St. Louis Strikes Back: NFL Proposal for Riverfront Stadium Unveiled

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn19Print this pageEmail this to someone

Today St. Louis attempted to put its best NFL foot forward in an attempt to keep the league in the city. Days after St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced his intentions to build a stadium and move the team to Los Angeles, the two person team of Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz revealed plans for a stadium on the city’s north riverfront.

The plan to is to have a stadium ready for the 2020 NFL season. It is hoped than once the stadium is complete, an Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion team would use the facility. Cost estimates range from $860M-$985M. The proposal anticipates $400M total coming from the league and team ownership. The NFL’s G4 financing program matches team ownership contributions to a new stadium up to $200M.

The stadium would be built up against the Mississippi River north of Lumiere Casino and south of the new Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge. More than 10,000 new parking spaces would be built. The site plan shows all existing buildings north of Carr Street, east of North Broadway to the river, and south of Mullanphy Street removed. The only remaining building shown is the Ashley Street Light and Power building.

While loudly reiterating the pledge that “the new stadium will impose no new tax burden on taxpayers in the local region or the State of Missouri”, the proposal presents “potential public sources” of financing as: Bond extension $300M-$350M, MDFB support $15M-$25M, Brownfield tax credits $25M-$30M, and Seat license proceeds $120M-$130M.

Local and state political leadership, including Governor Jay Nixon, City of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, and St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger, was absent from today’s announcement and not available for comment. The St. Louis Rams released this statement:

“The St. Louis Rams have worked for many years, with several agencies and commissions, and their senior management , responsible for stadium facilities in St. Louis. This includes multiple discussions with the Governor‘s recently formed NFL Task Force. We received the Task Force materials shortly before the press conference. We will review them and speak with the Task Force representatives.”

Highlights from the stadium proposal and the full task force statement are below.

Full set of renderings made available (HOK | 360 Architecture):

NFL stadium proposal - St. Louis, MO

Highlights from St. Louis NFL stadium proposal:

The Vision
• By 2020, the St. Louis region will cement itself as a permanent NFL home with a new stadium on the Mississippi River riverfront.
• The new stadium and its surrounding complex will be the crown jewel of the reinvention of St. Louis’ city center, supplementing efforts already well underway by Federal, State and local public and private entities to redevelop downtown St. Louis, the Gateway Arch grounds, and the Mississippi River riverfront.

Satisfying the Governor’s Core Principles
1. The new stadium project will eradicate blight and redevelop the North Riverfront, an area that wouldn’t be developed in the foreseeable future but for the new stadium project.
2. The site of the new stadium project is eligible for brownfield tax credits in connection with required environmental remediation.
3. The construction of the new stadium will provide jobs that pay competitive wages, creating over 5,000 construction jobs over a four-year period, in addition to retaining a major regional employer and over 2,400 game-day jobs.
4. In addition to financing the construction of the new stadium, the plan includes the financing of material improvements to the existing Edward Jones Dome and America’s Center.
• The Edward Jones Dome will be repositioned for permanent convention center use in order to significantly enhance the St. Louis region’s ability to attract, hold and retain national-quality meetings, events and conventions.
• Making the football season available for meetings, events and conventions at the Edward Jones Dome will create millions of dollars in economic impact for the St. Louis region.
5. The new stadium will be held as a public asset and owned by a public entity, most likely the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority.
• The stadium will be leased to the NFL team’s stadium company pursuant to a modernized lease, with the ability to sublet to an additional sports franchise such as an MLS team.
• Any revenue splits, operating leasehold rights, management agreements, parking terms, signage splits, naming rights, and other rights and obligations will be negotiated with the NFL team.
6. The new stadium will impose no new tax burden on taxpayers in the local region or the State of Missouri.
• The construction will be financed without increasing the current level of debt service and preservation payments from the sponsors (St. Louis County, St. Louis City and the State of Missouri) of the current Edward Jones Dome bonds.
• New bonds may be issued that will extend the current payment obligations (in the same amount as the current obligations) in order to finance the new stadium and the improvements to the Edward Jones Dome and America’s Center.
• All public financing is contingent upon significant private investment from the NFL team and the NFL itself.

Financials
Estimated costs:
Land / Demolition $90M-$110M
Stadium construction $600M-$650M
Parking / Infrastructure needs $170M-$225M
Total $860M-$985M

Private sources:
NFL team ownership $200M-$250M
NFL (committed to match up to $200M through G4 program) $200M
Total $400M-$450M

Potential public sources (all contingent on private financing):
Bond extension $300M-$350m
MDFB support $15M-$25M
Brownfield tax credits $25M-$30M
Seat license proceeds $120M-$130M
Total $460M-$535M

Anticipated Timing
January— May 2015
• Present preliminary stadium plan to Governor and the public
• Ensure stadium plan and redevelopment site meet NFL criteria
• NFL confirms funding availability
• Finalize site plan and develop site acquisition strategy

June 2015 — December 2016
• Acquire site control
• Design and construction documents prepared and finalized
• Bids solicited and contractors selected
• Site preparation work begins

January December 2017
• Financing documents drafted, negotiated and signed
• Lease documents drafted, negotiated and signed
• Site preparation work completed and permits obtained

January 2018 Summer 2020
• Market seat licenses • Construction of new stadium for opening by 2020 NFL season

Full statement released by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon Task Force

PRELIMINARY PLANS REVEALED FOR NFL STADIUM ON NORTH RIVERFRONT IN ST. LOUIS
ST. LOUIS, Friday, January 9, 2015 — The task force appointed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon today unveiled preliminary plans for an NFL stadium project on the North Riverfront of downtown St. Louis that could be the new home for the St. Louis Rams.

Task force co-leads Dave Peacock, the former president of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and local attorney Bob Blitz shared initial concepts of stadium renderings, property plans and a financing model that were featured in a proposal discussed with Gov. Nixon. The final version of the proposal was submitted to Gov. Nixon this morning.

The North Riverfront location, adjacent to Laclede’s Landing and just south of the new Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge, would represent the next phase of revitalization of the St. Louis Riverfront and urban core. The target date for completion of a new stadium would be no later than 2020.

“The North Riverfront is the next frontier for development of downtown St. Louis,” Peacock said. “A new NFL stadium on the North Riverfront will extend and benefit many of our current successes like CityArchRiver, our ongoing growth on Washington Avenue, Ballpark Village, St. Louis Union Station Hotel and other downtown projects. Conversely, the entire metropolitan area will benefit as a business and tourism destination, and we will create new and sustainable jobs while delivering a significant economic boost for our region. Some of the economic benefit comes from making the entire convention center, including the attached Edward Jones Dome, available for conventions and events in the fall each year.”

“Of course, a key message here is the fact that St. Louis has been, is and always will be a strong NFL market,” Peacock added. “Our love for and support of the St. Louis Rams over the past 20 seasons has been extraordinary and consistent with the passion we have for all of our professional and college teams, as well as our many civic institutions. The NFL has been a tradition in St. Louis for the better part of the past 50 years and our North Riverfront Stadium Plan will help ensure it remains that way for generations to come.”

“We are committed and very optimistic for progress and, ultimately, success,” Blitz added. “We are also committed to the principle made clear by Gov. Nixon several months ago that no new tax increases will be used as public funds to support a new stadium project. That consensus is shared by the many public officials and civic and business leaders that we have met. The preliminary plans have been received very positively and everyone is in agreement that it’s time to share them with the people of the St. Louis region and work to see these plans through to fruition.”

The task force met in mid-November with NFL executives including Eric Grubman at league headquarters in New York City and later with Rams and league executives in St. Louis. The preliminary plans were shared at both meetings, where information was exchanged and feedback was provided.

In December, a joint meeting was held in St. Louis with representatives from the task force, Downtown STL, the NFL and the Rams to again review the plans and continue the dialogue.

All along, the task force has briefed Gov. Nixon, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and various city, county and state officials on the discussions with the league and Rams, as well as to continue exploration on how the stadium project may work while protecting taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the task force also met recently with Major League Soccer officials to share the preliminary plans and explore how a new stadium in Downtown St. Louis might become home to an MLS franchise. Several MLS teams currently play in NFL stadiums, as will the incoming expansion team in Atlanta, where a new stadium is being built to serve as home to the Atlanta Falcons of the NFL.
Key takeaways from today’s announcement include:

• St. Louis-based HOK, in collaboration with 360 Architecture, provided initial designs and cost estimates for various options to provide a better understanding of what can be accomplished on the North Riverfront site. HOK currently is finalizing the acquisition of 360 Architecture, considered one of the world’s leading designers of stadiums, arenas and mixed-use entertainment districts.
• The preliminary plans feature an open-air, 64,000-seat stadium with views to the south of the Gateway Arch and Downtown St. Louis and exceptional parking options and accessibility via MetroLink, the highway system serving the urban core and the new Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge.
• Stadium capacity for MLS and international soccer would be 30,000 lower bowl seats.
• Overall, the preliminary breakdown of 64,000-seat inventory is:
o 54,020 general seats o 2,000 suite seats (includes private suites and on-field seating)
o 480 loge box seats (eight seats each in 60 boxes)
o 7,500 club seats
• The stadium will be positioned on the edge of the Mississippi River. A riverfront trail and other riverside amenities could take advantage of our region’s resources and make the new stadium one of the most unique and compelling stadiums in all of sports.
• The new stadium will also include green space and recreational areas, as well as the redevelopment of the landmark Union Electric Ashley Street Power House, constructed in 1902.
• There are an estimated 10,439 surrounding parking spaces provided in the plan.
• The 90-plus acre site represents a mix of publicly and privately owned property. Stadium financing models include the purchase and acquisition of the property.
• Construction of the new stadium would provide jobs that pay competitive wages, creating more than 5,000 construction jobs over a four-year period, in addition to retaining a major regional employer and more than 2,400 game-day jobs.
• The preliminary financial model that is currently being studied is a $860 million to $985 million project. Funding sources could include extension of the current bond payments from the state, city and county that currently service the Edward Jones Dome. This could be done in accordance with all applicable laws and along with significant financial investment from the team and the NFL.

