What would it take to make the Rams’ stadium top flight?
The St. Louis Rams’ lease at the Edward Jones Dome requires that its facility be maintained as a venue that ranks in the top 25 percent of the NFL. If it’s not, the team can break the lease and move.
Our story for the Friday Post-Dispatch says that job may get tougher as newer — and very expensive — stadiums are rolled out around the league.
Bill Coats’ story says, “The NFL stadiums under construction in Indianapolis; Arlington, Texas; and East Rutherford, N.J., are “going to be the cream of the crop, and they’re going to be no more than five or six years old” by 2015, (Convention and Visitors Commission chairman Dan) Dierdorf said. “What do you do to a 20-year-old building to make it the equal of a brand new $1 billion stadium?”
The dome is undergoing $30 million in upgrades, including new video boards and an as-yet-undetermined way of getting more natural sunlight into the building. Those slightly tardy improvements will satisfy requirements to keep the facility in the top tier at the first 10-year segment of the 30-year lease.
What would it take to bring the Rams’ stadium up to where it needs to be? What improvements would you like to see in the venue? How much would you be willing to support taxes for the improvements — or would you insist that private money finance any upgrades?
Or, would you care if the Rams up and left?
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
What would it take to make the Rams ‘top flight’?
Through all of this I have read 10 or 12 valid comments… even mr “Ihave been to every game” guy is off base with the employee moral and concessions…
Here’s the deal - New Busch Stadium was built with slight-of-hand materials, looks great - and didn’t cost an arm and a leg to build… By slight-of-hand I mean a lot more prefab than meets the eye - there is probably not a real brick in the place - it’s panels…
A city doesn’t have to go to excess (Jerry Jones) to create a viable environment. Yes - it will cost a half a billion dollars - and no - I don’t care if it takes money to do it - so the soapbox bs doesn’t effect me.
You will spend the same to retrofit the Dome. The sad point being that the Dome was one of the very last of the old school “new” domes. There was no foresight or else we would not be complaining.
The flip side is that Indy will have a superbowl which makes it absolutely feasible STL could have one in the next 20 years…
It all depends on the next few years.
“The taxes on the hotel/rental cars is ear marked for tourism and projects that bring conventions/tourists to the area. … If a new stadium or improvements would be paid for by a similiar tax on hotels/rental cars and/or a tax on restaurants in “enterainment zones” (see Dallas Texas) I would vote yes tomorrow.”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve heard today. A tax on tourism related services that is spent on an insanely expensive football stadium is supposed to bring more tourism to the area. Maybe such a tax is actually hurting tourism. Let’s call the tax and gift stadium what it is - a giveaway to an NFL team that doesn’t need one. If it is such a great deal, then why doesn’t the team build it’s own stadium? Here’s a novel idea - don’t waste the money on a free football stadium for an NFL owner and then we can take the money that is “just piling up sitting there” and re-earmark it for something besides an expensive toy.
Step #1 - Buy a really big can opener …
Take ths damn roof off! Football is an outdoor sport ment to be played in the eliments,building a dome was the citys #1 mistake.
Since I don’t live near St. Louis, it is not my place to launch into your tax and financial discussion. But I will offer thoughts on the dome itself as I have been to many a stadium. My impression of The Ed is that it offers football in a Sams Club atmosphere. I was unimpressed by crowded corner entrances, tight hallways, unexceptional food that I waited in line for the entire third quarter (no exaggeration). I fear retrofitting the stadium will only be a band-aid approach. The Ed was the last built example of old football stadiums like the Metrodome. The baseball equivlent is U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago. It is a basic stadium completed in 1991, right before Camden Yards revolutionized the way baseball stadiums were built in 1992. After selling the naming rights at The Cell, the State of Illinois has been upgrading it for a few years now. But despite some comsmetic changes, the problems of a sky-high upper deck and five story wall of luxury boxes between decks still persists. It still does not feel quite right. I am afraid that with The Ed, problems with the crowded entrances and tight hallways would also persist. Instead of throwing good money after bad, biting the bullet on a new open-air stadium might be the better long term approach. If you want an example of what could be, go see a game at new Soldier Field — it is night and day compared to The Ed. In fact, you can distinctly tell it is night or day, sunny or raining, very windy or very very windy at Soldier Field, which you cannot do at The Ed.
On the other hand, I really enjoy visiting new Busch Stadium. But I am a lifelong Cardinal fan and biased
Peter - you nailed exactly what I was going to say comparing it to new comisky park. Your exactly right - it was obsolete two years to the day it was opened.
It is not like a bigger, better, newer stadium is going to make a mediocre team play better. These covered domes have taken the fun out of football as far as I am concerned anyway. It is a sport meant to be played outside in all types of weather conditions, not this wimpy heated dome scenario. Forget getting the stadium up to “par”, why not concentrate on getting the team itself there?
My first thought: Sports teams are private enterprises. The only thing public about them is the way they soak the public at every chance. Whether they stay or go, the Public shouldn’t have to pay so that the “Team” (read team management) can “play” (read get more profits) in a top flight stadium.
If they want a billion dollar stadium, they should find the billion dollars in investment to build it themselves. And I do mean build it themselves, not put up just the building and have taxes pay for the roads, parking lot, and, oh yeah, expect to not have to pay real estate taxes, ever.
My other comment is a list of questions that should be answered before expending that much dough: Has the current dome paid for itself yet? How many times over? And how does one calculate that ROI? Is it straight forward like: Taxes generated by dome business exceeds cost, or does it have to be some labarynth like, income to local businesses respent 4 times over generates x amount of taxes which then exceeds the amount spent? Is this good business or just good PR or just ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ on a really big scale?
Finally: What percentage of the St. Louis metro area population benefits directly (sees a game in person, is employed by a downtown restaurant, etc.)? Is a billion dollars going to significantly increase this percentage?
By the way, I was recently in Indianapolis, and their new stadium looks like an aircraft hanger stuck in the middle of town. Not a great impression at all.
If your going to throw money away you might as well BUY THE TEAM. It’s cheaper than building a new stadium and the value will(should)not go down. If it does you can pawn it off on another city without a team.