Piece of SLU property considered for possible MLS stadium site

[bonwich]

The other issue with the riverfront site, and I'll have to check the clips, is that I'm pretty sure many of the options on the various pieces of land have expired. Someone (bizjournal?) wrote an article about how the City/whoever bought the options had wasted at least hundreds of thousands of dollars on them, if not >$1M.

[hsmith19]

I also can't picture Shady Jack's repurposed as a soccer ultra bar.

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, hsmith19 said:

Except without the NFL, an MLS stadium by itself becomes an apples to oranges project. The total investment on a soccer-only stadium probably wouldn't top 20% of the numbers they were throwing out for the football stadium.

Which is why if soccer was key to a a nearly $1 billion project on the north riverfront, it should still be able to work as a $200 million project at the same site.  You are probably going to average about around 20,000 a game.  You get 20-21 dates with the preseason and regular.  Plus, you get any post season games,  probably a national team game or two, concerts, you put a Major League Lacrosse team in there as a tenant, you get in the College Cup rotation, etc.  This project is actually a size that fits much more events than a football stadium.

Now, was north riverfront ever actually a viable site for any stadium plan or just a face saving move using tax payers money?  That is a different question.

[hsmith19]

28 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Which is why if soccer was key to a a nearly $1 billion project on the north riverfront, it should still be able to work as a $200 million project at the same site.

Soccer was one of about 147 but-for requirements that would have been needed to make the football stadium work. I'm not sure I follow the idea that means it would work out by itself, minus football and the other 145 strings tied to that proposal. The sites being discussed for the soccer park now are a lot closer to being infill-type developments. It wouldn't be starting from scratch after leveling the surrounding 180 acres the same way the football stadium would have been. I don't know if there exists an alternate universe where the near north NFL/MLS stadium would have worked, but I do think the sites being discussed now are a lot more likely to make MLS work by itself.

[cgeldmacher]

I find it interesting that the MLS wants to push downtown venues.  The idea is fine in theory, but one of the best stadiums in the league (KC) is nowhere near downtown.  It's  basically in the parking lot of a fancy strip mall development.  The stadium in Chicago is about as far out of the loop as SLU is from downtown St. Louis.

[Pistol]

3 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I find it interesting that the MLS wants to push downtown venues.  The idea is fine in theory, but one of the best stadiums in the league (KC) is nowhere near downtown.  It's  basically in the parking lot of a fancy strip mall development.  The stadium in Chicago is about as far out of the loop as SLU is from downtown St. Louis.

It's a shift in policy, really. The first couple decades of MLS saw the league emphasizing youth engagement, so they liked venues out in the suburbs where they could have nearby youth fields and attract families with soccer-playing kids. Then they finally realized suburban venues are terrible. KC is kind of an outlier, time-wise. I have no idea why they'd put that stadium where they did, regardless of how nice it is. I'm assuming it had to do with financing.

Chicago (although that's a more industrial area), Dallas, Colorado, Philadelphia, NY Red Bulls, Salt Lake, KC, and Orlando all play in suburban areas. Columbus plays in the city limits, but several miles from downtown; I think the same is true of San Jose, Toronto, and Montreal. DC, NYCFC, and New England play in existing stadiums that were around for other sports and aren't downtown. Seattle, Houston, Portland, and Vancouver play downtown.

[ARon]

3 hours ago, Box and Won said:

Why aren't they considering the north riverfront after so much time and money was spent acquiring land/negotiating options for the Rams' stadium?

A lot of the land was probably only controlled via options.  The orginal owners are probably back in place with just slightly fuller bank accounts.

[brianstl]

4 minutes ago, Pistol said:

It's a shift in policy, really. The first couple decades of MLS saw the league emphasizing youth engagement, so they liked venues out in the suburbs where they could have nearby youth fields and attract families with soccer-playing kids. Then they finally realized suburban venues are terrible. KC is kind of an outlier, time-wise. I have no idea why they'd put that stadium where they did, regardless of how nice it is. I'm assuming it had to do with financing.