A tri-government agreement between the State of Missouri, St. Louis City and St. Louis County for financing of the Edward Jones Dome was reached in 1991. The state’s annual obligation is $10 million for interest and principal and $2 million for maintenance; the county and city each pay $5 million for interest and principal and $1 million for maintenance annually. Payments on the debt began in fiscal year 1992 and are scheduled to end in fiscal year 2022.

The task force is being assisted by Downtown STL, FleishmanHil lard and the St. Louis Sports Commission, which would be charged with the opportunity to bring additional world-class sports events to the new stadium. Peacock is chairman of the St. Louis Sports Commission.

Peacock, a native St. Louisan, has extensive experience in matters related to the NFL. While with Anheuser-Busch, Peacock worked directly with the NFL on advertising and marketing; overseeing the company’s partnership with the league to position Bud Light as the official beer sponsor of the NFL. In addition to his chairmanship of the St. Louis Sports Commission, Peacock has also served on the boards of the United Way, Boy Scouts of America, American Red Cross and many other prominent local and regional organizations.

Blitz, a founding member of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, was part of the legal team that helped bring the Rams to St. Louis from Los Angeles in 1995. Blitz is legal counsel to the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority and a former member of the Authority.

#STLNFL

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn19Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Candy Brown

    Is the Stadium in the flood zone? No where in the article did we find out about the flooding of the site. Only cost etc. We have heard all this.

  • Pingback: In the NFL's 3-team race to Los Angeles, the Raiders now look like the odd-team out - NewsNIM()

  • Pingback: In the NFL's 3-team race to Los Angeles, the Raiders now look like the odd-team out | DIGG press()

  • Pingback: In the NFL's 3-team race to Los Angeles, the Raiders now look like the odd-team out | Cách ăn giảm cân()

  • Pingback: In the NFL's 3-team race to Los Angeles, the Raiders now look like the odd-team out | Technology Insider()

  • Pingback: NFL Owners Meet to Discuss Relocation - Arch Authority - A St. Louis Sports Site - Cardinals, Rams, Blues, and more!()

  • Pingback: The St. Louis Rams Should Not Move - Arch Authority - A St. Louis Sports Site - Cardinals, Rams, Blues, and more!()

  • Idme Dance

    Just saying but we love using Rootwad Park for our event STL Cypher Sundays. There is no other awesome hidden gem locations for us street dancers to meet and dance. The police finally know us and dont care here anymore. Does anyone know what its like to get the dance commmunity together and stay 100% positive? Extremely difficult so if this park is torn down any other suggestions from people? Not dont try to say FP or Delmar Loop been there done that been chased off by cops. See the videos but you can tell we are just a bunch of ppl trying to enjoy ourselves at this awesome free event!

    Or anyone that wants to donate space in the city (must be accessible by multiple means of transportation) we would def take you up on that

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmiSL03FvR_4a37oocjS0NWOGLYl1eqPb

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Bruceter

    One quick point; this article begins by stating Kroenke announced his intentions to build a stadium in Inglewood and MOVE the team. That is only true in part since no move was announced. What Stan’s intentions are is open for speculation, but it’s not yet a certainty that he will definitely move. Fingers crossed.

  • Mike F
  • Mike

    – Stadium rendering = A+
    – Site plans = D-
    Seems too isolated by cement. Push it as far south as possible, jam it right up to the landing with all the parking on the north side. Think synergy, landing, arch grounds…whatever.
    This much surface parking between the stadium and anything else, I feel is just a way of land banking for some future development which will occur way too far in the future.

  • Don Land

    This is a great initial plan, proposed to be funded 40%+/- by the team owner and NFL. Really great concept! Totally serious. With or without the current owner. We had no NFL team when Jerry Clinton and others created the Dome and ultimately St. Louis got the Rams. They were the best team in the NFL in 1999-2002. Two Super Bowl appearances and one win!

    Look at the big picture and you will see a pretty awesome looking OUTDOOR stadium, right on the Mississippi River. I think surface parking is great! Who likes parking in a 6-level garage? No one. Can’t tail gate or get any sun shine in a garage.

    Pretty amazing initial effort. I would love to watch OUTDOOR FOOTBALL ON A GRASS FIELD IN ST. LOUIS IN 2020!

    • Adam

      Gonna have to disagree with you vehemently regarding the surface parking. Do you live in the city, Don? Just curious. This is not an insult, but it sounds like your opinion of this plan is based on your love of football and tailgating rather than what comprises smart urban development for St. Louis City.

      • Don Land

        I don’t live in the City of St. Louis, but I have worked and developed many good buildings in the City, (and I believe five counties in metro STL), so I do know my way around just a little bit.

        I am not a tailgater, but surface parking, with landscaping, is more friendly and allows unlimited flexibility for the future development and other cool buildings and uses that can come later. It is inefficient initially, but creates open spaces and flexibility. If the designers were to jam garages in all around it, it would cost a fortune, and it would be ruined in many respects. They only play 10 NFL games a year in STL. MLS would increase it by 20? 30 days a year. 1 in 12 days.

        This is just a very preliminary plan and HOPEFULLY, there will be many opportunities for refinement and improvement. I just wanted to chime in with some positive support for what I believe is a good first run. Not done by any means, but a great initial concept to get the attention of the NFL, Kroenke, political leaders, fans, citizens, sponsors and lenders to think about it.

        A long journey begins with the first step. I think this is a good first step.

        • Adam

          I would only suggest that the parking lots are part of the plan because tailgating is a beloved game-day tradition, and therefore it is unlikely that they would ever see future development and other cool buildings and uses.

          • John R

            I agree that abundant parking is a vital part of the site plan as Peacock stressed but not so much for the tailgating experience but because of the revenue it will generate for Kroenke or to cover state & local govt. costs. Unlike Pittsburgh, Cincy or Minneapolis, etc., we won’t see much if any development surrounding the stadium.

            It was also interesting to read that the block-long electrical substation facing Broadway will remain and that there have been no formal discussions on moving Trigen out of the power building…. I think redeveloping that building, which would be awesome, may be more of a fancy than a real plan.

  • Deal Maker

    Why was this not proposed when the Rams begged for it to start 2-3 years ago? I think its to little to late

    • Brian

      I do not know that the Rams ever begged for a stadium here. Enos is a shrewd guy, and he would have seen years ago that the value of this franchise would increase dramatically with a move to LA. He is also a patient man, and knew he had nothing to gain by getting ahead of the timeline. No need to incur the wrath of the NFL or the other owners, who might prevent him from moving out of spite. So he kept quiet, followed the rules, and waited until the time was right. Even if St. Louis would give Enos a stadium cost-free, he can still make more money in LA. The new Inglewood stadium is just one piece of a huge money machine that is being developed; while the football operations will throw some serious cash into his bank account, the other activities will be the real money makers. In St. Louis, he would only get money from the football operations; there will be little, if any, development related to the proposed North Riverfront stadium. Sure, Enos will have to pony up his own money in LA, but he is going to make a lot of jack on that investment.

      St. Louis may still build this stadium and try to lure another team here. This is the best possible outcome for the NFL: they get two new stadia at no cost. St. Louis & Missouri get stuck with at least $300 million in debt. Hopefully, we will negotiate better this time around, and not give the next team an escape clause that kicks in after 15 years.

      • BlueStu

        This might shed some light on some of your misinformation,,,, Do us a favor and actually read it before giving your reply. Thanks

        http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_centers-and-institutes_institute-for-philosophy-politics-and-economics_fellowships/koehlerstadiumpubfunding-11-02-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2

        • Brian

          BlueStu, Thank you for the link to the Koehler paper. Per your very kind suggestion, I read the paper before replying.

          Since your post did not specify what part of my statement was misinformed, I can only suppose that my contention that Enos could make more money building in Inglewood than in occupying the proposed North Riverfront stadium is what raised your hackles. The Koehler paper argues that downtown stadia are more successful than facilities located outside downtown at spurring redevelopment in surrounding areas. I do not argue that point (though Koehler himself admits that it is difficult to prove causality for some of his contentions). My point was that because Enos’ Inglewood stadium will only be part of a much larger development, he will realize much greater returns than he will with the proposed St. Louis stadium. If he were to build a stadium in Inglewood without controlling the surrounding development, his return would be a great deal less. It would probably still be more than in St. Louis, but it might suffer from some of the problems Koehler mentions in his paper.

          As I am certain you know since you are an authority on Koehler’s work, the paper makes some points which argue against the success of the North Riverfront stadium site. To wit:

          Accessibility/walkability is a key factor in success of downtown stadia (page 14). He states that .2 miles is the ideal distance from a transit hub, i.e., a Metro station . The Eads Bridge Metro stop is the closest station, and it is .5 miles away. Furthermore, it is a small station with a central platform; it would be wholly inadequate to handle the 15,000 or more fans who might wish to ride public transit to the game. Beyond the inadequacy of Metro, the North Riverfront site is very hard to access. There is no access from the south, east or north. Access to the west is marginal, due to I-44/I-70. It would be hard to imagine a more challenging site in terms of accessibility than the North Riverfront.

