Kroenke to build NFL stadium in LA.... (St. Louis, Washington: home, tax)

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Floorist

I look for either the Raiders or Chargers to eventually go to San Antonio.

I could definitely see that, although SA lacks corporate HQ to support hospitality sales. Maybe a stadium between Austin and San Antonio (40 minutes from each downtown). I could also see Louisville trying to get in on the NFL in addition to Oklahoma City (energy money+booming economy) or Raleigh Durham (another boom town that over the next 20 years looks like it will end up being one of the 20 biggest economic centers in the country). Vegas too if the NFL decides its okay.

[MUTGR]

Let's say the Rams do leave which looks likely and we are once again no longer an NFL city.

What does that do to STL's image? What does it mean in terms of actual economic activity?

I don't see this town supporting an NBA team and we've not been able to get a MLS team off the ground.

The timing especially seems bad for STL and particularly for downtown right now.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

Let's say the Rams do leave which looks likely and we are once again no longer an NFL city.

What does that do to STL's image? What does it mean in terms of actual economic activity?

I don't see this town supporting an NBA team and we've not been able to get a MLS team off the ground.

The timing especially seems bad for STL and particularly for downtown right now.

Frankly, I don't think it does anything to St. Louis' image. It just reflects the reality of STL's current market status. Maybe it's a wake up call for people who haven't been paying close attention. From 2008 to 2013, the region's GDP has increased at an annual rate of just under 1.8%. You can look at STL's 11 "North Central" peer metros from the 50 largest metros in the country and STL ranks behind all of them in growth over that period. Even Detroit and Cleveland managed >2.0% growth. About 20 years ago, STL was easily the 4th most influential market in the region behind Chicago, Detroit, and it was roughly even with Minneapolis. #5 was some distance away. Today STL has fallen back to a point where it is now more of a close #4 vs group of the next 6 markets (PIT, CLE, IND, COL, CIN, KC). That's a very crowded place to be. It's not easy to support three teams in that environment...especially when your baseball team is as front and center as the Cards. Baseball consumes a lot of spending and attention thanks to the extended schedule.

Economically, it's probably helpful not to have a team for the region. Stadiums are expensive. Entertainment dollars will go somewhere else. We're only really talking about a very limited number of low paying jobs. Very few (if any) bars or restaurants can only stay in business on the basis of 8-10 Sundays a year. Not even around the stadium, and I'd argue that if they can only stay around due to the Rams, they probably weren't long for this world anyway. It's an ego hit rather than a financial or economic hit.

MLS is viable. The region just needs to get organized about how it pursues a team. I get the sense that people feel like STL is owed a team on the basis of their soccer history. MLS doesn't care about history. They want to see a stadium and a serious ownership group. The departure of the NFL might open that door. Same with the NBA. Like you, I don't think this town is a huge basketball city. It might be a stretch because the other cities i don't consider to be hoops towns that have NBA franchises are generally one-franchise markets (OKC, Memphis, Orlando). NOLA is the exception. Under the right circumstances, I think it could work and it really wouldn't cost the region much with a decent venue in place.

I'd love to see MLS+NBA join MLB and NHL on the sports calendar. There would be a nice symmetry to it. Two very different sports/markets for summer in soccer and baseball and the same in colder months with hockey and basketball.

[rwiksell]

I didn't see this thread, and started one of my own with an idea of how to keep the Rams in the St Louis metro: //www.city-data.com/forum/st-lo...rles-rams.html

Here's the feature image I included, suggesting a brand new stadium in St. Charles:

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Nothing definite re: site, but the "leaks" point to the near north riverfront between Lumiere and the Musial bridge. Stadium supposedly open air and multi-purpose (football, soccer, other special events). No idea on budget, but I've got to believe it will come in around what other mid to small size markets have recently spent on their venues, otherwise the proposal would be a non-starter. Two most recent being Indianapolis and Minneapolis (Somewhere between $800 million to $1 billion).

It's not a bad location and potentially with some development incentives for multi-use around the site, it would add another dimension to the city and bring some much needed activity closer to the riverfront. Personally, I don't like shelling out that kind of dough for a sports team that only plays 8 regular season home dates a year. Pro sports (and NFL in particular) is not an economic growth engine for a city.

$900 million could go to a lot of different places. Just focusing on DT and sports, it would buy:

-a state of the art indoor arena (not that one is needed) suitable as a long term host for both NHL and NBA (which collectively would bring a lot more life to DT than a few football games)
-a 30,000 or so seat soccer stadium for MLS, which would fit a bit better on the north riverfront, leaving more room for development around it
-enough historic tax credits to duplicate a Wash Ave style renovation in another 2 or 3 places in DT (historic tax credits for Wash Ave came in at around $80 million I think).