Chicago (although that's a more industrial area), Dallas, Colorado, Philadelphia, NY Red Bulls, Salt Lake, KC, and Orlando all play in suburban areas. Columbus plays in the city limits, but several miles from downtown; I think the same is true of San Jose, Toronto, and Montreal. DC, NYCFC, and New England play in existing stadiums that were around for other sports and aren't downtown. Seattle, Houston, Portland, and Vancouver play downtown.

Houston is the only one that plays in a stadium built for soccer.  Portland plays in renovated minor league baseball stadium,  Seattle plays in a football stadium and Vancouver plays in football stadium.

[Pistol]

4 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Houston is the only one that plays in a stadium built for soccer.  Portland plays in renovated minor league baseball stadium,  Seattle plays in a football stadium and Vancouver plays in football stadium.

Portland's stadium has been totally renovated. It was awesome before and it's awesome now.

Seattle makes the best of a huge stadium, still managing to fill a good amount of it and get really loud. I'm sure Vancouver is a more challenging atmosphere but there's nowhere to put a new stadium there without going well outside the city.

[Deutschkind]

This site may not be "downtown," but that's strictly in-name-only. It's an easy walk from the Grand Metrolink stop, on the 70 bus line, and walk-able for SLU students (as if they'd actually come). And there's a lot of empty land that the team could help develop to provide bars/food. That being said, the Union Station area would be really nice

[TheChosenOne]

I am being lazy, what are the locations being discussed for a potential St. Louis MLS team? Wasn't there a rumor not long ago about Kroenke being involved in a stadium project (Maryland Heights maybe)? What is the reasoning for putting it in the city as opposed to the county (is that just the MLS's desire similar to the giant plots of land the NFL seems to be in favor of)? 

[brianstl]

Just now, Pistol said:

Portland's stadium has been totally renovated. It was awesome before and it's awesome now.

Seattle makes the best of a huge stadium, still managing to fill a good amount of it and get really loud. I'm sure Vancouver is a more challenging atmosphere but there's nowhere to put a new stadium there without going well outside the city.

 I think Seattle really works because you have 70,000 people living in downtown Seattle and those people tend to be the prime demographic that the Sounders are trying to attract.

 

My point about the stadiums downtown was that only one was built for a MLS team.  The MLS may talk about wanting to be downtown, but in only one place has a team built a soccer stadium downtown.  None of the four incoming teams are building soccer stadiums downtown.

[Pistol]

19 minutes ago, Deutschkind said:

This site may not be "downtown," but that's strictly in-name-only. It's an easy walk from the Grand Metrolink stop, on the 70 bus line, and walk-able for SLU students (as if they'd actually come). And there's a lot of empty land that the team could help develop to provide bars/food. That being said, the Union Station area would be really nice

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that every stadium 100% has to be downtown. It's impossible in a place like NYC, and it might make more sense to have it just outside of downtown in other places. Midtown is an intriguing choice for STL, for sure, and is probably more easily accessible to most of the region than a north riverfront location, for example.

[Pistol]

6 minutes ago, brianstl said:

My point about the stadiums downtown was that only one was built for a MLS team.  The MLS may talk about wanting to be downtown, but in only one place has a team built a soccer stadium downtown.  None of the four incoming teams are building soccer stadiums downtown.

The math is harder when the revenue isn't as great as in other sports. There are smaller crowds than the NFL or MLB draws, there are fewer dates than any sport but the NFL, and downtown real estate is expensive. Houston is an odd case in that it's so big and spread out and they managed to grab some downtown land when it was relatively cheap; that's changing quickly. So there are definitely some high-level basic challenges in getting a downtown MLS stadium built.

MLS knows it has to shift in this direction to be seen as big-time. It's just going to take time. I understand why the suburban/exurban model may have been attractive in the league's infancy, but they're realizing that driving out to, say, Frisco for an MLS game is a hard sell for the generation of soccer fans they're trying to attract.