          Because the North Riverfront stadium would be car dependent, Koehler predicts that fans will go directly to and from the stadium, and bypass opportunities to spend dollars elsewhere. In other words, this stadium will do little, if anything, to spur any development around it. To be sure, there is little room to develop anything, with a power plant and North America’s largest river system to the east, a prison and a petroleum terminal to the north, a desert of parking lots, an active train line, and an interstate highway to the west, and a .4 mile hike across parking lots to the bars on the Landing to the south. Even if they were to spare the buildings on Broadway & fill the space with bars & restaurants, they would only serve to pull business from established businesses downtown & in Soulard (which seems to be what is happening with Ballpark Village). Koehler notes on page 12 that stadia tend to merely redirect spending from elsewhere. They can spur redevelopment when they are properly situated downtown, but North Riverfront does not seem to fit that criteria.

          Finally, Koehler notes other factors which predict successful sports complexes: crime rate, median household income, and percentage of the population that is minority. Here is how St. Louis & Inglewood compare: Crime rate , StL 825, Inglewood 366; Median Income, StL $31,997, Inglewood $41,249; Minority, StL 57%, Inglewood, 97%. Though Inglwood’s minority population is much greater, their crime rate is less than half, and their median income is ~30% higher. Regardless of the comparison to Inglewood, the economic and racial segregation in St. Louis is such that football and soccer fans are unlikely to live near the North Riverfront site, and are also unlikely to spend much time or money beyond the boundaries of the stadium project.

          I still maintain that Enos is a smart, patient, and shrewd man. His marriage into the Walton family notwithstanding, he did not become a billionaire 6 times over by being stupid or impetuous. The StL option will give him revenue from 10 games a year; Inglewood will give him even more revenue for those 10 games, plus the occasional Super Bowl, plus revenue from housing and commercial developments 365 days a year. That last item is the real prize for Enos, and it is totally lacking in the North Riverfront option.

          Thank you again, BlueStu, for pointing me in the direction of the Koehler paper. It helped to dispel some of of the darkness shrouding my ignorance, and provide a sounder rationale for opposing the North Riverfront proposal. Your kind beneficence has made me a better man. You are truly a prince among men, BlueStu, and the angels will certainly welcome you to heaven.

    • Jimmy the Weasel

      It’s a long process…. just ask San Diego and Oakland who have both been at it for over a decade now…. Actually I’d say the StL proposal is light years ahead of them!

  • Mikey H

    This is a sad joke. So sad, sad sad. I’m afraid St. Louis will never get it. This is a prime example how revitalization efforts come up short in the city.
    It’s seems the new Stadium will be completely isolated from the rest of downtown. A downtown that desperately needs help. How could the planers not of even incorporated Laclede’s Landing? It’s unbelievable really?????
    Put the new stadium as close to the Landing as possible. Get parking were you can. Work with what you can.
    This “scorched earth idea” is archaic 1970’s/80’s classic failed st. Louis.
    This is obviously a last ditch effort to save the rams from leaving.
    Also, packaging all this real estate together is totally impossible for the kind of money they mention. This is a pipe dream. Sorry but true.

    • John Shaw

      MikeH…. Have you even seen the latest plans for the project? from your comments I guessing ‘NOT’ It’s practically next door to Laclede’s Landing and the Arch grounds and will nicely complement the ongoing half a billion dollar project here >> http://www.cityarchriver.org/about-the-project/process/

      Obvious you have such a negative view of St. Louis and this region that I would wager to say that you are most likely not even from here, perhaps writing from L.A.?

      Your comments not only are false, but conflicting at best. On one hand you mention the ‘downtown desperately needs help’ yet EVERYTHING you say is either negative or against anything that would offer improvements to make it better. So basically if you are not here to offer a solution, but only to highlight the problem, then SHUT UP!!

      The sad joke are people like your self who can only focus on everything that is bad and negative, thats not only sad, but quite pathetic as well….I feel sorry for you!

      One last note…. How in the world can you say St. Louis and their plan presented is too little and to late in a desperate attempt to keep the Rams? Seriously??? They have started this process in 2012 and it’s barely 2015. San Diego has been at it over 10 years and Oakland… well basically since they left L.A. in 1994. Obviously the sad joke is you are clueless!

      • Adam

        I’m “from here”, love St. Louis, and agree with Mikey H. The difference between you and I (and Mikey) is that we’re concerned about the city becoming dense, populated, and livable again, while you’re rabid over football and couldn’t care less if there’s a buildings standing anywhere inside the city limits as long as you have a giant surface parking lot for tailgating. That seems to be the case with most people who think this is a good land use plan. Sadly it seems to be the norm in this region.

        • Shawster

          Actually with you 100% on Architectural preservation, Other than the Power Station building I’m just not sure there is another building on this foot print that should keep progress from moving forward…. If so please point it out.

          • John R

            Perhaps no single building is as stunning as what a Union Electric restoration could be, but the collective loss of the many historic buildings would be significant. Many already are rehabbed and/or in productive use while others have plans or solid potential. I believe only one has serious structural issues.

  • Mike F

    Just an FYI, Trigen’s current capacity is at 33.8 MW. Reading around the ‘tubes, when the 15.6 MW which came online in 1999 it cost 13.5 MillionUSD. That’s just for the equipment and install, not the facility. Let’s say that 33.8 MW now costs somewhere around 1.5 MillionUSD/MW today, up from the approximately .9 MillionUSD/MW in ’99. Do the math, and just the cost to replace the equipment–turbines, ducting, piping, automated controls+the programming, etc.–comes in at around 51 MillionUSD. Factor in the cost of another plant, say at 20 MillionUSD, and you’re looking at 70 MillionUSD to Trigen to replace their working plant and equipment.

    Either Trigen’s accountants, lawyers, and engineers are screaming with glee at the prospect of squeezing the Rams for 70 to 100 MillionUSD, or they are absolutely blowing their tops, thinking what a pain in the a** it’s going to be to try to extract that money from the Rams/NFL, knowing what duplicitous jackanapes the owners and the organization often show themselves to be.

    • John R.

      My fear is that the power plant and floating river trail on here are nice things that make for some terrific renderings and build some support but in the end don’t come to fruition. We do know though that the Central Riverfront Trail is being built out to the Biddle Trailhead right up to the plant, but does anyone know if that floodwall is being kept as part of the project or is it getting removed?

      • Mike F

        You mean that bit with all of the nice terra cotta sculptural artwork? Good question. Really good question. How do you move an XX’ length of 2-3′ thick flood wall, without damaging the artwork attached to it? Does one remove the artwork (risk of damage), or segments of the wall (more damage)?

        Criminy, the more I think about this whole cockamamie scheme, the angrier I get.

        Hopefully, our anger isn’t proportional to the likelihood of the populace going along with the bamboozle.

        • John R

          I’m talking about the flood wall between the plant and the Landing. (It’s been a bit since I’ve been down there but I remember it as unadorned concrete unlike at Rootwad.)

          Anyway, GRG is currently building the Central Riverfront Trail right there and I believe will be raising the elevation by 2.5′. Looking at the stadium renderings it looks like the wall is removed; I’m just wondering if this was happening as part of the CRT project… it would be a big aesthetic improvement imo.

  • matt

    scale that thing down, save the buildings on broadway and a few others, and stick an MLS team in there. kroenke can take a walk.

    • Mike

      yeah because there are many people in st.louis wanting to pony up $150 million expansion fee for a MLS team….just assures that the owner wouldn’t make a profit in 20 years.

  • Michael Draga

    What is the flood impact on a facility that close to the river?

    • Chaifetz10

      Supposedly none. They’ve designed it to be 3 feet above the flood stage from 1993. If St. Louis sees flooding at that level (more than 3 feet higher than 93) well a lot more than just this stadium would be under water.

  • rgbose

    We’ve put our sports venues just far enough away from each other so that there’s barely any overlap in parking. Very inefficient, especially for a city that can’t add any land.

  • rgbose

    We’ve put our sports venues just far enough away from each other so that there’s barely any overlap in parking. Very inefficient, especially for a city that can’t add any land.

  • rgbose

    “Land / Demolition $90M-$110M” Always amazed how much blight is worth. Shouldn’t current property owners be willing to pay them to take on these liabilities?

  • rgbose

    “Land / Demolition $90M-$110M” Always amazed how much blight is worth. Shouldn’t current property owners be willing to pay them to take on these liabilities?

  • Michael C.

    I like the rendering except for the surface parking. It’s ridiculous. Please put the money into Laclede’s Landing and infill around the area. That’s where the “Tailgating” should take place.

  • Alex Devlin

    Also does anyone know of any public events on this?
    Are we, the public, going to any chance to change these plans?

  • Alex Devlin

    The main argument I’ve heard regarding the endless surface parking is preserving the “tailgate experience”.

    Why does St. Louis have to conform to the idea of a parking lot tailgate?

    Why cant we build a couple of large scale parking garages and leave the rest to dense redevelopment and infill? It’d be great if we could build a neighborhood around the stadium that wasnt dependent on the stadium or the games. A network of streets similar to Bourbon St. in NOLA that encourage NFL and MLS fans to tailgate in the streets, bars, and restaurants.