It could buy a North-South MetroLink expansion, which would draw a lot of new development and dollars.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

It could buy a North-South MetroLink expansion, which would draw a lot of new development and dollars.

Given our density, I don't know if MetroLink is the best option. Where we've put it unfortunately has been primarily in paths of least resistance where transit-oriented development can't flourish. Good example is the Grand stop or any stop along that rail corridor near 40. Those areas aren't conducive to introducing mixed use around the stops. They're dead zones and that hurts ridership.

Your point is dead on though. We could do a lot of transit. We could do 60 miles of BRT on major streets with dedicated platforms, signaling, that would feel like light rail that would drop people off right by storefronts and residential neighborhoods every half mile to mile or so. Gravois, Jefferson, Grand, Florissant/Natural Bridge to UMSL, Page, Manchester, maybe more. A 60 mile BRT network would cost $600 million and would attract a lot of development. Imagine what some of those buildings and the surrounding area at Grand and Gravois might look like with straight shots downtown and to SLU/Midtown/Medical. With prioritized signaling, it's probably 8 minutes to Midtown and 10 to Downtown.

For the other $300-$400 million, we could clean up a lot of brownfield parcels to make them attractive to development. No one is really interested in touching those parcels (even though they're big and ideal of manufacturing or large scale commercial) due to contamination issues. If I'm a company that wants to build a facility and get it up and running in 3 years, I don't want to mess with a site that will take 18 months to clean up. That's a big reason why I'd end up out west somewhere.

It's not an either/or proposition because the funding sources would be different, but if someone could frame it to the state as option A (Rams) or B (all the things mentioned above) and put it to a vote, I'm voting B early and often.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

I could definitely see that, although SA lacks corporate HQ to support hospitality sales. Maybe a stadium between Austin and San Antonio (40 minutes from each downtown). I could also see Louisville trying to get in on the NFL in addition to Oklahoma City (energy money+booming economy) or Raleigh Durham (another boom town that over the next 20 years looks like it will end up being one of the 20 biggest economic centers in the country). Vegas too if the NFL decides its okay.

San Antonio does not lack corporate support. You have Tesero, USAA, Valero, Clear Channel, etc.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Trae713

San Antonio does not lack corporate support. You have Tesero, USAA, Valero, Clear Channel, etc.

Just looking at San Antonio vs. another metro of similar size that has both NBA and NFL. San Antonio has 6 Fortune 1000 companies. Indianapolis has 9. SA has very little in terms of financial/legal services, which are groups that you won't find in a Fortune 1000 list but contain many wealthy firms that normally lease suites. Indianapolis has a lot of financial services and legal thanks to its status as a state capital and the need for these services in areas like healthcare. San Antonio's median household income is $39,100. Indy's is $45,600. Indy's metro GDP is 20% higher (121 billion vs. 99 billion). The Spurs also have a much deeper grip on the city than the Pacers ever have had in Indy (even pre-Colts during their ABA glory days).

And Indy can't really adequately support both the NFL and NBA. They're close, but stretched thin.

San Antonio is also not interested because they were burned when they built the Alamo Dome back in the day. They built it, and nobody came. The place isn't even eligible for NCAA Final Fours anymore.

There's just not enough corporate presence/economic clout (or political will) in SA at this point to support an incredibly popular Spurs and the NFL. That might change in 10-20 years though.

[Trae713]

Indy is also on an island by itself and doesn't have another two million person metro about an hour to the north (and shorter if not doing downtown to downtown).

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Given our density, I don't know if MetroLink is the best option. Where we've put it unfortunately has been primarily in paths of least resistance where transit-oriented development can't flourish. Good example is the Grand stop or any stop along that rail corridor near 40. Those areas aren't conducive to introducing mixed use around the stops. They're dead zones and that hurts ridership.

A N/S expansion would go through the densest parts of the city, and they would get denser due to TOD. I think a N/S line would be a better option than either of the current lines. And I don't know about your experience, but I frequently encounter out-of-towners complaining that there's no transit to Soulard or Lafayette or the AB Brewery.

I said MetroLink, but I'm not against using BRT as an alternative. However, an adequate BRT alternative (not just an articulated bus with a nice paint job) would cost nearly as much as MetroLink, so for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter which we assume.