LHM Seeks Major League Soccer Stadium as Part of New Vision for Union Station in St. Louis

mls at union station
{initial site study by ICON Venue Group}

Lodging Hospitality Management is scheduled to close on their $20M purchase of the historic 1894 St. Louis Union Station today and they're not wasting any time thinking big. According to nextSTL sources, LHM is proceeding with extensive efforts to shoehorn a Major League Soccer stadium into the station site. The Post-Dispatch first reported that LHM, based at Westport Plaza, is thinking beyond reducing retail, expanding meeting space and rebranding the Marriott hotel to a Hilton Double Tree. LHM is hoping to return private train service to the station and add a transportation museum. The PD called it "the centerpiece of LHM's plan." But it's clear that LHM is thinking much bigger. The new owners seem to understand that the revitalization of Union Station will require more than a rebranded hotel and a museum.

Early planning images show an ~20,000 seat soccer-specific stadium located between the train shed and I-64, though this is far from the only option. MLS stadiums of that size have cost between $60-100M to build over the past half dozen years. The stadium plan would also include office, some retail and possibly a residential component. If completed, the MLS stadium would provide the third major league sports venue on just 3/4 of a mile of Clark Street in downtown St. Louis. Although planning remains in the early stages, the vision has received interest from local tenants and some from outside the region.

Efforts to bring an MLS team to soccer-rich St. Louis have so far fallen well short. From Collinsville to Richmond Heights, proposals have come and gone, while the idea appears to remain popular with developers and presumably the potential local fan base. According to a past stadium proposal, nearly 10.2% of St. Louis area residents participate in soccer, well above the 7.1% national average. That participation rate places St. Louis as the fourth highest metropolitan region in the nation and would be the highest of any MLS city. The city's soccer heritage extends to St. Louis University and of course the 1950 World Cup team.

Clearly a development of this size would be a game-changer for Union Station. An MLS stadium that could potentially serve as home to nationally competitive SLU soccer as well as tournaments, concerts and other events could enliven the largely dormant landmark. The notable missing component may be enough space to include additional fields, as is sometimes done to create a soccer complex around an MLS stadium. LHM may have several options for a stadium site adjacent to Union Station including adjacent parking lots, the land that may become available with the looming reconfiguration of the 22st Street interchange and even the Gateway Mall terminus.

{another potential site for an MLS stadium at Union Station – by nextSTL}

{an MLS stadium as the terminus of the Gateway Mall could produce stunning visuals – by nextSTL}

While there are likely several sites on which a stadium could conceivably be built, having the stadium be a contiguous part of the larger Union Station is what would make the project truly transformative. This is presumably why the location between the train shed and I-64 is being explored. It's the nearest site the existing MetroLink Station and nearest the multi-modal transit hub just two blocks east. The stadium would take advantage of existing parking facilities. An estimated crowd of 20,000 (MLS average attendance in 2011 was 17,872) would be near the same as a Blues game and downtown St. Louis has shown it can host multiple events at once, whether Blues, Cardinals, Rams or festival events. MLS average attendance is now greater than both the NHL and NBA.

So how realistic is the proposal? It takes a stadium plan and money to start an MLS franchise. St. Louis has seen plans come and go and ownership groups failed to coalesce. What's different here? LHM owns Union Station and has been connected to THF Realty to create a redevelopment plan. THF's chairman and owner is Rams owner Stan Kroenke. Kroenke also owns the MLS Colorado Rapids and is the majority stakeholder of the Arsenal football club. If Kroenke decides to support this effort, the ownership piece of the MLS puzzle will be complete.

{rendering of MLS stadium adjacent to Union Station – by nextSTL Forum member geoffksu}

{an old mock-up considering an MLS stadium at Vandeventer and I-64 – by nextSTL}

Fullscreen capture 1092012 115824 PM.bmp
{the now defunct MLS proposal for Richmond Heights – Hanley and I-64}

Fullscreen capture 1092012 115820 PM.bmp
{stadium concepts presented as part of Richmond Heights MLS proposal}

  • Angelillo

    Where can I buy my season ticket?

  • mjpka

    What is the status of the Rapids and MLS rules in moving teams? If Kroenke is involved what would be keeping him from picking up the rapids and moving them to St. Louis?