    Not only could you rake in taxes on the stadium you could continue to rake in taxes on the current buildings and new infill. We could also receive a hefty penny from the gov for redeveloping historic buildings.

    • Richard Ontiveros

      Your ideas are what I was hoping to see presented in this plan, which is why my previous comments stated I hope this is a preliminary plan because this isn’t good enough. I can’t see spending $900 million to build a smaller stadium with only 64,000 seats and having an open-air stadium which limits our ability to attract a Super Bowl, the NCAA final championship football game or a Mizzou game because the capacity is too small and its needs a retractable roof. If we are going to invest this amount of money for a new stadium then lets spend the additional $200 to $250 million and build a stadium with an 80,000 seat capacity and a retractable roof, so you can still have outdoor games including soccer but have the flexibility to have indoor events if needed. I know Dave Peacock mentioned he wanted an urban redevelopment of the north riverfront but one vast surface parking lot and a couple of small garages is not urbanization. You are absolutely correct in developing an urban tailgating event in the bars, clubs and restaurants by connecting Laclede’s Landing, the Lumiere Casino, the Bottle District with residential housing as part of the development with the new stadium. There is way too many parking spaces for tailgating and this aspect of the project needs some work. The two blocks north of Mullanphy with the city’s medium security facility and the other facility should be relocated and those buildings should be converted to surface parking. Since Kroenke has created a public relations disaster we need to focus the public on this project is not limited development of a new stadium but an urban development for downtown and the north riverfront.

      • John R

        I noticed that as well that we have a high price tag for a smaller stadium that won’t be able to lure marquee events that a retractable roof venue could, (Which then raises the question of how much $$ will have to go into EJD in the coming years to make it relevant with big events) I think the seemingly high price tag for a smaller stadium is largely a result of the site plan putting it on the river that adds high cost items such as buying out power stations and building a riverfront trail over the water.

        So it would be interesting to know if you could get a retractable roof stadium for the same general price tag by moving the location from smack-dab on the riverfront to elsewhere in the general area. For example, it looks like you could move it to the southwestern portion of the site plan…. this would be directly north of the casino and be roughly bounded by Carr on the south, Broadway on the west, Dickson on the north (short of the Shady Jack’s strip), and a bit east of the rail. Because of the larger size of the stadium it still might require dealing with the rail and taking one or two warehouses and it also wouldn’t have the flash of being right on the riverfront.

        But what it would do is vastly reduce demo, allow for easy access from two metro stations, satisfy tailgaiting experience (with the vast lots north of the dome and directly accessible under the highway on Biddle serving as one major zone as well as currently undeveloped parcels northwest of this stadium site) and boost activity and infill development prospects in the Landing while also making the city more competitive in attracting major events. In addition, stakeholders could continue to work with GRG to add more amenities to the Central and North Riverfront trails as an ongoing initiative.

      • John R

        I noticed that as well that we have a high price tag for a smaller stadium that won’t be able to lure marquee events that a retractable roof venue could, (Which then raises the question of how much $$ will have to go into EJD in the coming years to make it relevant with big events) I think the seemingly high price tag for a smaller stadium is largely a result of the site plan putting it on the river that adds high cost items such as buying out power stations and building a riverfront trail over the water.

        So it would be interesting to know if you could get a retractable roof stadium for the same general price tag by moving the location from smack-dab on the riverfront to elsewhere in the general area. For example, it looks like you could move it to the southwestern portion of the site plan…. this would be directly north of the casino and be roughly bounded by Carr on the south, Broadway on the west, Dickson on the north (short of the Shady Jack’s strip), and a bit east of the rail. Because of the larger size of the stadium it still might require dealing with the rail and taking one or two warehouses and it also wouldn’t have the flash of being right on the riverfront.

        But what it would do is vastly reduce demo, allow for easy access from two metro stations, satisfy tailgaiting experience (with the vast lots north of the dome and directly accessible under the highway on Biddle serving as one major zone as well as currently undeveloped parcels northwest of this stadium site) and boost activity and infill development prospects in the Landing while also making the city more competitive in attracting major events. In addition, stakeholders could continue to work with GRG to add more amenities to the Central and North Riverfront trails as an ongoing initiative.

        • Nathan Bookhout

          Also a better location. Anything that ties the stadium to the landing is a better idea. A peninsula as opposed to an island in a sea of parking.

        • Nathan Bookhout

          Also a better location. Anything that ties the stadium to the landing is a better idea. A peninsula as opposed to an island in a sea of parking.

          • Nick

            The only suitable location closer would be the ARCH grounds, and I think the Federal Government might have an issue building a stadium under the Arch!

          • Nathan Bookhout

            Maybe… but that would be a heck of a view spanning the 50 yard line

          • Ryann

            What if the stadium was just north of MLK, right behind Lumière. It would have much better access to MetroLink, which would be incentive to park and ride which is cheaper than parking downtown anyway, and you don’t have to deal with driving in traffic on the way down or back home. Just throwin ideas out there. Thoughts?

          • John R

            If you could deal with the elevated rail somehow, you might be able to squeeze in a stadium but you might also have to move Leonore Sullivan/Central Riverfront Trail further east as it would be a very tight e-w fit.

            But I like the concept… more proximate to downtown, more accessible to metrolink, instantly makes Laclede’s Landing a Rams Village and requires little to no demo of historic buildings, which in turn could be made into a nice mixed-use district as well.

          • Nathan Bookhout

            Demolish Hotel Lumiere and that is a possibility.

        • Mike Brady

          Adding a larger Marina/Jetty would be nice on many levels. not to mention adding addional protection to the Stadium area in the event of the every so often break away barge! Thoughts?

          • John R

            I suppose engineering just about anything is possible but more of a question of practicality/cost; however, GRG is on record as saying that a kayaking area is just one of many potential additions to the north riverfront trail in the area so there you go! Again, imo with or without the stadium there I think we’ll be seeing a much better riverfront trail/public space in the coming years.

          • Mike F

            I believe that both the Coast Guard (navigation) and the Army Corps of Engineers (dams, jetties, and other assorted marine infrastructure) have expressed their misgivings with regards to a jetty, or other such device. It would be nice to have some safe accommodations for boaters on the riverfront, though.

  • Nathan Bookhout

    Couldn’t they sneak it in behind the powerplant with a NW-SE orientation? That would put it right in the back yard of Lumiere/Four Seasons, well within walking distance of metrolink. put all the surface parking to the north of the stadium, structured with mixed use to the south. You would have all the major tourist trap right in the stadium district, tailgaters get their area, with a boon to the remaining businesses on broadway. Could somebody knock up what that would look like? I’m shite with photoshop… 😉

  • Initial reactions, one day later:

    1. Needs to start north of O’Fallon to preserve the Laclede Power station (feel free to do something new with Rootwad Park though — sorry Mr. Cassilly!) and the William Kerr building.
    2. Space between Lumiere/Four Seasons plot and new stadium should serve as an active corridor (read: buildings, businesses, etc.)
    3. I’m torn between preservation of Broadway buildings and a complete tear-down. I guess I’d prefer that parking only extend to Collins, then implement selective demo/rehab/modern construction on Broadway. Imagine some new Broadway apartments with rear balconies overlooking the tailgating scene (8+ times a year) and the stadium!
    4. Good lucking trying to get that freight line buried!
    5. Cool connection to the existing riverfront trail, though I don’t quite “get” the separated path extending further over the river. Instead, The plan would be just fine if the trail ran up onto the stadium’s waterfront pavilion rather than being separated.
    6. To preserve the seemingly precious parking spaces, tear down/relocate the trainers and the medium security facility (doubt anybody’s want that right next door to their game day experience anyway).
    7. Don’t see them shutting down the Ashley Street power station. Could be a cool scene if they did though.

    Other ideas:
    1. Run a Mississippi River tourist trolley from here down to Chouteau’s Landing (and maybe down to the brewery!) for additional river activity. Had an idea years ago of using the Laclede Power Station as the trolley house.
    2. Remove I-70 in favor of boulevard! An inner drive can lead directly to stadium grounds.
    3. High rises at Bottle District overlooking new stadium!

    Overall. As a non-football fan, I think this would be a cool reality to see with minor adjustments.

    • Presbyterian

      The power station provides steam for some downtown customers. But I doubt it would be too difficult to move that function elsewhere.

      • John R

        If anything is a game-changer from this plan it is the potential adaptive re-use of the power plant and the floating trail. I have to believe GRG was consulted on this and it is what they’d like to see as part of their own initiative to improve the North Riverfront Trail. If the stadium plan falls through, this is a worthy amenity to explore on its own… it not only would greatly enhance the riverfront experience but would also increase interest in the surrounding warehouses for additional adaptive re-use.

      • Mike F

        Well, nothing is ever difficult, with the right amount of money. In my post below, I detail how much is l-i-k-e-l-y to be needed by Trigen to reinstall the 33.8MW of generating capacity in another purpose-built facility. I’m not an engineer, but I did take into account the cost to install capacity here in the past, and took into account possible inflation costs.

  • Jack Bowe

    I’d like to see a push for a master plan from the beginning that establishes the stadium’s relationship to the city. If we’re going to throw out proposals, let’s make it something that is connected and integrated.

    IF this project happens, it would be a great opportunity to see a plan connecting the Arch grounds > Laclede’s Landing > Lumiere > Stadium & Riverfront > Trestle > Old North.

    I’d also like to see the western connection from the stadium all the way to Wash Ave. As it is, this proposal will not help curb traffic or transform 70 into a boulevard, which I think is vital. With so much surface parking just west, 10,000 spaces (and destroying the current building stock) is absurd.

