Joe Buck Records Promo for #STLNFL (Video & Transcript)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone


Hi, this is Joe Buck. I’m from St. Louis, home of the St. Louis Rams.
And now a new vision for the city and the NFL begins.

Text: A New Vision

St. Louis, it’s the quintessential American city. We treasure our neighborhoods, our history, our traditions, but what makes St. Louis the city it is, is why I’ll always call St. Louis my home, it’s our people.

Our people make St. Louis a great baseball city, a great hockey city, and by every measure a great football city.

Revitalizing downtown is essential to the city of St. Louis, and this is our opportunity. A destination will provide lasting and meaningful jobs, stimulate business, and serve the best sports fans in the nation for generations to come.

Text: A Destination Woven Into the Urban Fabric of St. Louis

With your voice and your support we’ll make our stand with a new downtown NFL stadium on our north riverfront.

Text: 38.5 Acres of New Public Open Space
Text: 8 Acres of Restored Natural Habitat
Text: 1.5 Miles of New Trails Linking to the Heart of the City
Text: Unmatched Access from Home to Game

Let’s grow like other cities in the Midwest. It’s time to take a giant step forward for downtown St. Louis.

Text: A 365-Day-A-Year Entertainment Destination
Text: Designed for a Vibrant Opening Day, Planned to Allow for Future Development

An iconic stadium worthy of sharing the riverfront with the Gateway Arch. This is the future of our city. This is the future of the NFL in St. Louis. This is what we believe. Together we will make it happen.

Text: Together We Will Make It Happen

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Pingback: GVK BIO()

  • Pingback: jadwal cpns 2017()

  • rgbose

    Since the stadium would be owned by the St Louis Regional Convention And Sports Complex Authority, a government, it’ll be tax-exempt. If it indeed is worth a billion dollars the SLPS misses out on $1B * 0.32 * 0.043711 = $14M per year.

  • fulltimemonti

    Let the Rams go. We don’t need a subsidized NFL town to keep our dignity as a metropolitan community.

  • M B

    “Woven into the urban fabric” More like splattered on to. Nothing says urban like acres and acres of asphalt and reclaimed green space!

    • fulltimemonti

      If we were to redevelop that area into a stadium, we should use the new planned Red Wings arena as a template to actually weave it in. Instead of open air parking lots, build an entire neighborhood with narrow streets, multi-zoned structures that but right up to the stadium, and underground parking. While we are at it, let’s use widen the existing rail right-of-way and put in an all new, intermodal, high-speed-train station integrated into the new football village. Cost, who cares, our kids will pay for it. Use taxpayer money and then sell spaces back. Maybe we can even make a profit. The sad thing is, I can’t tell if I am being sarcastic or not myself. If only I could be made the Supreme Overlord of St. Louis.

  • Bernard Finucane

    The Rams love their hometown Los Angeles so much the moved to St. Louis, and now they want to turn St. Louis is to a parking desert just like Los Angeles.

    • Bernard Finucane

      Seriously, no city in America should give a sports team a red cent if it brands itself any other way than with the city’s name. If I were running St. Louis I would tell them to rebrand themselves “The St. Louis Football Club” or hit the road.

  • Imran

    ” A destination woven into the urban fabric of St Louis ” . My jaw dropped when he said this. Do they even know what those words mean?

    • Ihanaf

      Ah. just noticed Alex already covered this.

  • Steve Kluth

    Anybody know how many seats would be underwater with a repeat of the ’93 flood?

    • moorlander


  • STLEnginerd

    Just shift it 700 feet to the North or 1300 feet to the south and they’d win over half of us. (the other half are the no public funds ever crowd) They would also lose no one who currently supports it. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Imran

    And….umm….. how many acres of surface parking was that?

    • Sitegal

      Surface parking is easiest to develop in the future…

      • Alex Ihnen

        St. Louis is so poised for easy development! 😉

      • Mike F

        Have you ever thought of changing careers, and going into stand-up?

    • Daron

      What parking? All I saw was that the arch grounds were doubling in size and that the arch would be upstaged by a beautiful beacon of light and semi-transparent people who mill around for no reason.

      • Alex Ihnen

        And that heavily used railroad tracks are now counted as “new public space” as well as “restored natural habitat”. But more seriously, and I know this is just city/sports booster stuff, but the rhetoric of “revitalizing downtown St. Louis”, “women into the urban fabric”, “make our stand with a new downtown NFL stadium, ” and “This is the future of our city.” stuff is just difficult to accept.