  • bsinha

    MLS would be huge in St. Louis, just look at Sporting Kansas City. I really liked the name and logo of the short-lived USL franchise in St. Louis, AC St Louis. The logo incorporates the shape of the arch, both a fleur-de-lis and flame, and recognizes the Italian influence on soccer there. Plus the green white and gold colors are unique, unlike all the red and blue used by most other teams.

  • This will never work! Nuff Said.

    • SportsEcon

      Probably not for you because you cant afford it.

  • Clint Waltz

    For those of you talking about overlap of seasons or competing with NHL/NFL/MLB for fans’ $$ or fans being too tapped out, what you are overlooking is that in today’s sport business industry it is not about John Doe & his family of 4 so much as it is about John Doe, Inc & their $20million sponsorship package or John Doe, Jane Doe, & Partners, LLP & their 5-year corporate suite contract. What today’s professional sport org looks at first is the corporate market – are their enough Fortune 1000 companies with disposable sponsorship (or CSR) dollars remaining in their budget that we would have a chance of getting 90% of our corporate revenue projections met. Not to say that John Doe & family do not matter, they do, but more for getting butts-in-seats so that the atmosphere looks full and exciting – both in-person and on TV – for those corporate sponsors. That makes it a much easier sale when you are talking about corporate exposure, brand identity, and all that marketing crap that ruined sport by moving it from entertainment to business and driving up player salaries, Fan Cost Index (tix, conc., merch.), etc etc etc.

    Am I sure of this? Absolutely! That is because I do this for a living, first by working for multiple teams in different sports and now by teaching that corporate-driven greediness

    • Zack S.

      yeah and the Blues barely have any corporate support as it is now!!

      • SportsEcon

        The Blues are restructuring. They will get the corporate support they need. Have you seen the ownership group?

  • Dani Pizzella
  • Mike

    Whatever it takes, St. Louis. This would be AMAZING. I’ll pre-order my season tickets now if I have to.

  • AO CG

    If the Kroenke connection holds true this could be the first piece in a series of dominoes. The NFL does not allow its owners to hold majority control of major league teams in other NFL markets. To gain approval from NFL owners, Kroenke agreed to turn over control of the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche to his son, Josh, at the end of 2010, and must give up his majority stake in both teams by December 2014. It makes sense that the NFL would make Kroenke do the same with his MLS squad, Colorado Rapids. The NFL would then telegraph his moves. Kroenke could only acquire more sport franchises located in Rams final destination. LA vs Stl… who has the advantage? St. Louis might just have the upper hand. NBA rumors swirling around St. Louis make sense now. A football team in LA only gives you the opportunity to buy one additional major sports franchise, the MLS LA Galaxy (which is for sale as of the AEG sale today) or making an offer on Chivas USA. The NBA Sacramento Kings are also available in the same AEG sale, but by keeping them in their current market would violate the terms of the NFL same market rule. Relocation to LA wouldn’t be possible with the Clippers and Lakers already in the market. By keeping the Rams in St. Louis this gives Kroenke an additional franchise option in owning both a MLS & NBA franchise. Developing Union Station would fall directly into these plans. The Kings could be relocated to Scottrade with the Blues. MLS Chivas USA (which is in dire need of re-branding and relocation due to pour attendance) would be the best MLS candidate for STL. It currently shares the Home Depot Center with LA Galaxy so there is no stadium to leave behind and would be the perfect fit for a new soccer specific stadium in Union Station. Revamping Union Station would be the keystone to this process and create an amazing development project with plenty of synergy for Scottrade and the purposed MLS stadium. Could be a crazy possibility.

    • Zack S.

      this all sounds way too expensive, we’re not large enough for an MLS team let alone an NBA team – where are we going to get the extra million people needed for this??

      • SportsEcon

        Why would we need an extra million people to fill a 20k seat stadium for 17 times a year?

        • Zack S.

          He’s talking about adding an MLS team and an NBA team – there’s not even enough entertainment dollars in St. Louis to shuffle around for either.

          I’m sorry but is St. Louis experiencing some boom period I’m not aware of?

          Where are these new residents, the new jobs? the new headquarters?

          We’re going to have to build a 300 million dollar stadium on top of this?

          Bottom line, St. Louis’ time as the ‘soccer capital of the USA’ has come and gone. Portland or New Jersey has more claim to that title than St. Louis. We were a soccer hotbed 60-80 years ago. Not now.