    I’m not against a stadium, but this can and should be an opportunity for St. Louis to act within its own interest rather than bow and serve.

  • Brian

    Since the Illinois state line is very close to the west bank of the Mississippi at that point, perhaps they should project the stadium 100 feet out into the river and get Illinois to pay the lion’s share of the construction costs (as they did with the new I-70 bridge).

    • John R

      Let’s put it on Bloody Island…. sounds appropriate and would give an awesome view of downtown Saint Louis.

      • Mike F

        Not to mention that the National Talk Like a Pirate Day (September 19) celebrations would be awesome.

  • Brian

    I dunno, $400 million in public investment (probably more, as things are always more expensive than promised) for only 8 football games (except for the one time in a generation that the Rams make the playoffs) and 17 home soccer dates a year seems like a crappy investment. Keeping in mind that the stadium would need to be replaced in 20 years (though the bonds will take 30 years to retire), the $800 million or so public money commitment (400 mil @ 4% interest for 30 years) will pay for 160 football and 340 soccer games. There will be an increase in employment associated with the soccer dates, but nearly all the jobs will be as they are at the Jones Dome: low-wage, part time, service jobs. I do not expect our business and political leaders to negotiate an agreement that will be any better than the one they did to lure the Rams to St. Louis. If anything, the region is even more desperate than it was, and the NFL and the Rams are in an even stronger position than they were back then. Elevator capitalism: Enos and NFL get the penthouse, and the public gets the shaft.

  • Brad Fratello

    I’m excited that by 2020 the river will be so clear that you will be able to see the shadows of the barges on the riverbed 😛

  • John R.

    As details emerge I’d like to know among other things:
    1) what exactly is the plan for the rail line?
    2) what’s up with the taking of the Stamping Lofts/FarmWorks project (which after a $10 million plus investment funded in part by state and federal tax credits as well as one of those “in-lieu of its own development contributions” by Lumiere Place is the very definition of the opposite of blight)?
    3) will they be willing to trigger eminent domain if needed?

  • moe

    I could care less about football and even less about greedy Stan so I’m not going to shed a tear if they leave. They are welcome to stay if they pay their own way though. But having put that out there……really folks?????? This is the best they could do? Hell, putting it out in Fenton at the Chrysler lot (yes I know it’s off the market now) or in East St Louis would have been better than putting a stadium (no matter how bedazzled it is) with our untapped jewel of the river on one side and surrounded by rivers of concrete on the others. God forbid they consolidate the parking into a single structure. Or how about putting it underground? But no, let’s do the easiest, cheapest, and ugliest that we can. Sad part is that many taxpayers, including those in the City, would be willing to subsidize this crap.

  • moe

    I could care less about football and even less about greedy Stan so I’m not going to shed a tear if they leave. They are welcome to stay if they pay their own way though. But having put that out there……really folks?????? This is the best they could do? Hell, putting it out in Fenton at the Chrysler lot (yes I know it’s off the market now) or in East St Louis would have been better than putting a stadium (no matter how bedazzled it is) with our untapped jewel of the river on one side and surrounded by rivers of concrete on the others. God forbid they consolidate the parking into a single structure. Or how about putting it underground? But no, let’s do the easiest, cheapest, and ugliest that we can. Sad part is that many taxpayers, including those in the City, would be willing to subsidize this crap.

    • Daniel

      Agreed. This would be a travesty, unless they could somehow manage to cut down the surface used by parking by like 80%, which wouldn’t happen.

    • Luftmentsch

      Agree! I couldn’t believe the statements by Peacock about how the aim of this is to “revitalize downtown.” Is he kidding? Who is this dweeb? How many times is St. Louis going to let someone like that hold a (metaphorical) football for us and whip it away as we try to kick it. This is NOT about revitalizing anything except the pockets of a few narrow interests.

    • Luftmentsch

      Agree! I couldn’t believe the statements by Peacock about how the aim of this is to “revitalize downtown.” Is he kidding? Who is this dweeb? How many times is St. Louis going to let someone like that hold a (metaphorical) football for us and whip it away as we try to kick it. This is NOT about revitalizing anything except the pockets of a few narrow interests.

      • Charlie

        Obviously you haven’t been down to the proposed area lately…. or maybe ever?? Do us all a favor and at least google map the location and tell me if this particular area could certainly use some much needed ‘revitalization’! As for Mr. Peacock…. I feel he has done an excellent job given his task at hand and has done an steller job at representing the StL groups interest! As for you…. Your either a narrow minded, inward looking hayseed stuck in a hole using bad 80’s era slang…. Or you are an L.A. troll trying everything in their power to sink any possibility of this development ever getting off the ground. Either way…. Shut Up!

        • Luftmentsch

          Ok, I confess, Charlie. I’m actually Jerry Brown. I’m trolling the St. Louis discussion lists in hopes of undermining this brilliant stadium plan that could leave our largest city bereft and flailing without a football team. (I’m the Governor of California, by the way, which is where LA is located. I gather you don’t read the papers much.) I’m sure you’re correct that this proposed stadium and its vast sea of parking will revitalize downtown StL. After all, the existing dome has already done so much for the city, and look at how football stadiums and parking lots in other towns have had transformative effects. (I can’t think of one offhand, but I’m sure there’s one somewhere). I will now shut up, as per your suggestion.

          • Mike F

            Lol, Airman!

            It’s weird how the psycho Rams fans have shown up and have taken to lambasting everyone who wishes to hold even the dimmest light of scrutiny on this pig of plan. And the folks who’ve come out firmly and vocally against it? It’s like they have proposed taking away puppies and kittens, and re-opening the Auschwitz death camp. Sheesh, get a grip people.

        • Adam

          If those parking lots don’t go away and the plan isn’t revised to retain and rehab at least some of the existing buildings, then I hope it crashes and burns as well. 🙂 Oh, and I think football is boring and stupid. AND I’m a COMMIE!

          • Jane

            Perhaps you can come for the soccer then?

    • Skip Weber

      Unfortunate reality of modern professional sports…. You can pay to join the club or be left on the outside looking in…. seems like these cities have chosen to be part of the club with their public investments …

      http://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

      right or wrong it’s the reality… an interesting read on the subject…

      http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_centers-and-institutes_institute-for-philosophy-politics-and-economics_fellowships/koehlerstadiumpubfunding-11-02-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2

      • dempster holland

        football stadiums are to US cities what cathedrals were to medieval
        European cities

  • Sam

    Just throwing out ideas, but if there really is that much of a demand to keep an NFL team in St. Louis, why isn’t there a movement to try and buy the team from Stan? Maybe in a way that it could be a publicly owned team like the Packers? Not that the NFL or Stan would allow that to happen.

    • Sam

      Well, forget the public ownership part. I just found this: “Green Bay is the only team with this form of ownership structure in the NFL; such ownership is in direct violation of current league rules, which stipulate a limit of 32 owners of one team and one of those owners having a minimum 30% stake”

      • moe

        Why would they want public owners? That would be sharing their wealth with the minions. The 1% doesn’t do that.

      • moe

        Why would they want public owners? That would be sharing their wealth with the minions. The 1% doesn’t do that.

    • Sam

      Well, forget the public ownership part. I just found this: “Green Bay is the only team with this form of ownership structure in the NFL; such ownership is in direct violation of current league rules, which stipulate a limit of 32 owners of one team and one of those owners having a minimum 30% stake”

  • Sam

    Just throwing out ideas, but if there really is that much of a demand to keep an NFL team in St. Louis, why isn’t there a movement to try and buy the team from Stan? Maybe in a way that it could be a publicly owned team like the Packers? Not that the NFL or Stan would allow that to happen.

  • StLouisEst1764

    I really like the rendering of the stadium. Its sad to see 33 historic buildings to be gone however the truth is all if not most of those buildings will probably never get reused whether we like it or not…

  • StLouisEst1764

    I really like the rendering of the stadium. Its sad to see 33 historic buildings to be gone however the truth is all if not most of those buildings will probably never get reused whether we like it or not…

    • jhoff1257

      People said the same thing about Washington Avenue, Lafayette Square, Cherokee Street, South Grand, etc. Besides, many of these buildings are occupied. Not anywhere near all of them are vacant or blighted as we’re being told. One recently underwent a $10 million investment partially funded by state tax credits.

      • John R

        And another eye-browsing thing about that project is that Lumiere Casino gave a $2 million contribution to it as part of the deal with the City to avoid its earlier obligation to build a mixed-use development on its own property and instead make contributions to other projects in the broader area. Blues Museum was another beneficiary and I can’t recall what else. Anyway, here we have a great example of riverfront redevelopment that is improving lives and adding value to the city but would be demolished for surface parking (at least under the renderings). So Saint Louis!

        • Alex Ihnen

          As part of this agreement, Lumiere was given credit for building its own surface parking lots. The cost was considered a public good and so was subtracted from the payment they owed.

        • Alex Ihnen

          As part of this agreement, Lumiere was given credit for building its own surface parking lots. The cost was considered a public good and so was subtracted from the payment they owed.

        • Alex Ihnen

          As part of this agreement, Lumiere was given credit for building its own surface parking lots. The cost was considered a public good and so was subtracted from the payment they owed.

        • Alex Ihnen

          As part of this agreement, Lumiere was given credit for building its own surface parking lots. The cost was considered a public good and so was subtracted from the payment they owed.

