Readers want NFL football games played in same location
In 2025 the 30-year lease of the Edwards Jones Dome to the St. Louis Rams will expire. Last week’s poll was a revision of a poll a few weeks earlier.  This time around I get a better sense of what you, the reader, expect. The biggest number want football to stay in the same spot, here are the results:
Q: Forget funding, where would you place a new stadium for the Rams?
- Rebuild/build in current location 44 [ 23%]
- East bank of the Mississippi River (IL) 41 [22%]
- Old Nooter Co site just South of Chouteau 24 [12%]
- downtown St. Louis (River/Cole/Tucker/Chouteau) 18 [9%]
- Just adjacent to downtown 14 [7%]
- As long as it is open air or has a retractable roof I don’t care. 12 [6%]
- elsewhere in City of St. Louis 7 [3%]
- Unsure/don’t care 7 [3%]
- Metro East (IL) 6 [3%]
- Other answer… 6 [3%]
- St. Louis County 3 [1%]
- anywhere in the region is OK 2 [1%]
- St. Charles County 1 [0%]
- Jefferson County 0 [0%]
Besides the same location, a few adjacent locations also ranked high. In this post I want to focus on the existing location, shown in green below.
Along Cole Street the Edward Jones Dome and convention center is a four block long wall (Broadway/5th to 9th). A four block wall. So here are my thoughts about rebuilding a football stadium on the existing site. The first thing that needs to happen is 7th Street needs to continue through (blue above) rather than be cut off. I’d like to see the new facility be open air. Not a retractable roof, but no roof. Such a facility would be less intrusive in the urban context.
Seventh Street was a through street before the dome was added onto the convention center so it can be removed. The back of the 1977 convention center will continue to be an ugly edge to Cole St. – two blocks of loading docks. Allowing pedestrians and traffic to go through 7th Street will help connect our central business district to the areas to the North of Cole.
– Steve Patterson
And how do you propose to compensate for removing the current dome portion of the convention center complex from the complex's inventory of exhibition space? Closing 9th and expanding west (assuming closing Washington or Cole are non-starters)? Eliminating the parking garage? Just staying smaller and foregoing larger conventions? Double-decking some or all of the existing exhibition space? Building a new, bigger and better convention center somewhere else (like Union Station)?
We have a four block wall already that I'm trying to reduce to (2) two-blocks walls. So closing 9th is not an option for me. Every city in the country has a convention center. Just having more space under a roof is no guarantee we'd get larger conventions. Even if we did once every 2-3 years, is it worth that amount of land?
I think JZ71 is pointing out that the dome is currently connected to the convention center and the convention center currently uses that space as part of its exhibition space. So the issue is that by re-opening 7th street you are reducing the amount of exhibition space currently available.
Crossing 7th is no big deal, creating an open air football stadium is a reduction in space. What I want to see is the number of conventions that we have that use all our current space, including the dome. Some conventions could use the open air stadium and 7th could easily be closed for a few days as well.
NO conventions would risking using an open air stadium for exhibition space.
It's fine to have “pie in the sky” dreams, but you ought to have some element of reality in those dreams.
The reality is we seldom need all the space we currently have.
Crossing 7th is no big deal, creating an open air football stadium is a reduction in space. What I want to see is the number of conventions that we have that use all our current space, including the dome. Some conventions could use the open air stadium and 7th could easily be closed for a few days as well.
Agree, agree and agree – just wanted to clarify. We'll never be able to compete for the largest conventions. The real challenge will be convincing the powers that be that smaller is actually better, and so what if KC Indy or Louisville get a few conventions we simply can't accomodate? It's all about ROI, not ego.
If we do get a new dome chances are it won't be at the same location unless they can find temporary digs to play in for 2-3 years. Not sure how viable Busch Stadium would be but Columbia, Missouri could be an option (Chicago used UofI's field for a year). Who knows maybe we could get a whole new convention center out of the deal as well as it will be 40 years old very soon. Any ideas for a new location? Leveling the current dome and convention space and building something that is more visually appealing and better connected to the street grid could work.