          I’m a sports fan like the next person but if you want to see soccer go to KC or Chicago. or better yet watch the EPL and not the worst league in the world (MLS).

          • SportsEcon

            Who said an MLS stadium would be built by the public? Would your sentiment change if you found out it will be privately financed? As far as new residents, jobs, and headquarters, there’s a lot of things happening behind the scenes that you probably don’t know about. These things don’t happen overnight and boom periods aren’t developed by chance. Things are calculated.

          • Zack S.

            no my sentiment would not change, I still don’t see how any of this helps the Blues. I’ll also have to see these things going on ‘behind the scenes’ come to fruition before I get giddy about the worst soccer league in the world. Oh and I’m not having a heart attack, I’m just asking the necessary questions while people like you Hasan, and Alex roll out the welcome wagon with a blind eye turned to the serious questions of how are we going to support this team?

          • SportsEcon

            This would not have any effect on the Blues. And if it does, maybe that’s the Blues problem. The questions you’re asking aren’t necessary. They’re assumptions from a negative stand point. Remember, this is just a site study. Im sure they had these when the MLS stadium was proposed for Collinsville and Richmond Heights. The only difference is that Alex got an early look. Just a guess here, but I imagine the team will be supported by fans. If the possible owners dont think we have the fan base to support it, then it wont happen. Simple.

      • H2Gaming

        STL is the 4th largest city withought an MLS Team, it makes sense, Kroenke also has stake in Arsenal, a soccer team in England, it makes sense, and STL has 10.3 percent of kids play soccer, the nations average is 7.0

    • ben

      did u just suggest adding an mls team, an nba team, and a 2nd nhl team?

    • SportsEcon

      New Jersey would get an NBA team before STL. Also, the Kings will probably go to Seattle.

    • Tim

      Where are you getting this idea that Kroenke wants to own the Kings? He already owned the Nuggets and chose to turn his stake in that team to his son when faced with the choice of being a majority owner in the NFL or NBA. If, as your post suggests, Kroenke wants to own an NBA team so bad that he’d buy a new one and move it to his NFL team’s home city, why didn’t he just save himself all of the hassle a few years ago and move the Nuggets to St. Louis when he became the Rams’ majority owner?

  • Tommy

    Why does it have to be downtown? Having things all in one place is nice but when we only focus on one portion of the city the rest is forgotten. What if the stadium was moved near a neighborhood or area where soccer is very popular.

    • SportsEcon

      Mainly because LHM owns the land and hotel. Another reason is proximity to transit.

  • I like options 2 and 3. One doesn’t work because it could possibly block the view of the station from the highway. Also, if trains are going to come back to the station, they would have to run under the stadium in Option 1 since it clearly blocks the tracks. With Option 2, you are taking out a few buildings, but they are kind of isolated by themselves back there. You could easily build the stadium there and then take out a bit of the parking lot next to it and build several buildings between the stadium and Maggie O’Brien’s. This would place a continuous streetscape from Market Street to the stadium… and you would just lose a small bit of the parking lot to do it (which you could keep the rest behind the buildings). Union Station helping out could easily be worked in Option 2 and 3. But with Option 3, that western side is still highly underused.

    • jhoff1257

      Actually if trains returned to the Station they would run on the Western edge of the building where Amtrak ran before. I believe they still even have the platforms over there. They wouldn’t have to dip under the building. Besides with the MetroLink you couldn’t tunnel under it. I also don’t think many are taking their eyes off the road for the 1 and half seconds it takes to pass the station on the freeway.

  • As a potential traveling fan of the Chicago Fire, I hope this happens. It would be amazing to step off the Amtrak and stroll a couple blocks to the stadium. St. Louis is well-known as a soccer town, and I predict that there would be large road contingencies for matches against Chicago & KC especially, which surely couldn’t hurt the city’s tax revenues.

    That being said, the investment group had best get their ducks lined up quickly and come up with a rock-solid plan. NY Cosmos don’t have a lock on the 20th MLS franchise just yet, but it seems like a foregone conclusion. Once that happens, MLS chairman Don Garber has stated that the league will not be looking for further expansion for several seasons. Any expansion attempt would need to be paired with another city, to maintain conference parity. Orlando has strong intentions on being one of those cities, and there are efforts underway in San Diego, Las Vegas, Atlanta, San Antonio, Raleigh-Durham, yadda yadda.

