What do you mean? Confused...papercrane10 wrote:I feel like my butts been kicked. This is a great idea. I guess I should be focusing as St. Louis as the audience, not the nation. I aim too high.timeforguinness wrote:Wins the thread. Where do I donate?sirshankalot wrote:I would like to see a major dig-down under the shed and make it an MLS Stadium with shed as a roof over it...
sirshankalot wrote:I would like to see a major dig-down under the shed and make it an MLS Stadium with shed as a roof over it...
I was just thinking that it could be remanufactured into a stadium when I got to your message.
- 6,775
This is certainly a clever use, but I don't see it happening. Mostly because I don't see us getting a team anytime in the next 10 years. And if we do, sadly I think the stadium will end up in a simlar location as the new one in KC.sirshankalot wrote:I would like to see a major dig-down under the shed and make it an MLS Stadium with shed as a roof over it...
ETA: Now that I see that picture, I had forgotten about the support posts. Replacing those would certainly create a challenge. Also the roof is way too low, unless they would dig down 100 feet. By the time you factor in the slope of the stands, forget about it.
- 1,610
I think there might be 1 too many "i"'s in his third to last word...innov8ion wrote:What do you mean? Confused...papercrane10 wrote:
I feel like my butts been kicked. This is a great idea. I guess I should be focusing as St. Louis as the audience, not the nation. I aim too high.
My first thought was the fact that you got metrolink running underneath and would be a problem.sirshankalot wrote:I would like to see a major dig-down under the shed and make it an MLS Stadium with shed as a roof over it...
Then my second thought, if their was enough space, was too move the metrolink station back a few hundred feet, daylight the new station to the field, and put a net from keeping a soccerball taking out a window on a passing train. Talk about transit access.
ricke002 wrote:I think there might be 1 too many "i"'s in his third to last word...innov8ion wrote:What do you mean? Confused...papercrane10 wrote:
I feel like my butts been kicked. This is a great idea. I guess I should be focusing as St. Louis as the audience, not the nation. I aim too high.
- 339
Soccer is a global gamepapercrane10 wrote:I feel like my butts been kicked. This is a great idea. I guess I should be focusing as St. Louis as the audience, not the nation. I aim too high.timeforguinness wrote:Wins the thread. Where do I donate?sirshankalot wrote:I would like to see a major dig-down under the shed and make it an MLS Stadium with shed as a roof over it...
Placement of the field is important in order to minimize Metro rework (maybe under a portion of the stands). I haven't really spent too much time thinking about this, but it's interesting...and most likely too expensive...but it would be an awesome atmosphere.
- 19
This is a great idea but with the Athletica and the steamers the only 2 soccer teams in St.Louis the venue would be way to big for the teams.
- 597
^athletica folded last year..MLS is going to award its 20th (and last team for awhile) in 2012.
I like the stadium train shed idea, if it doesn't work out with a soccer team I'd like to see Kroenke seriously consider it for a new Rams stadium. If he bought the Blues Scottrade KOH and managed to bring an NBA team to Scottrade he'd be set.
I could see an LA Live-like entertainment complex along market between union station and Scottrade. He'd have to demolish the post office and a couple of other buildings but I personally wouldn't miss them.
I like the stadium train shed idea, if it doesn't work out with a soccer team I'd like to see Kroenke seriously consider it for a new Rams stadium. If he bought the Blues Scottrade KOH and managed to bring an NBA team to Scottrade he'd be set.
I could see an LA Live-like entertainment complex along market between union station and Scottrade. He'd have to demolish the post office and a couple of other buildings but I personally wouldn't miss them.
- 19
I see that too. In Kansas City's Power and Light District they build a event space with a big roof over that a see Union Station being something more like that.
- 712
There's plenty of room for a stadium behind or to the side of Union Station, but I don't think you guys have walked around down there recently if you think a stadium could be depressed under it.
Anchor the back with a high traffic institution: SLCC campus, museum, brewery, whatever.
Build McKee's 22nd Street.
Move the Amtrak Station.
Anchor the back with a high traffic institution: SLCC campus, museum, brewery, whatever.
Build McKee's 22nd Street.
Move the Amtrak Station.