Public sentiment favors the current location so yes they'd need to play home games in Columbia for a season or three.
Public sentiment? You mean 44 of the 185 people who answered this survey favor the current location. 75% of them chose a different answer. That's hardly public sentiment. I'll bet there's a lot of folks in Illinois that would rather it be on the east side, and just as many in west county that would like it somewhere out by 270 and 64.
And really, when has public sentiment ever mattered in deciding where these things are built? 😉
Excellent point, I usually look beyond the biggest single answer and for some reason I didn't. I want every excuse possible to have the stadium played in anther spot. Downtown is clearly to focus, even if on the fringe.
I knew I should have voted multiple times = / 3 votes shy of the current location and we'd be talking about the eastbank right now.
some thoughts:
1) 3 seasons is a longtime to go without a stadium in the metro area IMHO.
2) restoring the grid (MLK Drive) would be very attractive to developers — or should be — plus the benefit of
a metrolink stop. The Bottle District?
3) If not the eastbank, then DEFINITELY its current location – drop I-70 improve pedestrian traffic between EJD and Laclede's Landing. Open Air stadium. The current location is my 2nd favorite location indeed. I really do hate the four block wall though. Tailgaters will continue to whine as well, but will have to get over it. The current location along with Busch to the South would really help anchor Dowtown N-S.
Steve would an open air stadium reduce the stadiums footprint? If so by how much?
I guess the eastbank has its drawbacks as well — how much infrastructure would have to be built? Off ramps? New levees? Streets? Although I'm a big fan of water taxis, and metrolink not everyone is. I'm hoping the arch grounds competition goes some way in beautifying the east riverfront.
I'm no football (handegg) fan, but the only thing uglier than the team that plays in it, is the dome itself. People want to cap the depressed I-70 section? Well, reverse that, and uncap the dome already. You get all the public interest a new field brings without the time-consumption, destruction, and subsequent inactivity (see: Ballpark Village) to rebuild. Open the dome, Soldier Field it with nosebleed extension seating to pack in more people.
As much as it pains me to say it, it's probably better to have a football team than not, but when the team and the building are an eyesore, you have to do soething to raise interest and support — and proposing a brand new, multi-million/billion dollar stadium isn't the way to do it. Take a can opener to it, reopen the streets, remove the depressed 70 and it's raised sections to the north, reconnect to the Landing and the river and watch as downtown starts expanding in those areas. Simple
I'm sorry, but if we had an open air stadium it would have been empty for the Rams final games this past December. Who wants to sit in bitter cold, howling wind, and sleet to watch a 1-15 team? St. Louis is not Green Bay, and Rams fans will never be as loyal. If the Rams do build a new stadium, I would like to have more tailgating area closer to the park, but that ain't gonna happen downtown.
So people will sit outside in the bitter cold, howling wind and sleet to tailgate for a 1-15 team, but only if they can go inside a lifeless, roofed stadium afterward to watch the same 1-15 team?
This isn't a question about the quality of the team playing. You're right. The team is horrible. No, this is a question of throwing good money after bad. Building a brand new stadium with your extra tailgating space will further handcuff ownership and it won't change the quality of the team…only it's drafting/signing 'professionals' can do that.
The open-roof EJD idea is sound in that the relatively low cost of doing it provides an 'attraction' for a handful of years. I DO actually think people would have sat in the freezing cold for a 1-15 team this winter if nothing else for the sheer novelty of getting to do so after thirty(?)ish years. Who knows, maybe St. Louisans have a little bit of that Frozen Tundra spirit and rowdiness in them…
The current location of the Edward Jones Dome is sound. Yes, it's huge and ugly and not a great addition to a St. Louis skyline postcard, but it helps to form what should be an accessible and profitable professional sports triangle (it holding the north, with Busch hugging the south edge and ScottTrade to the West) downtown. Giving it some personality, opening up its lanes and sightlines and adding some development (even if it lessens your tailgate space) and newness should give the team enough time to correct whatever they've been guilty of the last six-seven years to yield this on-field result.
