures from visiting teams every week. Of course, the Rams' players paid the Earnings Tax for 8 games, which was a very solid contribution to general revenues. (Kroenke still sucks goat nuts) 

Meanwhile, other sports leagues pay their players for training as well as the actual games. I believe the NHL is an example of this. If the Blues' practice facility was in the City, I'd think some more of their revenues would be taxed by the City's Earnings Tax that's not in effect for training conducted in Maryland Heights. It looks like the MLS team, being consolidated in the City, will be fully under the purview of the Earnings Tax, both for games and training. Which is nice. 

Also, I get what you're saying here. I agree that green practice fields are not really urban form. I think we all get this. With that said, I see the totality of this development being one of the best things that can happen to the City, to Downtown, and to the Metro Area. We so far have over half a billion dollars - at minimum - in dedicated private investment to bring a national sports franchise to the City, the real estate development alone leading to multiple new projects and new investments while increasing the image of the City on a national scale, all while eliminating some of the worst eyesores in all of the City from where they've chosen to develop. I'd say it's arguably the best possible win the City could recognize here, one that will pay out in spades for decades. I'll gladly take a couple of professional soccer fields along the highway underpass for all that this will generate, especially when the alternative was nothing but the dumpy status quo of the 22nd Street Parkway and empty parking lots. It's not perfect, but it's very, very GDMF good. 
Cheers bud. 

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMar 10, 2021#600

^ the thing is, not every investment translates into a more livable city, particularly when it comes to pro sports, as should be clear by now. i think you're jumping the gun a bit with your optimism. sports tends to do that to people for some reason. boasts such as "one that will pay out in spades for decades" and "the real estate development alone leading to multiple new projects and new investments" have no doubt been made once or twice before in St. Louis. such results remain to be seen. we'll see how it goes. precedent does not favor your rosey outcome, but i hope us jaded old fogies are wrong for a change.

Read more posts (1241 remaining)