- 1,864
I don't understand all this talk about "moving the Amtrak station". It's not as if Amtrak is using the old Amshak they used forever...they do have the brand new multi-use station now, which is VERY nice.
Moving a brand new station that is only a few years old and is a hub for transit in St. Louis less than a quarter mile west makes no financial or logical sense.
Moving a brand new station that is only a few years old and is a hub for transit in St. Louis less than a quarter mile west makes no financial or logical sense.
- 284
Well, neither does bulldozing the Post Office complex "and a couple of other buildings" to replace it with a football stadium and Ballpark Village West. Nor does uprooting an entire St. Louis Community College campus to move it downtown (especially when Forest Park CC is a five minute drive away).chaifetz10 wrote:
Moving a brand new station that is only a few years old and is a hub for transit in St. Louis less than a quarter mile west makes no financial or logical sense.
But why let "financial or logical sense" get in the way of a good hare-brained urbanist scheme?
The soccer stadium idea would be great, but given the collapse of Jeff Cooper's last two franchises, the MLS ship is sailing fast. The McKee plan and re-doing 22nd street would help, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Let's face it. Union Station is stuck. Phenomenal building, but hard to see any practical use for it unless and until there are more people working and living in that corner of downtown. It's too bad. But personally I think there are bigger priorities.
- 19
I agree the soccer stadium is great but St.Louis just doesn't have the fan base. The Steamers tried to play at Scottrade but it was always less than a quarter full. Even though it was indoor it couldn't get a good fan base. Building a stadium for soccer just doesnt seem logical.
I agree the soccer stadium is great but St.Louis just doesn't have the fan base. The Steamers tried to play at Scottrade but it was always less than a quarter full. Even though it was indoor it couldn't get a good fan base. Building a stadium for soccer just doesnt seem logical.
Disagree. St. Louis is a tremendous Soccer city, and I'd be willing to bet we could draw great crowds especially if we get a downtown stadium. I see those "St. Louis United" car stickers with the depiction of our King Louis Statue almost daily. Build it, we will come.
Comparing the Ambush to Major League Soccer is laughable.
- 284
OK. Will admit I don't know tons about the various levels of pro soccer. But this seems like a chicken and egg problem. There isn't enough support for an MLS team. But people won't support a lower-league team (witness the recent Jeff Cooper situation). So how do we prove to MLS that we can support one of theirs?rheights wrote:I agree the soccer stadium is great but St.Louis just doesn't have the fan base. The Steamers tried to play at Scottrade but it was always less than a quarter full. Even though it was indoor it couldn't get a good fan base. Building a stadium for soccer just doesnt seem logical.
Disagree. St. Louis is a tremendous Soccer city, and I'd be willing to bet we could draw great crowds especially if we get a downtown stadium. I see those "St. Louis United" car stickers with the depiction of our King Louis Statue almost daily. Build it, we will come.
Comparing the Ambush to Major League Soccer is laughable.
Also, I keep hearing that St. Louis is this phenomenal soccer town. I don't know what that means. I went to several Athletica games where there were 2,000 people in the stands on a gorgeous Saturday (and half of them were 12 year old girls). I gather the men's team had similar attendance. If there's this great soccer fan base here, why'd we have such lousy attendance? (and, please, don't blame Fenton.)
- 2,386
^There is "crappy" attendance because of the level of play. St. Louis is a great soccer city, and by definition as such, understands the game.
Without sounding mysogynistic (sp?), Athletica was women's soccer. This doesn't have anything to do with a potential MLS team by any stretch of the imagination.
AC St. Louis gets the same response from me. At any given time the top High School teams in the city could go toe to toe with AC and likely win most of the time(at least as of my time around 6 years ago). Once again, this has nothing to do with the potential attendance numbers for an MLS franchise.
The '04 state quarterfinal game (which I played in and thereby have a first hand account) between SLUH and CBC (4 and 1 in the country, respectively) was attended by in the neighborhood of 7000 people. The only reason why it didn't draw more was due to the constraints of the main field at soccer park.
I don't know if the attitudes toward the sport have changed since then, or what the hs competition level is like now, but my gut check reaction to these soccer "ventures" so far is that they simply aren't a quality product for a savvy fan-base. Also, the pride factor of supporting another local major franchise doesn't kick into play for minor league levels. (nice pun, huh?)