    • Mark Tucker

      Yes, sadly, we are likely several years away from MLS. But an interim NASL team would be good.

    • hikatie

      Ditto from a Kansas City fan. We’d love to have rivals within day-trip distance.

  • Mark Tucker

    Awesome! My dream come true. However, there is MUCH more to getting an MLS team in St. Louis. Such as nearly 50 million just to get franchise rights. Then before MLS agrees, they tend to like to see a successful ALS team or semi-pro team. Then there is the millions in cost for players, marketing, etc. Probably an NASL team will be the second step AFTER getting a stadium, or vice versa. But, I’d bet on us having MLS by 2020, but no earlier than 2015. (How about the St. Louis GRIFFENS?)

    • pat

      Why would we name the team after Vianney’s mascot?

    • SportsEcon

      Have you spoke to anyone at MLS? Do you think that this site study would be happening if the MLS wouldnt agree to awarding STL a franchise? What makes you think the MLS wants to first see a semi successful semi pro team? There’s NO WAY that this gets built for anything other than an MLS team.

      I agree on no earlier than 2015 only because construction would take about 2 years and I highly doubt this would start construction within the next 9 months. Also, MLS seems to be gung ho on NY being the 20th franchise.

  • Rocky Stone

    THF has not signed on to work on this project, as of now. So the Kroenke connection is not there, to my knowledge. I can definitely think of better places to put an MLS stadium, but I will take anything at this point. I do not see MLS affecting the Blues. The overlap is very minimal with hockey and MLS. MLS goes from March to October, as of now. There has been a push to parallel the season with leagues in Europe like the EPL. I’m not sure they want to play in the dead of winter in the US. We do not have the same climate as they have in England.

    • SportsEcon

      How do you know THF hasnt signed on? Obviously this site is part of the study since LHM owns the land.

  • unstructure

    The thing I dislike about the site is it is closed off to the south and west sides. I want a stadium that engages a neighborhood or at least establishes a context and allows a neighborhood to grow around it

  • Zack S.

    That’s extremely close to scottrade center and MLS plays 9 months out of the year – is nobody else worried about the Blues in all of this? Studies have shown we’re too tapped out to support another sports franchise and Andy Strickland has reported that the Blues were losing 20 million the last three years and of course they’re in the middle of a lockout. I just don’t know about this.

    I could easily see an MLS team being the end of the Blues in St. Louis

    • Chippewa

      I have to disagree. MLS and the NHL’s schedules hardly overlap, if at all. Plus MLS really doesn’t have THAT many games. The Blues’ financial problems come from not being able to take advantage of revenue streams that other teams can. Example: Blues get no money from concessions, from parking, and have a shitty broadcast deal. Those are major sources of income that are minimally related to fan support.

      • Zack S.

        I just think we should take care of the Blues first before going after an MLS team. Studies have shown we’re stretched thin as a market. That includes corporate support…I just don’t have a good feeling about this. The Blues need every fan that walks through their doors, its like you said they don’t get any money from concessions parking and little from FSMW. They need every fan. What if there’s a scenario where the Cardinals make the World Series in October and this MLS team goes on a championship run in November? The Blues could get off to a slow start at the gates and never recover. And we’re talking about a team that has no revenue streams other than its fans and we’re going to put an MLS team 100 yards away?? Maybe if we had 4 or 5 million people, but you just don’t see it done with markets our size.

        • jhoff1257

          You are way over-thinking this. Soccer isn’t just going to come to St. Louis and replace Hockey. That’s laughable. People are not going to stop being Hockey fans because a soccer team moves in down the street. Besides what do you mean “take care of the Blues?” They now have stable local ownership, attendance is fantastic, and fan support in general hasn’t been this good in years, and they are even getting more media attention. The lockout is out of our hands. This sounds a little too paranoid for something that was just suggested a day ago.