[brianstl]

12 minutes ago, Pistol said:

The math is harder when the revenue isn't as great as in other sports. There are smaller crowds than the NFL or MLB draws, there are fewer dates than any sport but the NFL, and downtown real estate is expensive. Houston is an odd case in that it's so big and spread out and they managed to grab some downtown land when it was relatively cheap; that's changing quickly. So there are definitely some high-level basic challenges in getting a downtown MLS stadium built.

MLS knows it has to shift in this direction to be seen as big-time. It's just going to take time. I understand why the suburban/exurban model may have been attractive in the league's infancy, but they're realizing that driving out to, say, Frisco for an MLS game is a hard sell for the generation of soccer fans they're trying to attract.

I agree with this and downtown definitely makes sense in a market like Seattle.  In a place like that you have a large population of fans that can just walk to the game.

 

I think the midtown/CWE/central corridor or even the Tower Grove area make more sense than the downtown area for the MLS in St Louis.  Those areas are booming.  That is were a large chunk of your target fan base is choosing to live and work.

 I think the Foundry/SLU site actually makes a lot of sense.  It would need some work for pedestrian and public transit conectivity.  But it is really a short trip for people in that area by foot, bus, bike or Metrolink.

[wgstl]

15 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I think the midtown/CWE/central corridor or even the Tower Grove area make more sense than the downtown area for the MLS in St Louis.  Those areas are booming.  That is were a large chunk of your target fan base is choosing to live and work.

 

Cortex has an announcement tomorrow.  Doubt it has anything to do with that, but that would be a good spot.  

[slufanskip]

47 minutes ago, Pistol said:

The math is harder when the revenue isn't as great as in other sports. There are smaller crowds than the NFL or MLB draws, there are fewer dates than any sport but the NFL, and downtown real estate is expensive. Houston is an odd case in that it's so big and spread out and they managed to grab some downtown land when it was relatively cheap; that's changing quickly. So there are definitely some high-level basic challenges in getting a downtown MLS stadium built.

MLS knows it has to shift in this direction to be seen as big-time. It's just going to take time. I understand why the suburban/exurban model may have been attractive in the league's infancy, but they're realizing that driving out to, say, Frisco for an MLS game is a hard sell for the generation of soccer fans they're trying to attract.

I was surprised to see them build in Frisco. You have an entire metro area including Ft. Worth and Arlington. Frisco is a good hour from Arlington no traffic and add a half hour from much of Ft. Worth. They should have went more central. Ft. Worth has a huge Mexican population and I doubt they are driving 1 1/2  to 2 hours to see a game

[Clock_Tower]

I thought there was not enough space by Union Station to put an MLS soccer stadium?  And there is no real residential between Union Station the old AG Edwards and Harris Stowe/SLU.  Out by Cortex, The Grove, and Foundry makes alot more sense.  Assume SLU would use as well?

[hsmith19]

2 hours ago, Deutschkind said:

This site may not be "downtown," but that's strictly in-name-only. It's an easy walk from the Grand Metrolink stop, on the 70 bus line, and walk-able for SLU students (as if they'd actually come). And there's a lot of empty land that the team could help develop to provide bars/food. That being said, the Union Station area would be really nice

In terms of the 79 official neighborhoods, even the Union Station site is technically Downtown West, not Downtown proper.

[ARon]

If a team did build by SLU they really should use the Armory as team HQ and indoor practice facility (which SLUs teams should share of course).

[Old guy]

3 hours ago, TheChosenOne said:

I am being lazy, what are the locations being discussed for a potential St. Louis MLS team? Wasn't there a rumor not long ago about Kroenke being involved in a stadium project (Maryland Heights maybe)? What is the reasoning for putting it in the city as opposed to the county (is that just the MLS's desire similar to the giant plots of land the NFL seems to be in favor of)? 