Without sounding mysogynistic (sp?), Athletica was women's soccer. This doesn't have anything to do with a potential MLS team by any stretch of the imagination.
AC St. Louis gets the same response from me. At any given time the top High School teams in the city could go toe to toe with AC and likely win most of the time(at least as of my time around 6 years ago). Once again, this has nothing to do with the potential attendance numbers for an MLS franchise.
The '04 state quarterfinal game (which I played in and thereby have a first hand account) between SLUH and CBC (4 and 1 in the country, respectively) was attended by in the neighborhood of 7000 people. The only reason why it didn't draw more was due to the constraints of the main field at soccer park.
I don't know if the attitudes toward the sport have changed since then, or what the hs competition level is like now, but my gut check reaction to these soccer "ventures" so far is that they simply aren't a quality product for a savvy fan-base. Also, the pride factor of supporting another local major franchise doesn't kick into play for minor league levels. (nice pun, huh?)
- 339
Well said, and I totally agree.newstl2020 wrote:^There is "crappy" attendance because of the level of play. St. Louis is a great soccer city, and by definition as such, understands the game.
Without sounding mysogynistic (sp?), Athletica was women's soccer. This doesn't have anything to do with a potential MLS team by any stretch of the imagination.
AC St. Louis gets the same response from me. At any given time the top High School teams in the city could go toe to toe with AC and likely win most of the time(at least as of my time around 6 years ago). Once again, this has nothing to do with the potential attendance numbers for an MLS franchise.
The '04 state quarterfinal game (which I played in and thereby have a first hand account) between SLUH and CBC (4 and 1 in the country, respectively) was attended by in the neighborhood of 7000 people. The only reason why it didn't draw more was due to the constraints of the main field at soccer park.
I don't know if the attitudes toward the sport have changed since then, or what the hs competition level is like now, but my gut check reaction to these soccer "ventures" so far is that they simply aren't a quality product for a savvy fan-base. Also, the pride factor of supporting another local major franchise doesn't kick into play for minor league levels. (nice pun, huh?)
- 712
I know my opinion is unpopular, but the current station is not VERY nice. It's VERY cheap. When Kunstler called it the eyesore of the month last year, he wasn't lying or misrepresenting the thing. It wouldn't be that hard to move its essential functions: a couple curbs between the tracks and an elevated walkway that snakes under I-64. What else is there? Megabus already serves Union Station. A Grayhound desk could fit in Union Station in a dozen places. The Grayhound buses could use any of the abundant parking lots nearby. MetroBuses could route through a proper downtown loop, making the trolley unneccessary, every bus more useful, every downtown MetroLink station better connected, and the land wasted by the bus turnaround on 14th street developable as TOD. Transfers could be made at any bus stop along Market, not just in a little drive-through blocks away from anything interesting.chaifetz10 wrote:I don't understand all this talk about "moving the Amtrak station". It's not as if Amtrak is using the old Amshak they used forever...they do have the brand new multi-use station now, which is VERY nice.
Moving a brand new station that is only a few years old and is a hub for transit in St. Louis less than a quarter mile west makes no financial or logical sense.
I agree it doesn't make financial sense at this time, so perhaps the suggestion is pointless. Still, I don't see AmShack II as a long term solution to our transportation needs. I also cannot understand why a national landmark should be left to waste away while people sit in a little box a few blocks away waiting in a dead space that smells like unwashed bodies. It's an insult to everybody.
- 1,864
I don't see this as AmShack II. I use Amtrak and this station at least 3 or 4 times a month, and I do not feel like it is a little box that smells like bodies. It is a very nice station with a simple, yet friendly layout. In fact, I find it nicer and more user friendly than Chicago's Amtrak station!DaronDierkes wrote:I agree it doesn't make financial sense at this time, so perhaps the suggestion is pointless. Still, I don't see AmShack II as a long term solution to our transportation needs. I also cannot understand why a national landmark should be left to waste away while people sit in a little box a few blocks away waiting in a dead space that smells like unwashed bodies. It's an insult to everybody.