          • Zack S.

            well if that’s the case let’s just add an NBA team too while we’re at it. Hockey fans and basketball fans can’t be anymore different

          • jhoff1257

            Let’s do it! I’m down for the NBA 😉 Take it easy man, this is a day old. Like I said to a previous poster, this will be picked apart and refined over the coming months and years as financing, land acquisition, and other development obstacles (22nd Street interchange would be one) are discussed and worked out. I still firmly believe that an MLS team and arena only blocks from the Scottrade Center would be a boon for Downtown. After all Busch and Scottrade are only 5-6 blocks apart on Clark today and if anything that’s just helping Cupples Station redevelop (see previous NextSTL article). Any added development here would be good as this section of the City is essentially dead. Again, just because soccer comes to town doesn’t mean people are going to ditch hockey. Maybe you will, but not a single rabid Blues fan I know will, myself included. In fact I know plenty of friends and family that will frequent both. The team will be fine. A lot more plays into these matters than “studies that show we are too tapped out.” Both soccer and hockey are big here and not just on a professional level. 3 million people is enough to fill two separate 20,000 seat stadiums at entirely different times of the year.

          • Zack S.

            A lot more plays into these matters than “studies that show we are too tapped out.” ?

            Well you’re the first person to admit that.

            I don’t think Alex Inhen would say as much, but I guess it depends seeing as how he’s a hypocrite.

            But maybe you’re right, the Blues have been here for nearly 50 years and I’m sure they’ll still be here once the novelty of soccer wears off.

          • Pedro

            Another thing to consider is the fan base. Tickets for MLS in other cities are often half that of other major sports. A soccer team could pull in sports fans who would otherwise not come downtown to watch games. And people who are already willing to pay a premium for cardinals or blues tickets will not likely quite attending those game just because a new sport has cheaper ticket prices.

          • Alex Ihnen

            Huh? I mean, OK, I’m sure I’ve been a hypocrite more than once, but…can you be more specific?

          • Zack S.

            you’re a hypocrite because, almost as a rule, you’re against all pro sports – the tax subsidies, the idea that money would be magically spent on transit, and the idea that they don’t ‘make’ a city. You haven’t hidden your desire to see the Rams leave St. Louis. Oh but when it comes time to pay for an MLS team and stadium you’re leading the charge? You’re a hypocrite bro, plain and simple – you point to studies against keeping the Rams or adding basketball but turn a blind eye when it comes to an MLS team. Stand by your principles and quit having an agenda.

          • SportsEcon

            No one said this will be paid for by the public. Alex obviously has no idea how this will be paid for so how can he take a stand? Stop jumping to conclusions, you’re gonna have a heart attack.

          • Alex Ihnen

            I love pro sports, but I’m also aware enough to understand that they’re not the economic boon many make them out to be. I’m certainly against massive subsidies, but also pragmatic – if the Rams want $100M to improve the stadium, that may work, but $400-500M? I don’t think that’s a good deal. Anyway, with this story it’s simply news. If it took a massive subsidy to bring an MLS team here? Well, wouldn’t anyone be wise to assess the cost-benefit?

  • matt

    Report back when it’s built.

    • Zack S.

      it never will be

    • exactly Matt. First off you are looking at 200-300 million for the stadium, not 60-100 like the article says. Then 100 million for a franchise fee. MLS will not allow the team to play in the dome, so they have to build a stadium. St. Louis is not going to put public money into this, so you need a Billionaire to do this. Kroenke already has a team in the league, so he is out. Unless anyone knows of a Billionaire that wants a team in St. Louis this will not happen. By the way I would love for us to get a team and would have season tickets. I am just stating the facts.

      • Nim Tichols

        Houstons stadium was built last year for 100 million. The franchise fee of 100 million was only floated for NY (because the size of the market). Please, before you state “the facts”, no them.

  • Pedro

    Investment wise, it may make sense to have a soccer stadium downtown, but the soccer fan in me wishes they would build it olde English style (in the middle of or right next to a neighborhood). But of course Americans love their parking lots and tailgating. I doubt Kronke would take too big of an interest though, he may own Arsenal, but he also owns the Colorado Rapids, and I think if he makes any soccer investments, he’ll make them in Denver. Lastly, the proposed location over the parking lot is terrible, another stadium within spitting distance of I-64/40. The location across market would be ideal, but you would have to reroute the on/off ramps. Regardless, I am excited about the overall investment in union station and I am very pleased to see the idea of a soccer specific stadium being proposed, especially since the location is in the city limits this time.

    • Ebo

      That’s why I’ve always been fond of the idea (that I’m sure I’ve seen on this site) of an MLS stadium in Kosciusko. It would satisfy your desire to have a stadium at least adjacent to a neighborhood, and with all the land down there ample space for a parking structure exists.