Not only is the location sound. Access will only get better when they build the new Mississippi River Bridge is built. Removing I-70 would give some breathing room and actually tie the stadium into Laclede's landing and a Casino, what better place to do some tailgating then on the rowdy gambling riverfront if we would ever admit that is the only thing that has thrived on a working riverfront. To show we are sensitive to the 21st century and our fellow man it has the convenience of metrolink nearby to take our stumbling butts home.
Personally, If I was Kahn. Go open air, keep it in same place if you remove I-70 or move over to the side of I-70 because you need to be part of a rowdy gambling riverfront not a part of a convention center and you certainly don't need to be part of the loft district. Finally, for the life of god, please build it with Soldier Field in mind in which seats are pratically on top of the field so fans who are stupid enough to throw a cup at a three hundred pound linemen really know how big that guy is and more importantly how fast that guy is so your kids can be amused on how you haven't ran that fast since you were a kid. Soldier Field is a midwest stadium that any die hard loving football fan will be willing to go shirtless on a cold December day. After doing that, tell the NFL your moving the team along with the Cleveland Browns & KC Chiefs into the NFC Central and they can send the dome teams, Detriot and Minnesota, to join Indy in a new central artificial turf league.
Then and only then will we let go of the Cardinals Past and embrace a new owner, have games that will bring in fans for games even if we are 1-15 and so what if half the crowd wants to fight the other half (Chicago and KC would probably make up a quarter of the schedule), and finally a stadium in a place that would be embraced by a football fan who would rather be assoicated with a rowdy gambling riverfront.
Given the amount of vacant land in and around downtown (and the rest of the city and the region), it makes little sense to send the Rams elsewhere for a couple of years to rebuild in place. The Chicago situation was different, since Soldier Field was an historic landmark. I doubt anyone would consider the Jones Dome one, so the most logical scenario would be how Busch Stadium was rebuilt (as was Mile High Stadium in Denver and Cowboy Stadium in Dallas) – build the new one nearby, in an adjacent parking lot(s), then tear the old one down, replacing the lost parking.
As for the Convention Center component . . . if America's Center went away / were relocated, three things could happen. One, it would free up the land for a new football stadium, two, the footprint would become much smaller (even with the 2-block-by-2-block stadium), and three, two blocks along Washington could be freed up for more-intense urban uses, like Ball Park Village promises.
The big question then becomes where to put the convention center? My vote would be Union Station, specifically renovating and enclosing the train shed. I know, I know, there's already a large investment there with the shopping mall, Hard Rock and hotel. The reality is that the mall is probably beyond salvage, and the Hard Rock is probably itching to move to BPV. Clear all that stuff out and you'd be left with a unique convention facility, one that would “stand out from the competition” much more than America's Center does now.
I would leave the convention center where it is. Building a new stadium next door as you suggest will free up space to reconfigure the convention center where it is now if the CVC ever has money to do anything substantial. More importantly, the convention space is in a relative central location for conventioners who can easily walk to the Arch Grounds, a Casino and Laclede's Landing, Post office Plaza, Washington Loft/Retail District. The convention space as it stands now would make a good bridge between Loft/retail and Lacledes/entertainment district if I-70 is removed. These should all be good selling points.
As far as Union Station, Marriot's investment is creating additional meeting space, finally recognizes that the space is better suited to meet the current needs of entertainment/pro sports crowd/collegiate tournaments and will keep Union Station intact even if Ballpark Village gets off the ground (the next new location of Hard Rock, chain bars, etc). Rebuilding 22nd street interchange will help place the street grid back and will eventually spur commerical development. Union Station/Marriot with its excess space and metrolink station is well placed to meet the needs of any new day/business crowd that will be generated by McKee's proposals.