        • Stan

          I’m sure Lumiere people would be all over this development! in a very positive way!! How much was that initial investment?

      • 1904 Fair

        Unfortunately the bad thing about Nay-Sayers who ONLY offer whats bad and won’t work, is that they lack any vision and are not creative enough to offer solutions to a problem! Thank goodness the Nay-Sayers didn’t win out with bulding the Gateway Arch!

  • Richard Ontiveros

    I hope this is a very preliminary plan as it needs some work. The general consensus is people feel it is too close to the river in case of flooding and moving it one block north is a great solution to preserve a couple of the warehouse buildings. Has anyone suggested how this plan is going to resolve the railroad issue? According to Dave Peacock the intent is to revitalize an urban area, but this plan is a vast surface parking lot which certainly isn’t going to accomplish that goal of urbanization. I’ve been to North Shore in Pittsburgh and The Banks in Cincinnati which have two new stadiums on their riverfronts and they don’t have this much surface parking. The proposed blocks with four story garages should have mixed-use developments which should include some 200 to 300 foot high-rise residential housing and there could be more green space. Another issue is the capacity of the venue. The average capacity of NFL stadia has grown to 71,000 and it seems a waste of $900 million dollars to build a smaller venue, that won’t be able to host a Super Bowl, or NCAA football final championship game or even a Mizzou football game because its too small. It’s a debatable issue of open-air versus retractable roof which if included wouldn’t prevent the MSL from still coming here, just open the roof! I’m sure these amenities would raise the cost to over one billion dollars. I don’t believe Stan Kroenke has too many fans in St. Louis and would love to see a group of investors in St. Louis buy the Rams, upgrade this stadium plan and work with developers to build a comprehensive urban renewal project on the North Riverfront. This plan in its current form isn’t good enough.

  • Richard Ontiveros

    I hope this is a very preliminary plan as it needs some work. The general consensus is people feel it is too close to the river in case of flooding and moving it one block north is a great solution to preserve a couple of the warehouse buildings. Has anyone suggested how this plan is going to resolve the railroad issue? According to Dave Peacock the intent is to revitalize an urban area, but this plan is a vast surface parking lot which certainly isn’t going to accomplish that goal of urbanization. I’ve been to North Shore in Pittsburgh and The Banks in Cincinnati which have two new stadiums on their riverfronts and they don’t have this much surface parking. The proposed blocks with four story garages should have mixed-use developments which should include some 200 to 300 foot high-rise residential housing and there could be more green space. Another issue is the capacity of the venue. The average capacity of NFL stadia has grown to 71,000 and it seems a waste of $900 million dollars to build a smaller venue, that won’t be able to host a Super Bowl, or NCAA football final championship game or even a Mizzou football game because its too small. It’s a debatable issue of open-air versus retractable roof which if included wouldn’t prevent the MSL from still coming here, just open the roof! I’m sure these amenities would raise the cost to over one billion dollars. I don’t believe Stan Kroenke has too many fans in St. Louis and would love to see a group of investors in St. Louis buy the Rams, upgrade this stadium plan and work with developers to build a comprehensive urban renewal project on the North Riverfront. This plan in its current form isn’t good enough.

    • Keith

      I lived in Pittsburgh when both pnc park and heinz field were being constructed in North Shore . At the time, there was vast surface parking for both stadia. Since, there has been incredible infill in previous parking lot areas since. .. perhaps giving a few years to this site, infill with infill could occur on these lots as progress develops

    • Keith

      I lived in Pittsburgh when both pnc park and heinz field were being constructed in North Shore . At the time, there was vast surface parking for both stadia. Since, there has been incredible infill in previous parking lot areas since. .. perhaps giving a few years to this site, infill with infill could occur on these lots as progress develops

  • Matt Kastner

    I agree with many of the concerns citing issues with leveling warehouses and cutting off Lacledes Landing, among other. All that said, there is a real chance that these plans really were not finished as much as planners would have liked before a public unveiling. Kroenke’s move on Monday may have simply have made them tip their hand before they were ready. Its probably overly optimistic, but maybe some involved in the planning process really do support fixing some of the expressed concerns, now that the chips on the table. I want to hear from City leadership on this before officially labeling it a disaster.

  • Matt Kastner

    I agree with many of the concerns citing issues with leveling warehouses and cutting off Lacledes Landing, among other. All that said, there is a real chance that these plans really were not finished as much as planners would have liked before a public unveiling. Kroenke’s move on Monday may have simply have made them tip their hand before they were ready. Its probably overly optimistic, but maybe some involved in the planning process really do support fixing some of the expressed concerns, now that the chips on the table. I want to hear from City leadership on this before officially labeling it a disaster.

    • John R

      I don’t think Monday’s LA announcement had much impact as Nixon’s deadline already was set (and this in turn was why Kroenke got out in front) but I think the point is well taken that this was put together on a fast timeline…. if its open to refinement as details are explored and unseen opportunities emerge it possibly could get a lot better.

    • John R

      I don’t think Monday’s LA announcement had much impact as Nixon’s deadline already was set (and this in turn was why Kroenke got out in front) but I think the point is well taken that this was put together on a fast timeline…. if its open to refinement as details are explored and unseen opportunities emerge it possibly could get a lot better.

  • Atwater

    I like the look of the stadium as a whole. I think ideally I would like to see the southernmost parking lots pictured on the aerial view turned into a mixed use area with bars, restaurants, shops, offices, and apartments. I think that would help create a better connection to Laclede’s Landing, and really turn that area into a large district. The parking just halts the flow.

  • Atwater

    I like the look of the stadium as a whole. I think ideally I would like to see the southernmost parking lots pictured on the aerial view turned into a mixed use area with bars, restaurants, shops, offices, and apartments. I think that would help create a better connection to Laclede’s Landing, and really turn that area into a large district. The parking just halts the flow.

  • Mike F

    I’ll simply cut/paste from my comment at the “On the Stan Kroenke…” thread, and then one or two more things:

    “Just saw the renderings of the new stadium, and I am pivoting between
    seething anger and guffaws. “A revitalization of downtown”. He’s not
    joking about that, and that’s what makes it both infuriating and
    hilarious. Yes, revitalization through a sea of 10000 parking spaces. By
    god, these clowns are stoopider and more craven than I imagined
    possible.

    The Rams can’t leave town soon enough for me. Matter of
    fact, in light of the absolutely blinkered reasoning behind this scheme,
    it is IMPERATIVE that they be shown the door, post haste.”

    1. First and foremost, I don’t think Trigen is going to give up their facility–at all. It’s a moneymaker, and more importantly, provides a significant source of energy for downtown. At least they got the color of the brick on the Union Electric Light and Power Co. building right: underneath all of that coal soot and car exhaust is a lovely buff-colored structure.

    2. I thought that the Rams/NFL wanted a retractable roof, and its absence is quite conspicuous. (Not that I really care; heck even mentioning it is me being somewhat snarky). And I thought that the number of private boxes seems rather wan. I would have guessed two tiers along the “belt”, or more above the nosebleed seats (‘cos people in the suites aren’t really there to watch the game anyway. I know that the one time I was in one of the suites in the Dome, that was the case for most of the people in attendance, including myself).

    3. I get the feeling that this whole thing is for show anyway, in a kind of Sally Fields-at-the-Oscars-way–to paraphrase, “We like you, we really like you!”

    4. The railroad. The money they’ll want would be painful.

    5. All the crap they’ll need to go through to remove the flood wall, and mitigate for that. Although I will say that it would be nice to have this kind of intimate connection to the Mighty Mississippi once again, especially in light of the disastrous and ill-conceived CAR MVVA plan. It wouldn’t be the first time this sort of marina/wharf/pedestrian path scheme was proposed for this area.

    All in all: Booooo, football! (The way this country plays it, anyway).

  • Mike F

    I’ll simply cut/paste from my comment at the “On the Stan Kroenke…” thread, and then one or two more things:

    “Just saw the renderings of the new stadium, and I am pivoting between
    seething anger and guffaws. “A revitalization of downtown”. He’s not
    joking about that, and that’s what makes it both infuriating and
    hilarious. Yes, revitalization through a sea of 10000 parking spaces. By
    god, these clowns are stoopider and more craven than I imagined
    possible.

    The Rams can’t leave town soon enough for me. Matter of
    fact, in light of the absolutely blinkered reasoning behind this scheme,
    it is IMPERATIVE that they be shown the door, post haste.”

    1. First and foremost, I don’t think Trigen is going to give up their facility–at all. It’s a moneymaker, and more importantly, provides a significant source of energy for downtown. At least they got the color of the brick on the Union Electric Light and Power Co. building right: underneath all of that coal soot and car exhaust is a lovely buff-colored structure.

    2. I thought that the Rams/NFL wanted a retractable roof, and its absence is quite conspicuous. (Not that I really care; heck even mentioning it is me being somewhat snarky). And I thought that the number of private boxes seems rather wan. I would have guessed two tiers along the “belt”, or more above the nosebleed seats (‘cos people in the suites aren’t really there to watch the game anyway. I know that the one time I was in one of the suites in the Dome, that was the case for most of the people in attendance, including myself).

    3. I get the feeling that this whole thing is for show anyway, in a kind of Sally Fields-at-the-Oscars-way–to paraphrase, “We like you, we really like you!”

    4. The railroad. The money they’ll want would be painful.

    5. All the crap they’ll need to go through to remove the flood wall, and mitigate for that. Although I will say that it would be nice to have this kind of intimate connection to the Mighty Mississippi once again, especially in light of the disastrous and ill-conceived CAR MVVA plan. It wouldn’t be the first time this sort of marina/wharf/pedestrian path scheme was proposed for this area.

