urbanSTL

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2021

^ 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.

I have begun thinking of pro sports investments, as on a kind of spectrum.  On one side is totally private investments (office buildings, hotels, etc.).  On the other side is public cultural investments like SLAM, Botanical Gardens, SLSO, etc.  I think investments in sports are a bit in-between those two things. Part of having a sports team is about local culture, much like for a lot of people having some other institution (like those mentioned) is important to their culture. I get the drawbacks from this comparison (profit vs non-profit), but I think there is something non-tangible/cultural that a sports team adds compared to other private/for-profit investments. 

I'll add - there are alot of people who deeply believe in things like public art, public music, etc. who look down upon investments in sports.  As someone who enjoys both it is kind of annoying. 

^ not arguing that it's not a big part of local culture, but these teams are private, capitalist ventures unlike the other actually public educational and research institutions you mentioned (granted MOBot is not free every day of the week). (also compare the neighborhoods around those institutions to the areas around our "urban" stadiums.) i don't look down on investment in sports, but sports need to be prioritized based on what they are: games played for entertainment. these guys aren't working to save plant and animal species from extinction. they're not educating anyone. they're playing games for a living and making a sh*t-ton of money compared to 90% of people. (yes, i know, many of them give to charities. nice to have that privilege.) there may be intangible, undefinable benefits, but numerous studies have struggled to uncover the tangible economic benefits of urban stadiums. anyway, not arguing for zero investment in sports. just arguing against repeatedly giving away the farm (in this case not subsidies but prime real estate and more unnecessary demo and underutilized space in the heart of the city) for grand promises that never materialize instead of steady, smart development.

yeah, you said that a few times. i'm talking about location and urban potential, and good urban planning. not former use or lack thereof.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2021

yeah, you said that a few times. i'm talking about location and urban potential, and good urban planning. not former use or lack thereof.

This land is closer to being developed into an urban form today than it was two years ago.  Not to mention the immediate interest the practice fields will attract from residential developer eyeing nearby fallow lots and parking lots for apartments. Lots of people would like to have a balcony overlooking MLS practice fields.

^Agree.

I think the larger point here is that absent google announcing a satellite campus with 2,000 employees at the same location, this is undoubtedly the largest and fastest catalyst for substantial residential and experiential infill development in DTW we could have possibly ever hoped for. We are already seeing this with apartment proposals in the area. Connecting downtown to midtown via DTW is a MAJOR coup for creating a dynamic urban environment that will attract continued investment and residents for decades to come. I would bet strongly that this happens much sooner rather than later. Completely different dynamic in this area than we see at BPV.

Now compare this GIANT WIN North of Market to what is occurring South of Market. The Union Station train shed is a roadblock standing between this site and the rest of downtown. Moving to the West, a similarly poorly configured grid/development pattern that will take decades to turn over creates a similar divide to anything of value in that immediate direction. Moving to the South, you run smack into highway 40. Should/could all of this have been done differently? Sure, but it wasn't.

I will take the win North of Market and it's potential to truly connect the city in a way not seen in any of our lifetimes in exchange for the situation South of Market 100 out of 100 times.

Three stories of people who bought homes to be next door to and within walking distance of the proposed Sacramento Republic MLS stadium and their reaction to that bid falling apart.  It’s anecdotal evidence that people will invest in an urban core to live near a sports stadium.  I can’t wait for the next residential building announcement near STLCitySC.  
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/03 ... s-stadium/

If demand for redevelop gets to a point where the owners can realistically monetize the area where the training fields are, I don't think they'll hesitate to relocate them.  Ballpark Village was a softball field for a few years until the market made it feasible to develop it.

jbacott wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

If demand for redevelop gets to a point where the owners can realistically monetize the area where the training fields are, I don't think they'll hesitate to relocate them.  Ballpark Village was a softball field for a few years until the market made it feasible to develop it.

I hope you don’t mind if I push back because it’s just my opinion.  The team is investing millions in players facilities, team HQ, team shop, and other facilities around the training fields to build out a complete campus so that footprint is locked in.  Since there will be year round activity there (as opposed to just game days), the surrounding real estate becomes even more valuable which should draw even more interest from developers.  

jbacott wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

Ballpark Village was a softball field for a few years until the market made it feasible to develop it.

It has always been feasible to develop Ballpark Village, including while it was a softball field. The Cardinals and Cordish just didn't have the wherewithal and chose to bide their time. 

I drove east down Market yesterday, as far as you can anyway, and got a sense of how massive this stadium is. It's going to be fantastic. Along with the St. Louis Wheel this part of DT is going to have a really dynamic, festive atmosphere. The wheel has already brought out the fantasy character of Union Station. Really strong Willy Wonka "Am I in Europe or Where Exactly and When?" vibes. This stadium will just push that up even more.

How about Drury Inn next to Union Station?  The surface parking between Paddy O's and Drury between new practice fields and Union Station seem as prime development spot as you can get but not sure who owns and but once again, its surface parking lot

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

^ Not only that, but it’s a nice hotel.  I know some folks that came in from KC recently and stayed there and loved it.

I've never stayed there: but I've eaten at Lombardos and gone upstairs to check it out and it seems like an impressive place. 

wabash wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

jbacott wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

Ballpark Village was a softball field for a few years until the market made it feasible to develop it.

It has always been feasible to develop Ballpark Village, including while it was a softball field. The Cardinals and Cordish just didn't have the wherewithal and chose to bide their time. 

I'd tend to agree, but it's always a lot easier spending other people's money. The bottom falling out of the market in '08-'09 certainly didn't help push the first phase along.

That Drury Inn was a hotel, club and gym for the St. Louis Railroad YMCA. It "originally opened its doors on September 1, 1907, to serve as many as 400,000 transient railroad workers per year."

https://www.druryhotels.com/content/his ... on-station

^There's some neat railroad themed art in there. It's really quite a lovely old building. They've played host to at least one president during the 1992 debates, I believe it was. Union Station and Drury teamed up to host both parties during the debate that Wash U. sponsored that year.

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

  The surface parking between Paddy O's and Drury

On this of all days!  Maggie O'Brien's

You have to give me a break.   Posted the comment on the day before St. Patrick's Day and I got my green on today.     Plus, trying to push on why the empty surface lot would make for great mixed use infill - Out of town friends/relatives can stay next door at Drury and have a Guiness next door at an irish pub after hanging out & watching the practices from balcony

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 16, 2021

How about Drury Inn next to Union Station?  The surface parking between Paddy O's and Drury between new practice fields and Union Station seem as prime development spot as you can get but not sure who owns and but once again, its surface parking lot

That parking lot is owned by the Union Station developer, Lodging Hospitality Management. It provides at least a third of Union Station's parking, so nothing's going to happen with it anytime soon. Plus, I'm sure they are looking forward to the parking revenue boost on game days...