The reality is at the end of the day you won't see Amtrak at Union Station. As chaifetz noted, it is performs well, pratical and the actually track configuration is better for run through service as well as any future commuter rail service. Plus, their is still ample space in the immediate vicinity. Why not find ways to improve upon that area that sees Rail, bus and transit foot traffic.chaifetz10 wrote:I don't see this as AmShack II. I use Amtrak and this station at least 3 or 4 times a month, and I do not feel like it is a little box that smells like bodies. It is a very nice station with a simple, yet friendly layout. In fact, I find it nicer and more user friendly than Chicago's Amtrak station!DaronDierkes wrote:I agree it doesn't make financial sense at this time, so perhaps the suggestion is pointless. Still, I don't see AmShack II as a long term solution to our transportation needs. I also cannot understand why a national landmark should be left to waste away while people sit in a little box a few blocks away waiting in a dead space that smells like unwashed bodies. It's an insult to everybody.
The idea of a soccer stadium is original and at some point the infrastructure holding up the shed has to be replaced, why not throw some money and effort into preliminary design from a third party group, just as third party funds have Post Office Plaza, City Garden and hopefull Arch Grounds in a big way.
Finally, Union Station's future is tied to rebuilding 22nd street interchange. Yes, it might be sad to say but whats more important, trying to put a train back under the shed or keeping the structure intact to celebrate its history? Filling that unused space and replacing street grid would bring the added foot traffic, hotel and conference business that would only help stabilize Union Station and keep a strong hotel present.
- 3,235
stlwriterman wrote:Well, neither does bulldozing the Post Office complex "and a couple of other buildings" to replace it with a football stadium and Ballpark Village West. Nor does uprooting an entire St. Louis Community College campus to move it downtown (especially when Forest Park CC is a five minute drive away).chaifetz10 wrote:
Moving a brand new station that is only a few years old and is a hub for transit in St. Louis less than a quarter mile west makes no financial or logical sense.
But why let "financial or logical sense" get in the way of a good hare-brained urbanist scheme?
The soccer stadium idea would be great, but given the collapse of Jeff Cooper's last two franchises, the MLS ship is sailing fast. The McKee plan and re-doing 22nd street would help, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Let's face it. Union Station is stuck. Phenomenal building, but hard to see any practical use for it unless and until there are more people working and living in that corner of downtown. It's too bad. But personally I think there are bigger priorities.
Having a Community College in U.S. would be a major improvement. It's not that an already established location would relocate but instead open another branch. It could be STLCC, UMSL, or any other college that may not even be located here. By building a student base would also increase the population downtown since students could live close by.
In the past 10 years the Chicago Loop has increased it's student population to 60k. If downtown STL is going to build on it's momentum it will have to add more colleges and universities.
- 712
I never said to back trains into the shed. The 'Amtrak Station' is essentially a desk with some computers, a walkway over the tracks, and some curbs between the tracks. That doesn't have a huge rebuild cost.dredger wrote:The reality is at the end of the day you won't see Amtrak at Union Station. As chaifetz noted, it is performs well, pratical and the actually track configuration is better for run through service as well as any future commuter rail service.
Likewise I never said or implied that the Meramec campus should be picked up and moved. Whatever downtown classes are currently offered could be consolidated and the 'main campus' designation could be lifted from Meramec, that's all. I'd be just as happy if Stevens College or some other small operator moved in. There's plenty of room for infill under that shed.
- 1,864
Disagree. The current station has connections and designated areas to both MetroLink and Greyhound... It's not "just" an Amtrak station. They didn't build a small square prefab building, add a few computers, and slap an Amtrak sign on it. They made it an interesting building that is quite nice on the inside and rider friendly.DaronDierkes wrote:I never said to back trains into the shed. The 'Amtrak Station' is essentially a desk with some computers, a walkway over the tracks, and some curbs between the tracks. That doesn't have a huge rebuild cost.
It may not be a glamorous historic location and building, but it works great for what it was constructed to do. A new, modern facility that is rider friendly and in the middle of downtown.
- 712
Right, and Union Station has a MetroLink station, bus stops on 18th and Market, and plenty of parking lots for Grayhound and Megabus. The entire complex could fit easily into the emptiness to the rear of Union Station.