    All in all: Booooo, football! (The way this country plays it, anyway).

    • Mike

      Omg you mean to tell me there is parking around an NFL stadium? You mean folks from chesterfield and st.charles don’t ride the MetroLink?!? You mean 10,000 is actually 11,000 less then the city zoning requires!?!? Seriously some of you need to stfu or come up with a better plan but I got a feeling uou will just bitch and moan for another 20 years as the site sits 90% empty. So put up a plan or stfu

      • jhoff1257

        If you’ve bothered to read any of the other comments, other suggestions have been made. Mine? Move the stadium one block north and remove the surface parking lot between Lumiere and the stadium project. They are already putting a lot of spaces under the proposed greenway, take the $100 million it would have cost to demolish and haul away those buildings and simply expand the garages a bit more. You’d still have a sizable chunk of surface parking for tailgating, especially when you include the proposed parking at the Bottle District.

        Most people from Chesterfield and St. Charles won’t use the MetroLink because it doesn’t go there. You can’t ignore users from North, South, and Mid County areas in addition to St. Clair County, Ill. There is a reason there are park and ride lots. When I lived in Chesterfield I drove to Brentwood, parked for free and rode it every time I went into the City. As do a lot of suburbanites I know, you’d be surprised. I don’t know about the Rams but the Cardinals estimate 1/3 of fans arrive at Busch by train. The trains are packed for sporting events in this town, standing room only. A sidewalk from the station to the stadium should be included at the very least.

        These and others are valid concerns for a project that is expected to cost nearly a billion dollars. And they haven’t even answered the biggest questions yet. Like how that plan on “reusing” an active power plant? Or how they got the railroads permission to move it’s mainline track between the Merchants Bridge and the switchyards out south? Is every property owner on board? I’m not going to sit back, close my eyes and pretend I don’t see anything, nor will I “stfu.” For a billion dollars, we better get this right.

        • John R

          I couldn’t quite tell what was going on with the rail… are you saying that it is gone entirely with this proposal?

          I also agree moving it north one block to begin at Dixon as that should avoid taking just about everything except for Cotton Belt. Maybe a wee portion of the ancillary FarmWorks site.

          • jhoff1257

            It’s there. It follows it’s original alignment up to what used to be Ashley Street then kind of veers to the west around the curve of the stadium and back to it’s 1st Street alignment around what used to be Cass. It’s the thick black line in the “satellite” rendering. I see lots of pedestrian bridges over it.

          • John R

            Thanks… I was thinking they were just re-jiggering the line but I wasn’t sure with your earlier comment about moving the mainline. It does appear then that this “elevated greenway” would be a substantial undertaking going over both rail and interstate (with parking underneath in between).

      • jhoff1257

        If you’ve bothered to read any of the other comments, other suggestions have been made. Mine? Move the stadium one block north and remove the surface parking lot between Lumiere and the stadium project. They are already putting a lot of spaces under the proposed greenway, take the $100 million it would have cost to demolish and haul away those buildings and simply expand the garages a bit more. You’d still have a sizable chunk of surface parking for tailgating, especially when you include the proposed parking at the Bottle District.

        Most people from Chesterfield and St. Charles won’t use the MetroLink because it doesn’t go there. You can’t ignore users from North, South, and Mid County areas in addition to St. Clair County, Ill. There is a reason there are park and ride lots. When I lived in Chesterfield I drove to Brentwood, parked for free and rode it every time I went into the City. As do a lot of suburbanites I know, you’d be surprised. I don’t know about the Rams but the Cardinals estimate 1/3 of fans arrive at Busch by train. The trains are packed for sporting events in this town, standing room only. A sidewalk from the station to the stadium should be included at the very least.

        These and others are valid concerns for a project that is expected to cost nearly a billion dollars. And they haven’t even answered the biggest questions yet. Like how that plan on “reusing” an active power plant? Or how they got the railroads permission to move it’s mainline track between the Merchants Bridge and the switchyards out south? Is every property owner on board? I’m not going to sit back, close my eyes and pretend I don’t see anything, nor will I “stfu.” For a billion dollars, we better get this right.

      • Max

        Well since you asked…

      • Max

        Well since you asked…

      • John R

        No plan is perfect and this shouldn’t be expected to be an exception, but for what would be well north of $500 million in public subsidies (not counting PSLs) you could come up with a variety of cool proposals.

      • Mike F

        Frankly, I’ve been thinking: What if someone proposed to spend nearly 1 BillionUSD down here, but on mixed-use residential, commercial, and light industrial (say, lab/development space like that in CORTEX)? And it got built? And brought in tax dollars, and permanent residents? And incorporated most, if not all, of the extant structures in the above proposal area? And incorporated a marina, sheltered from the commercial traffic which uses the River? Along with the marina, it re-establishes one of the most important of St. Louis’ connections to the river, something which ironically CAR’s MVVA plan will mostly fail to do?* Extends James B. Eads’ levee (stupidly and shortsightedly paved over for a now-defunct casino) northwards, restoring the old levee and building new north with red granite cobbles? Heck, we even pay for the clean-up and restoration of the Trigen Union Electric Light and Power building, and Trigen stays? Tears down I70-44, and puts in a boulevard? Now that’s revitalization. A pipe dream, very likely, but it would be the plan which would make the most sense. (Yes, Bottle District, and so forth, but I said b-u-i-l-t; and naturally, e-a-s-t of the eyesore, er…sorry, MODOT, highway).

        This plan simply replaces one dead zone for another. Not acceptable.

        *The vacated Washington Avenue will be the only place one can view the River directly from 4th. How does one get to this space from Washington Avenue? Cross under a hulking, oppressively claustrophobic, ceaselessly noisy highway viaduct, and two hundred feet of concrete. A poorly imagined scheme, so poor as to border on professional malpractice.

    • Mike

      Omg you mean to tell me there is parking around an NFL stadium? You mean folks from chesterfield and st.charles don’t ride the MetroLink?!? You mean 10,000 is actually 11,000 less then the city zoning requires!?!? Seriously some of you need to stfu or come up with a better plan but I got a feeling uou will just bitch and moan for another 20 years as the site sits 90% empty. So put up a plan or stfu

  • Presbyterian

    This is actually a lot better than I was expecting. The stadium-waterfront-power station piece is great. With some refinement to the site plan, I don’t think it would be too hard a stretch to save the Broadway streetfront.

  • Presbyterian

    This is actually a lot better than I was expecting. The stadium-waterfront-power station piece is great. With some refinement to the site plan, I don’t think it would be too hard a stretch to save the Broadway streetfront.

    • John R

      More important and perhaps more difficult than that strip of buildings is the Stamping Lofts/FarmWorks project. If you could make up for the parking on the most northwest section which includes FarmWorks and the one with the ShadyJack’s elsewhere it would be much improved…. and if you could move it just a bit north as someone else mentioned and save an O’Fallon warehouse or two and the Kerr Foundation then you might really have a winner.

      One way to achieve this is to do as Peacock says and extend the Riverfront transformation even further past the Arch and go a block further north than the present site plan… i.e. take the jail and what I think may be a grainery and keep our historic buildings, several of which already are serving very productive purposes.

      • Sam

        The grainery you mention looks like a pipeline storage tank farm/terminal. It’s not likely that they will move that.

        • John R

          Not quite sure what that operation is but it doesn’t appear that it is storing anything hazardous. I have no idea what it would cost to relocate it but they are contemplating some serious infrastructure costs already and taking care of FarmWorks would be well north of $10 million itself… put those $$ saved to taking out less attractive uses and opening up the riverfront. Anyway, if you could get this parcel you’d basically have a nice riverfront trail amenity all the way to the base of the Stan Musial Bridge. Perhaps GRG could even build a bit of a green park space at the edge before the trail takes on a more industrial nature north of the bridge. Something worth exploring at least.

          • John R

            At closer inspection it looks like it is owned by a subsidiary of Apex Oil. I’d like to see a price tag on moving it.

          • Joey G

            There is no price tag on that terminal. It will most likely take eminent domain to get it away from Apex Oil. Consider that terminal as a large money press, owned by a billionaire. Forget it.

          • John R

            Thanks. Is the terminal something that inherently is very difficult to relocate or just something Apex wouldn’t care to play ball on for a fair price to move?

          • Joe G

            Sure they would play ball. It’s just a huge headache even thinking about it. So much to consider. It not like you gas just drop a oil terminal anywhere.

          • John R

            Thanks. Is it an issue of the operation being inherently difficult to relocate elsewhere or more of an owner unwilling to play ball even if the price is fair to relocate?

      • Sam

        The grainery you mention looks like a pipeline storage tank farm/terminal. It’s not likely that they will move that.

    • John R

      More important and perhaps more difficult than that strip of buildings is the Stamping Lofts/FarmWorks project. If you could make up for the parking on the most northwest section which includes FarmWorks and the one with the ShadyJack’s elsewhere it would be much improved…. and if you could move it just a bit north as someone else mentioned and save an O’Fallon warehouse or two and the Kerr Foundation then you might really have a winner.

      One way to achieve this is to do as Peacock says and extend the Riverfront transformation even further past the Arch and go a block further north than the present site plan… i.e. take the jail and what I think may be a grainery and keep our historic buildings, several of which already are serving very productive purposes.