        • I agree. I didn’t think anyone ever claimed any of that until I saw this video script. I think they should just sell it on the basis that the Rams and stadium project pay their own way through income taxes on players and staff, stadium users, and through $450 million coming in from the NFL outside the area. The Post Dispatch editorial page ran the numbers and twice wrote editorials reluctantly agreeing with the Missouri Econ. Dev. Dept. that the Rams do pay for themselves, and then some. But Kroenke is counting on St. Louisans not knowing that. So given that the Rams break even, I think it makes the city more attractive to millennials to have an NFL team than not. Minnesota decided to build a stadium to keep their team. Few people would say they are idiots and killing their city by building this capital asset. And few are saying St. Louis is brilliant and will boom going the other way.

          • Adam

            Actually, I found a number of articles criticizing the new Vikings stadium by Googling “Minnesota Vikings stadium bad idea”. And the growth that their city is seeing has nothing to do with the new stadium. It has to do with their job market—THAT is where their record beats ours. Likewise, plenty of people are criticizing the Rams proposal, and it’s pretty disingenuous to claim otherwise. The only people claiming that there’s no opposition are football fanatics and those trying to push it through without a public vote.

          • John R

            But all their new stadia is what led to all those fancy Twin City jobs! Disprove that! (just joshin.)

            More seriously, I think the best argument is that as sketched out, the new stadium plan would bring state and private $$ into the City that otherwise would not be spent here. In an ideal world, we could use the $12 million or whatever in state funding kind of as a block grant to use for more vital things like Metrolink expansion and community development programs but we know that won’t happen and those dollars won’t be diverted to other city-friendly programs. They’ll simply fill the pie-holes of the out-of-touch pigs in Jefferson City. As for the city’s contribution, those come from hotel and restaurant taxes and are limited to supporting tourism-related facilities or initiatives… I’m sure that definition could be stretched out rather broadly to maybe even include something like Saint Louis Streetcar but there are limits.

            So it seems to me the big question in terms of economic impacts is whether it is worth it to the city to utilize those guest taxes for a new stadium that would largely be financed by state and private $$ and continue to bring in largely non-city patrons for leisure activities. While it certainly won’t transform downtown and suddenly make it the next hot downtown like Detroit’s, the argument is at least it is capturing $$ that otherwise wouldn’t be spent in the city. I think a solid fiscal analysis conducted by the city (as called for under the city ordinance requiring a public vote) is certainly in order to shine a better light on how the city’s bottom line would be impacted.

          • Adam

            I’m just not impressed by the argument that the stadium would bring state and private investment into the city, because ALL of that money would be bound up in the stadium itself and in the vast parking lots that would surround it. It’s an extremely isolated investment that primarily serves a privately-owned football team. In terms of economic impact, the consensus seems to be that it’ll take 30 years for the city and state to see even a modest return on investment. Precedent suggests that the stadium will not last 30 years, and both precedent and plenty of research suggest that it’ll generate negligible surrounding development. Meanwhile, if the Rams were to leave, it’s likely that additional convention activity would make up for some, if not all, of the lost football revenue. Given that the Rams have made no measurable economic impact in their 30 years downtown, I’m extremely skeptical of all the stadium pushers’ claims that the sky will fall if they leave. Many downtown business owners will (and have) attest(ed) that football fans make up a small fraction of their business compared to the daytime workforce and conference attendees. On top of it all, if this stadium gets built according to current plans we lose a cluster of irreplaceable historic buildings and any hope for urban development on the north riverfront. It will be another tumble-weed-strewn parking lot, for decades to come, on our underdeveloped riverfront, in a downtown that is already riddled with parking lots.

          • John R

            I agree that the sky will not fall down if the NFL leaves or we’ll flourish if the stadium is built, but I wouldn’t doubt an honest fiscal analysis would show that the city would get a good bit of spending money to put in its wallet if the stadium does happen. An $800 million construction project would be a bit of a boon in its own right and then all those sundry taxes from game days (amusement taxes, sales taxes to a bit of earnings taxes, etc. etc.) do add up. I’m not sure what they add up to and that is why I think it is a good idea to have the fiscal analysis prepared as called for under the city ordinance and to put things to a public vote.

          • John R

            oops… I agree we won’t magically flourish if the stadium is built.

          • The money won’t be “bound up” anywhere. It will be paid out to hundreds of construction workers in St. Louis. You need to get over the idea that we are doing this for Kroenke, and not for St. Louis. The convention business will be there either way, since the new stadium also frees up the dome. The site is already strewn with tumble weeds and it will look the same in 10 years, since nobody else is going to stroll in and hand us $450 million we would get from the NFL. And the nearly all the historic buildings could be saved with creative mods to the plan.

