The state of Missouri has released some new renderings of its proposed St. Louis Rams stadium, featuring lights that won’t shine in the eyes of passing boat captains and some local buildings not being demolished. It still looks like it would wipe out the newly renovated, nationally historic Hammond Apartments, though, in addition to most of the remaining old warehouses by the river:
That’s a lot of riverfront land dedicated to parking lots, as well as a reminder that the Jones Dome would still be there, serving as a very-occasional plenary hall for conventions, I guess? There would also be crazy geometric shaped video boards, and room for additional seating for Super Bowls, and a $985 million price tag that nobody has much of a clue how to pay for. But it’ll bring more tourists and huge profits around each event, so what’s to complain about?
Lordy, just eyeballing it, the footprint for the parking looks to be more than 4x that of the stadium. That’s a lot of river-front land that’s going to get used for 10 games, 2 monster truck rallies and one summer country music mega-concert each year. Aside from the whole tax-payers-buying-billionaires-stadiums thing, doesn’t it seem like we’re doing these things in the worst way possible?
The good news is that Stan Kroenke and his wife’s combined net worth is now $11.8 billion. So the probability that he will have to apply for food stamps in the near future is pretty low.
They are proposing 6x larger TV screens for replays. Are those “State of the art” enough or is STL setting itself up for turmoil five years later when this new one still isn’t good enough?
I’ll give them one thing – at least they thought about the parking aspect.
I get the “build next to water” idea but they’re building it along a muddy river – makes for some great Goodyear Blimp overheads! If memory serves that area of downtown (well… all of downtown?) is completely run down.
I have a feeling the taxpayer will pony up the money for this. STL went hard for a football team in the 90’s and finally got one, so it would seem parting with one so quickly may not be a good idea (?).
I moved away from STL in 2000, so I don’t have the pulse on the situation. STL is in an interesting place – Carson and Inglewood are fighting against one another in LA and STL has something on the board now.
St Louis has to have the worst urban planning in the history of the world. The Downtown already has an enormous dead zone created by Busch Stadium and its surrounding parking lots. The Archway was created from destroying the most historic part of the most historic city in the midwest. Of course, it is separated from downtown by a six lane highway. The remnant that remains will be demolished for the football stadium. They may as well finish the job.
Knocking buildings down? Wouldn’t be the first time.
From Wikipedia:
During the late 1990s, Lambert Field was ranked as the eighth-busiest U.S. airport by flights (not by total passengers) largely due to TWA’s hub operations, Southwest Airlines’ growing traffic, and commuter traffic to smaller cities in the region. Congestion caused delays during peak hours and was exacerbated when bad weather reduced the number of usable runways from three to one. To cope, Lambert officials briefly redesignated the taxiway immediately north of runway 12L–30R as runway 13–31 and used it for commuter and general aviation traffic. However, traffic projections made in the 1980s and 1990s predicted yet more growth, enough to strain the airport and the national air traffic system.[63]
These factors led to the planning and construction of a 9,000-foot runway, dubbed Runway 11/29, parallel to the two larger existing runways. At $1.1 billion, it was the costliest public works program in St. Louis history.[64] It required moving seven major roads and destroying about 2,000 homes, six churches and four schools in Bridgeton, Missouri.[64][65][66] Construction began in 1998, and continued even as traffic at the airport declined after the 9/11 attacks, the TWA purchase, and American’s 2003 reduction in flights.[67][68] On April 13, 2006, American Airlines Flight 2470 became the first commercial airliner to land on the new runway.[69]
Now complete, the runway is used by an estimated 5% of flights, far less than anticipated. Fuel- and time-conscious airlines shun it because it is farther from terminals than the older runways.[64]
m11nine: I really really REALLY hope that St. Louis isn’t dumb enough to let the Rams insert a new state of the art clause into their new lease. “Hope” being the operative word.
I want this site to be the first to hear it, your St. Louis Rams are staying. Mr. Peacock has done a wonderful job. I am ready to sign an agreement.