      With that being said, it would be nice to have another sports venue located near a MetroLink stop.

    • SportsEcon

      1. This is the planned neighborhood next to Union Station – https://nextstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8552&start=225#p203286

      2. Those are weird reasons to doubt Kronke would take an interest. AEG owns/owned multiple MLS clubs.

  • JoeEScrapDawg

    I love the idea of this right behind Maggie O’Briens. Maggie’s is an Irish pub already so adding that flare to the soccer complex would be a PERFECT fit!!! This would be like our 12th man, as you’ve seen in Liverpool, on “Being Liverpool”, unbelievable show….YNWA!!!! Go Reds!!!!!

  • Kevin

    Personally, I prefer the NextStl rendering where the stadium is directly north of Market. It has the possibility to anchor the awful 22nd street interchange. Plus, the stadium views looking east down the Gateway Mall would be infinitely better than being stuck behind Union Station.

    Either way, this is a pretty exciting proposal.

  • matthb

    Hmmm, seems out of left field, but isn’t THF (Kronke, owner of Arsenal) involved in the Union Station deal as well. That gives this some legs. As pointed out below seems like 20,000 is the right size for MLS, but perhaps once the link is established certain bigger events could be hosted at the Dome.

    • Ebo

      That’s what I was thinking, Arsenal USA. I started trying to follow Arsenal when Kroenke bought the Rams, but the Rams uncertain future in St. Louis tempered my enthusiasm a bit. But, if the Rams stay and we get an Arsenal-affiliated MLS team, I’ll gladly go full Gooner.

      • pat

        St. Louis Arsenal has a nice ring to it

        • Ben

          HELL NO!! COYSSSSS

          • dog

            will not support st. louis arsenal. i’m blue through and through and they risk losing supporters unless they create a team central to st. louis alone and nothing to do with arsenal, or any other team for that matter.

  • Rocky Stone

    I would have to think that an NFL stadium would be too big for an MLS team, as evidenced by KC moving out of Arrowhead to Livestong. I’d prefer a soccer specific venue, versus playing in a giant NFL stadium. It would be very cool to have soccer in the middle of Downtown. Maybe some soccer pubs would open in Union Station. It would be awesome to have a larger version of the Amsterdam Tavern in Union Station, to pregame at before the big soccer match.
    I might be getting ahead of myself!

    • MattyMO

      Uh, what? Sounders seem to be doing pretty well at CenturyLink Field

  • Ted Yemm

    Huh. When i heard the MLS rumors, I thought that the complex would be in conjunction with something for the Rams to bring additional dates to that venue. It seems odd to not try to combine those efforts like they have at Gillette Stadium in Boston.

    • stltim

      MLS has clearly stated that it wants soccer specific stadiums (SSS) for all its teams. A new team without at least plans for a SSS will simply not be considered.

    • Ben

      Boston has the worst ownership in MLS, they get the worst crowds year in and year out

  • Rocky Stone

    Amazing idea! Where did this information come from? It would be hard to find parking, unless they built a 20 story parking garage.

    • Alex Ihnen

      Why would parking be an issue? Scottrade is basically the same size and manages parking just fine.

  • T-Leb

    Sounds and looks promising!

  • Is it April 1st already? These “plans” give no consideration to the buildings that are already there, including the historic Drury Inn/YMCA Hotel and the radio offices next to 64. Of all the ideas, locating a stadium on the west lot works best (and possibly the only option) with doors opening into the trainshed. THAT I could see…none of the other configurations though.

    • jhoff1257

      Exactly, they are plans that were just announced yesterday. It will take years to refine these. Lets just wait and see before we start shooting it down. I also think Downtown could stand to lose those newer buildings next to I-64 behind Union Station (un-walkable!). There is plenty of open office space in Downtown. I would have no issue knocking down those buildings for this.

    • stltim

      If you look at the concept at the top of the page the Drury Inn/YMCA building is clearly untouched. As is the Union Square building which I work in.

    • SportsEcon

      “Give no consideration to the buildings already there?” This is a SITE STUDY. What type of consideration are you looking for?

  • jhoff1257

    Maybe a development like this could spur some construction over the LRT line. How great would it be to have a nice street wall along Clark from Union Station to 14th?