          • Adam

            “The money won’t be “bound up” anywhere. It will be paid out to hundreds of construction workers in St. Louis.”

            Temporary construction jobs and then not much else. No decent-paying year-round jobs, no commercial, and no residents.

            “The site is already strewn with tumble weeds and it will look the same in 10 years…”

            Speculation. There has been investment within the last few years.

            “And the nearly all the historic buildings could be saved with creative mods to the plan.”

            Could be, but won’t be. If they were concerned about the buildings it would be apparent in the renderings, and we wouldn’t be discussing eminent domain.

          • I think the site is perfectly slotted for the new stadium. Consider Soldier Field in Chicago — pretty much the same set-up (but for the museum campus), wherein its isolated from the City proper and heavy on surface parking.

            Where we have an interstate, they have a highway and train yard. Where we have an industrial river, they have a marina. Theirs is near south, ours is near north. Their convention center is about 3/4 miles away, our convention center would be about 3/4 miles away. They’ve additionally built up US Bank Pavilion on Northerly “Island” to further activate the stadium grounds/parking.

            The stadium isn’t a solve-all for the city/region, but if it gets any eyes looking north of MLK as a potential growth zone for the City, then it’s an investment well made. Right now, for many, the City stops at MLK. If this project begets more N. Broadway interest, or midrises at the Bottle Works, or small business growth along Cass, it’s a win in my book. And I don’t even really give a hoot about the NFL.

          • John R

            A huge difference with the proposed Near North Riverfront site here and Soldier’s Field is that Chicago has mile after mile of quality lakefront real estate that is utilized for non-industrial uses; in contrast, we have a very limited amount of space that we can dedicate for mixed-use, non-industrial purposes. Therefore we need to be very wise on how we develop the Near North Riverfront as this “reserve” space represents the vast majority of land available for quality riverfront development. A football stadium would eat into a large amount of that acreage no matter how well it is developed in mind for surrounding mixed-use development. Thus I don’t think this is the perfect site.

          • Adam

            Looking at Google Maps, I see comparatively little surface parking at Soldier Field. I also don’t think Chicago having a similarly sited stadium really justifies our needing one. Again, based on precedent in St. Louis I don’t believe that a new Rams stadium will have the development-inducing effect that you’re talking about.

          • John R

            Fun fact…. the (George) Lucas Museum of Narrative Art is planned to go on one of those lots.


          • I think you are not catching on that when the Rams leave, they will take $12 million per year in player and staff state income tax revenue with them and pay it to California. There will be no $12 million to spend on something else. And after 30 years, the state will be short $295 million minimum, if you assume player salaries go up just 3% per year. They’ll need to take that from something already funded for raise taxes.

          • Adam

            Or just use the revenue from the additional convention business (which, I know, sounds way less dramatic than ripping it from the clutched hands of poor children). Hospitality revenue is currently upwards of $150M annually and could potentially double with the Dome freed up. More than enough to make up for the lost $12M.

          • John R

            Of course the legislature could spend $12 million a year on different city-related projects if it wanted to if there were no team…. it could spend $120 million if it so desired. If the stadium deal goes through the city should insist that the state reinvest those income taxes back into Saint Louis.

          • Search on stadium spurs developments in Minneapolis and Google shows lots of entries there too. Who says there is no opposition? There is tons of opposition from Kroenke and his media friends, and many legislators from the KC side of MO, led by Schaaf from St. Joe where he secured state money for a Chiefs training camp in his town. By the way, I just read that US Bank bought the naming rights to the new Minneapolis Stadium for $220 million. St Louisans are funding a large part of that, since US Bank took over St. Louis largest bank Mercantile (b1850) in 1999 and Mark Twain Bank in 1996. Many (most?) St. Louisans still have their money in that bank. Minneapolis says, thank you for supporting our city capital projects.

          • Alex Ihnen

            I don’t believe Millennials are likely to be buying season tickets, or attending many games, or care much about whether there is a football team in St. Louis. But, yes, if there’s a simple economic argument to make, it should be made. No city or state is booming, or not, based on an NFL team, or any other single business. Minneapolis has invested heavily in cycling infrastructure (just one more part of their record) and that seems to have paid off.

        • tbatts666

          It sounds like urban renewal type-garbage.

          My guess…. the same sort of rhetoric was used to convince cities to demolish city housing to make way for freeways.