Now let's be clear about this. I do not know what land it is that Kroenke owns in Maryland Heights or nearby. What I do know, having gone through the Maryland Expressway many times is that a lot of that undeveloped land out there is very low in comparison with the river and quite prone to low level flooding after a couple of days of heavy rains. Just drive by it after it rains heavily for a couple of days. Since I do not think it is MLS's intention to have people park in fields with a few inches of standing water on them (again after heavy rains, but it remains muddy for a while after the standing water is gone), or of building the stadium on stilts or using artificial elevation of any kind, it seems to me that this kind of idea will require extensive and expensive drainage of the area to make it suitable for such a venue. Not exactly the best location for building a new professional soccer stadium using a more or less restricted budget.

[ARon]

I attended tonight as I was curious about how realistic a possibility this is for the neighborhood (we live less than a mile from here).  I went in pretty skeptical but the representative from Foundry made a good case for their proposal.  

This group seeking to own the new MLS franchise has no connection to the St. Louis Foundry real estate development.  Just a coincidence (this group had their name before the other project was made public).

The potential ownership group consists of seven investors, 4 local and 3 out-of-towners.  Having locals with controlling interest is one of their principals.  A former owner of the Florida Panthers is among them as is a former Express Scripts exec.

The stadium would be privately funded up front but would seek a tax district to capture new tax revenues to recoup some costs.  There is no current tax revenue as SLU of course is exempt.

The stadium plan would include a new pedestrian pathway to the Grand Metrolink station, the Armory (which is apparently going to be developed as an in-the-round theater), and possibly a bridge across I-64 to SLU.

Land on the east side of Grand across from the stadium would be redeveloped into a Wrigleyville style area.

The group has met with SLU many times and Dr P is said to be "very much on board".  But no one should expect SLU to comment publicly until/unless the MLS awards this group a franchise.

This group's public stance has supposedly "forced MLS's hand a bit".  The MLS has apparently requested formal proposals from this group and MLS2STL by November for a board of governors meeting that month.  They believe the MLS could award franchises to St. Louis (and Sacramento) by sometime around Thanksgiving and will decide between their group and MLS2STL by year end.

[Bills_06]

7 hours ago, ARon said:

The potential ownership group consists of seven investors, 4 local and 3 out-of-towners.  Having locals with controlling interest is one of their principals.  A former owner of the Florida Panthers is among them as is a former Express Scripts exec.

So that is Dan Cordes of Express Scripts and Rick Lehman as former Panthers owner.  I am curious who the out of towner investors are.  I don't know exact worth of either of those two but still seems to be missing somebody with the big money as there is expansion cost, which could be from 150 million to 200 million alone, and then cost of getting the stadium built.  

[Box and Won]

15 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

I thought there was not enough space by Union Station to put an MLS soccer stadium?  And there is no real residential between Union Station the old AG Edwards and Harris Stowe/SLU.  Out by Cortex, The Grove, and Foundry makes alot more sense.  Assume SLU would use as well?

When the 22nd Street exits from 40 are reconfigured, it will free up a lot of land.

[brianstl]

40 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

So that is Dan Cordes of Express Scripts and Rick Lehman as former Panthers owner.  I am curious who the out of towner investors are.  I don't know exact worth of either of those two but still seems to be missing somebody with the big money as there is expansion cost, which could be from 150 million to 200 million alone, and then cost of getting the stadium built.  

This is what scares me most about both groups now.  These groups have money, but the MLS seems to like ownership groups that have at least one billionaire that can personally absorb big financial losses.  All four incoming teams to the MLS have at least one billionaire in the ownership.  Maybe if the Dewitt part of the one group is actually the Cardinals as an owner that would work.  Kavanaugh has some big bucks, but I don't know if he is in billionaire territory.  I think Dave Steward owns the vast majority of WWT.  Maybe there are other members of both groups whose names are not public yet that would fit the bill.

It just reminds of the St Louis expansion bid for the NFL when we were scrambling at the last minute to find an owner with deep enough pockets for the NFL.  That didn't end up working out very well.