I offer this and will let it go. This site has sat blighted for several decades. I think everyone here would agree if this does not go through, it will sit for more decades as a blighted area. Folks seem to think this should be reserved as prime real estate. For what? Put a plan in place for alternate options then lets discuss. Everyone talks about the cost of the stadium and not to appease the rams owner. We all need to look at the Rams as a “corporate asset” and look for ways to keep that asset in our town. It is no different than the on going discussions with Defense Mapping, Emerson or other large entities that provide value to this area looking for other options. You put your best foot forward to retain them because it is good for your community and keeps $$ in your community. If they rams leave, that asset takes close to 20 million out of St Louis City & County. Even if this is a break even venture for the new stadium, it still makes sense for us to pursue. I encourage everyone to look beyond the owner and treat this as a corporate asset and ask yourself. 1) Are we better off with the Rams corporate asset in St Louis? 2) Will the surrounding area benefit with the clean up of the riverfront, connecting to the landing and the newly refurbished Arch Grounds? I believe the answer is yes. This is more than just football. It is civic pride, it is putting a movement forward the progresses the city when we desperately need it.
I, for one, don’t agree that if not for a stadium the riverfront site will remain vacant for decades, not given the way urban development trends are going these days. I do agree that a study of alternative options would be a great idea, though, to determine just what the opportunity costs would or wouldn’t be from using the site for football.
This is an old picture, not one of the new pictures released the other day. The new pictures are up to date with what the Rams have been asking for and demolish less than the original plan, which is what’s pictured here. Actual new pictures here:
http://www.hok.com/about/news/2015/03/02/new-st-louis-nfl-stadium-renderings-released/
Aha, thanks, Jeff! I stupidly assumed that just because it was on a Post-Dispatch story from today about new designs, it was a picture of the new design.
That said, the new overhead view looks to have the exact same footprint and demolish the exact same buildings:
http://www.hok.com/about/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/5-STL-Stadium_Local-Site-Plan_Credit-HOK1.jpg
You mentioned the very occasional hall for conventions? I think you’re understating the usage of the current dome. Just a quick look at the dome’s event calendar shows that they have 6 large events scheduled over a 3 month period from the end of Feb through the end of May. Having the Rams leave and take up residence just up the river would also free up an additional dates from early Sept through the end of the year. These dates are currently locked due to the late release of the NFL schedule which prohibits the dome having conventions and events that need to be booked a year or more in advance.
I see six events at all at the convention center complex, one of which is actually a motorcycle race:
http://explorestlouis.com/meetings-conventions/americas-center/events-calendar-2/
I can’t tell how many of the others are using the dome and not just the convention center. Heywood Sanders, you have any data on this?
Neil, on that same site you referenced, you can click on the Edward Jones Dome link. Under that if you view upcoming public events, you will see where the dome is used. I stand corrected from before. I forgot not all events utilize the dome. However, many do. In the link I just specified, from Jan 22nd through May 22nd there are 6 events that will be in the dome. That’s 6 events over a 4 month span. A similar 4 month span that the dome will be free if the Rams move to a new facility.
Of those six, I count one monster truck rally, two volleyball tournaments, one motorcycle race, an auto show, and a comic con. I’m not saying the dome would never be used, but there’s not a whole lot that couldn’t take place elsewhere.
Neil, this whole town is nothing but studies with no progress. There are over 6000 dwelling vacancies in the area. There are hundreds of acres of empty space North of the Dome. There is a ton of real estate downtown. I dont see a developer building new dwelling units or a business building more office space, just to be on the river. So what are we left with. If we sit around and wait for studies, we will continue to look at a blighted area for the next 20 years. The fact is just because it is near the river doesn’t make it a great place to live or work, but it makes a fantastic backdrop and center gathering for a sporting event. There are no efforts or plans to re develop that area without this plan. I dont want to sit on a parcel of blight for the hopes that someone will come in and save the day. It hasn’t happened for many decades now.