  • Ryann

    If the owners of the buildings that they propose to tear down don’t fight back there won’t be any sign of the old riverfront left! Clearly St. Louis doesn’t approve of this….. do they??

  • Ryann

    If the owners of the buildings that they propose to tear down don’t fight back there won’t be any sign of the old riverfront left! Clearly St. Louis doesn’t approve of this….. do they??

    • jhoff1257

      “Clearly St. Louis doesn’t approve of this….. do they??”

      Haha. You must be new here.

    • jhoff1257

      “Clearly St. Louis doesn’t approve of this….. do they??”

      Haha. You must be new here.

      • Ryann

        Sadly, I don’t live in the city, just love it. I wish I lived there though, from my view it doesn’t seem like Slay cares about the city at all.

        • jhoff1257

          Slay isn’t the problem here, in fact he’s rarely ever the problem. But I’m not surprised people are throwing this on his back. I grew up in Suburban St. Louis and everything that happened in the city was always “that Democrat Slay’s fault!” Like one guy can wave a magic wand and solve every problem in the city. Those problems, by the way, existed long before Slay did.

          • Ryann

            I didn’t mean to blame Slay for everything, but I don’t know everything he has done since he became mayor. I do know he has been the mayor for 14 years, and I think its way past time someone had a vision for the city, and a plan for its future, and I don’t see it from Slay. But about the stadium, is the east riverfront off limits, because there is a huge area of land directly north of MLK with great views of the city and plenty of room for parking.

          • jhoff1257

            It’s easy to say that when you don’t live there. Full disclosure, I don’t live in St. Louis either. But I think if you ask a lot of actual residents they will tell you the city has improved drastically from when he took over. They may not be the big silver bullet projects that garner lots of headlines but just take a look around. Entire neighborhoods are coming back. Whole business districts have sprouted in South City. Quite frankly those are the kinds of developments that will save the city. The huge silver bullet projects don’t have a good track record here. Are there still lots of problems? Of course. Could he do a better job? Of course, most public officials could always be better. But to say he has no “vision” is a bit disingenuous. And again, it takes far more then one man to say “here’s the vision, let’s do it!” and actually make it happen. You have to have a buy in from city officials all the way down to residents. It’s way bigger then just one man.

            (Another disclosure, I currently live in Kansas City, which has all the same problems as St. Louis and the Mayor never gets blamed for anything lol. It’s always “the city’s fault” here. Always found that interesting)

            I see no need to get Illinois involved as that just adds another complexity. Besides, nearly all the bars, restaurants, and other venues are on the Missouri side. Illinois has a lot of land, but there’s nothing over there. And that state is controlled by Chicago. You really want to get them involved? 😉

          • Ryann

            I know, the city has improved a lot! But it still has a long way to go, and right now from my point of view it seems like Slay doesn’t have a master plan. Im not saying that it should be him alone trying to get this city back on its feet, he needs to work with other city officials to get a plan in place.

            With the Illinois land there are no buildings to demolish. I was unable to find the owner of the land, but I am assuming it is just one owner. And the cost of building the parking facilities would go down because you only have to pave parking lots instead of building parking garages. And you don’t destroy blocks of the city, I believe a big reason the riverfront is doing so poorly is we have a wall (Hwy 44) in the way and we became disconnected and “forgot” the riverfront was even there.

          • John R

            Former Mayor Schoemel, who is stepping down from Grand Center, Inc., believes the stadium site should be on the Illinois riverfront. I think there is a lot to the argument that this would benefit the redevelopment of both sides of the river.

          • moorlander

            I would have ZERO problems with the current site plan if located on the east bank. The MLK or Eads could be closed to auto traffic to allow pedestrians to walk across.

      • Ryann

        Sadly, I don’t live in the city, just love it. I wish I lived there though, from my view it doesn’t seem like Slay cares about the city at all.

  • Chippewa

    This is disgusting.

  • Chippewa

    This is disgusting.

  • Ryann

    Excuse me while I cry! 🙁

  • Ryann

    Excuse me while I cry! 🙁

    • Adam

      hopefully not tears of joy…?

    • Adam

      hopefully not tears of joy…?

  • jhoff1257

    Pardon the language, but this is fucking terrible. Move the stadium one block north and you could save nearly all those historic warehouses. There is no need to knock down the Broadway row for what would amount to no more then 100 or so parking spaces. In fact, Broadway should have new construction lining that street all the way up to Bissingers facility. There is ZERO consideration that fans may (and will) arrive by train which is maybe a half mile away, if that. So much for the dense mixed use development proposed in that TOD presentation for the Arch Laclede’s Station. The least these guys could have done was tied it into Lumiere and eventually Laclede’s Landing. Instead there is a massive surface parking lot between the two with no streets or sidewalks to facilitate walking to the stadium from the train station or Laclede’s Landing.

    I’m also really curious to see how they plan on turning the Ashley Street Power Plant into what appears to be a huge NFL store (barf) considering the plant is still an active power plant. Oh and so much for the Bottle District. That will now be one large parking lot as well.

    Utterly embarrassing after what was put forward by Kroenke and his team for the Hollywood Park site in Inglewood.

  • jhoff1257

    Pardon the language, but this is fucking terrible. Move the stadium one block north and you could save nearly all those historic warehouses. There is no need to knock down the Broadway row for what would amount to no more then 100 or so parking spaces. In fact, Broadway should have new construction lining that street all the way up to Bissingers facility. There is ZERO consideration that fans may (and will) arrive by train which is maybe a half mile away, if that. So much for the dense mixed use development proposed in that TOD presentation for the Arch Laclede’s Station. The least these guys could have done was tied it into Lumiere and eventually Laclede’s Landing. Instead there is a massive surface parking lot between the two with no streets or sidewalks to facilitate walking to the stadium from the train station or Laclede’s Landing.

    I’m also really curious to see how they plan on turning the Ashley Street Power Plant into what appears to be a huge NFL store (barf) considering the plant is still an active power plant. Oh and so much for the Bottle District. That will now be one large parking lot as well.

    Utterly embarrassing after what was put forward by Kroenke and his team for the Hollywood Park site in Inglewood.

    • Adam

      Aaaaaaaaand this is exactly what I expected. Level everything. It’s the St. Louis way.

    • Adam

      Aaaaaaaaand this is exactly what I expected. Level everything. It’s the St. Louis way.

      • jhoff1257

        Yep. I thought about replying to you on the other post but I figured you’d find your way over here. 🙂

        Seriously, just move it one block north. And (in addition to the Broadway row) add a row of buildings from Bissingers to the building they are proposing. One block north and a street wall on Broadway has the potential to change everything.

        And removing the surface lot between the stadium and Laclede’s Landing. That has to go.

        • Adam

          I’m so disheartened by this plan… For the time being I’ll hold out some hope that it was quickly thrown together and will be heavily revised, but I won’t hold my breath either. I’m at a point in my career where I have to decide whether to pursue an ideal job situation in some other city (likely DC or Denver), or perhaps take a less-than-ideal job so that I can be in St. Louis. I’ve been steadfast for a long long time about moving back to St. Louis, but seeing this just makes my heart drop… I’m not sure that St. Louis will ever realize its potential. Too many people that just don’t give a shit. It seems like a never-ending uphill battle. Ugh… sorry. I don’t mean to be a downer. Just having one of those days.

      • jhoff1257

        Yep. I thought about replying to you on the other post but I figured you’d find your way over here. 🙂

        Seriously, just move it one block north. And (in addition to the Broadway row) add a row of buildings from Bissingers to the building they are proposing. One block north and a street wall on Broadway has the potential to change everything.

        And removing the surface lot between the stadium and Laclede’s Landing. That has to go.

    • George K

      How does this viewpoint get shared with the powers that be? I would imagine this idea occured to them in the development process, was it that this is still a rough-draft or are they really going to just tear all this down and seperate Lacledes landing from the entire complex? It boggles the mind. You talk about revitalizing downtown, but have the whole thing CUT OFF from it by parking no less! You drive there, park, and go back home, bypassing downtown entirely. And for people that would ride Metro down to sporting events from the county, you are encouraged not to do so by no pedestrian integration to the nearest station. Jesus Christ, WHY?

    • George K

      How does this viewpoint get shared with the powers that be? I would imagine this idea occured to them in the development process, was it that this is still a rough-draft or are they really going to just tear all this down and seperate Lacledes landing from the entire complex? It boggles the mind. You talk about revitalizing downtown, but have the whole thing CUT OFF from it by parking no less! You drive there, park, and go back home, bypassing downtown entirely. And for people that would ride Metro down to sporting events from the county, you are encouraged not to do so by no pedestrian integration to the nearest station. Jesus Christ, WHY?

  • Max

    It would be better if the land used for the large, southernmost parking lot was instead designated for mixed-use development (in grid form).

    I absolutely understand that NFL stadiums require a great deal of parking, but if this is going to be spun as some catalyst for re-development in this area, they could do better than interrupt potential flow from Laclede’s Landing to the stadium with a sea of parking.

  • Max

    It would be better if the land used for the large, southernmost parking lot was instead designated for mixed-use development (in grid form).

    I absolutely understand that NFL stadiums require a great deal of parking, but if this is going to be spun as some catalyst for re-development in this area, they could do better than interrupt potential flow from Laclede’s Landing to the stadium with a sea of parking.

  • John R

    Alex, I think the brief quote you have attributed to Gov, Nixon is actually from the Rams.

  • John R

    Alex, I think the brief quote you have attributed to Gov, Nixon is actually from the Rams.