Why would those events take place elsewhere? We have the dome. It’s an attractive site for those types of events. St Louis is a cheap destination and is centrally located. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a portion of the proposed bond extension would go towards dome upgrades to attract future events. Just because Comic Con could take place elsewhere in St Louis, why would we want it to? It brings in tourists from all over the midwest. They will be staying at our hotels and eating and drinking at our restaurants and bars downtown. If the north riverfront is revitalized with additional bars, restaurants and clubs don’t you think additional events at the dome would attract tourists and event goers to that area too? Or would they be more attracted to the historic empty warehouses that are there now?
Have to say i much prefer having dialogue on this topic here than on the facebook sites for the LA Rams. Ill just finish by saying St. Louis cannot afford to lose this asset. We need something positive to happen for this city. We are an NFL city. Top 25 market with a strong fortune 1000 base. It is good for our image as a major league city.
“It is good for our image as a major league city.”
Always found this a bit baffling if only because one of the fastest growing and always on the top-places-to-live cities for the past 15 years in Austin, Texas. No pro sports teams and likely none coming. LA has been without the NFL for, what, 20 years? Don’t believe it has sunk back into second world status. If you think the perception of your city as a desirable place to live hinges on whether you have a pro football team, you sorta deserve whatever fate comes with that. Reasonable people can differ on this, but I’d have more respect for St. Louis if they looked at what it was going to cost to keep the Rams and simply said, “We’ve got bigger problems to solve. Good luck, Stan. Apparently your teams need lots of it.”
Something positive did happen for St. Louis: the Cardinals (mlb).
Neil: Maybe part of the (unknown) cost could cover the disassembly of the apartments and reassembly of them on the site of the former Jones/TW dome when it is demolished.
Hey, if we are printing money in order to prop up failed banks that caused the crisis that “lead” us to print money in the first place, why would tearing one building down to make room for another and then reassembling the first on the site of the one the new one will replace not make sense????
Think of the positive economic impact of disassembling every building in St. Louis and reassembling it on the hundreds of acres of vacant land Tom talks about? Now that is growth, people!!!!
“St. Louis cannot afford to lose this asset”
Tom, can you explain that statement?
First of all, St. Louis doesn’t own that asset. Nor does it control whether or not the league/association in which the asset operates stays or relocates.
Second, as Michael suggests, one needs to look at the cost of ‘retaining’ Mr. Kroenke’s apparently portable asset. St. Louis only “won” the asset in the first place because Mrs. Frontiere decided she wanted to move it back to her home. The ~$200m TW dome and favourable (ahem) lease certainly helped given that LA was (then as now) not interested in using public funds to retain an NFL franchise, much less win one, but no-one believed this was a sound business decision on the part of the Rams.
About half of the NFL franchises have moved into new or heavily renovated facilities since the TW dome was built in the mid nineties. Half. Not all. Half.
The Rams are worth, what, $1.2Bn maybe? Where is the logic in spending $1bn to bribe the owner of the asset to keep it there for 30 years (maybe)?
To break that down into a subsidy per fan, you need only divide the stadium construction and operating costs (plus interest, because nobody uses cash these days…) by the total number of fans that will pay to enter the building over the next 30 years. Assuming there are 15 events at which the stadium is full every year (which I doubt), the subsidy for the building cost alone amounts to a little over $35 attendee over the life of the building. Add in 30 years of bond payments, operating costs and capital upgrades (which we know will start almost immediately after the building opens) and you are almost certainly looking at a figure of $90-100 in subsidy per ticket sold for 30 years. How much do average Rams tickets cost anyway?
When discussing what the moribund and largely unsuccessful NFL club “means” to St. Louis, or any future home, it is important to consider what the $70m or so in annual debt payments & operating costs needed to pay for the proposed stadium over the next 30 years could “mean” to St. Louis if they weren’t used on a stadium that is fully occupied about ten times a year.
John
We can argue “kitchen math” all day and throw numbers back and forth if you want
350M-City/State Cost
150M-Interest 30 Years
15 events X 64K X 30 Years
Averages about $17.8 per ticket over 30 years or about $3-5 per person a year in the state.
Also, make sure you factor in the 20M in lost Sales Tax/Employment tax/Real Estate tax that would be lost.
True most stadiums are not economically viable. Look beyond the owner, look beyond the stadium. You can throw every stat you want out to oppose this and they would have merit. Being an NFL City is an “asset” to this city. We are not a fast growing tech hub like the Austin or a warm southwest climate like Phoenix,LA etc. We need more to offer than Grants Farm or the Zoo to grow communities and attract new business.
The Jones Dome is owned by the state, so scratch property tax from your list. Sales tax is likewise pretty dodgy — umpteen economists have looked for any sign that sales tax receipts change when a team arrives/leaves town, and found nothing to indicate that they do.
Yes, it only costs a few dollars per year per person in the state. So would spending $350m on anything — but then you don’t have the $350m anymore to spend on something else. It would only cost Americans an average of one penny a year to pay me an annual salary of $3,000,000 so I can edify them with this website in style, but somehow I doubt that’s going to pass Congress.
There will be no new development in that area if this does not go through. Lets all just agree on that one. Plenty of beautiful historic buildings in st louis that are more numerous in density that make more sense to preserver and develop. If there was money to be made in that area both residential and business it would have been done by now. I agree with the economic aspects of the stadium. It is not a break even proposition and certainly not a sum zero either.
@ tom: So you’re argument is basically: Even if this isn’t a great deal, we should do it because I (you) think pro football makes businesses want to move to St Louis?
That doesn’t seem to be a particularly compelling argument.
FWIW, the city of Cleveland has had three major league sports franchises since 1970.
I presume most people have some reasonably close impression of how this region has fared, over the past 45 years.
I think this should settle any questions about the value of “investing” public money in major league sports.
Fair enough, we certainly can argue math.
But the ‘total’ cost to the city clearly isn’t $350m. I think we can all agree on that. $150m isn’t a sufficient amount for interest and carrying costs, and the question of operating costs and upgrades do not presently have solid answers (IMO).
I also don’t agree that “because no-one has built anything there” up until now no-one ever will. If Stl decides to play the incentive game, $50-100m up front with no ongoing financial commitment would probably induce many different types of business to build there, and those businesses are likely to pay property taxes.
The point isn’t that any subsidy or incentive is bad. It’s that suggesting that an NFL stadium is the ‘only’ possible project is both inaccurate and unfair.
Neil,
Let me chime in (sorry to be so slow).
The existing dome was “sold” as a convention venue, one that could boost St. Louis’ place in the national convention market even without an NFL team, because at that point, the city didn’t have one.
As one of the local business leaders remarked to his colleagues in Civic Progress Inc.,
“If St. Louis had a stadium, we could get an NFL team. Built as part of the Cervantes Convention Center, a new domed stadium would give St. Louis the fourth largest convention center in the United States. Additional convention business would bring more new money to St. Louis than the revenues from professional football. However, St. Louis will not be perceived as a big league city until it has a modern football stadium and an NFL team.”
The resulting complex of Edward Jones Dome and convention center, dubbed “America’s Center,” has never delivered on the promise of more convention business. And it’s performance has been so miserable that when the city financed a new 1,081-room convention hotel next door, it proved a total flop, failing to meet its debt service, and eventually defaulting in 2009. It was sold last year for a fraction of its construction cost.
The notion that a dome without a team will bring more convention business to STL is simply absurd, in a market where Chicago doles out $15 million in freebies to get and keep events at the McCormick Place convention center.
And just to add a modest bit of reality to issues of blight and development in and around downtown St. Louis, that downtown needs a lot more than a few Comic-Con attendees or the occasional convention attendee. The latest report from Colliers on office vacancies downtown: “By year-end 2014, St. Louis’ CBD had an overall vacancy rate of 16.3% with roughly 3.6 million square feet available for occupancy.” In suburban Clayton, the rate was 8.2%. There are larger reasons those riverfront buildings aren’t being reused.
I like tom A’s thinking.
Besides, what else is a dumpy town like St. Louis going to spend on, if not a stadium for the NFL? Nothing says first class like a first class corporate palace for guys like us. First class, baby!
It doesn’t matter what St Louis does at this point, you heard it here first, Stan Kroenke and his Rams are gone! The decision was made a long time ago…….