urbanSTL

^ I'd be inclined to agree with that. The bottom line for me is, despite any challenges or shortcomings St. Louis may have, I refuse to believe that we cannot compete to host the NCAA Final Four again (although our next shot will really be a LONG time away now). I just think there may have been a perfect storm including all of the aforementioned issues that probably raised red flags among the decision makers involved in the selection process this time.

ThreeOneFour wrote:Also, not to change the subject, but after watching the Democratic and Republican conventions in Denver and Saint Paul this summer I'd really like to see St. Louis get one of those as well, regardless of the political party.

Those cost hundreds of millions to put on, the bulk of which must be donated by the local corporate community. St. Louis might have had a very remote outside shot of landing the Republican convention at some point if a couple of local corporations had committed to footing the bill and Sam Fox threw his influence behind it, but I'd say our chances of landing either convention probably disappeared with A-B.

as close as the Presidential race in Missouri was this year you'd think some local corporations who are politically inclined toward one party or the other would want to foot that bill in hopes that it could push the state into their party's column.

Why? Doesn't it make more sense to contribute to both?

ThreeOneFour wrote:
True enough, but I still think Bernie Miklasz's point about the high union labor costs and DeBaliviere's point about the stalled redevelopment of St. Louis Centre and the SB&F/Dillard's Building are two crucial blows to St. Louis' chances that should be addressed to make the Edward Jones Dome more attractive for future Final Fours and other NCAA events. As you and others have pointed out, even with these disadvantages, St. Louis still has more adjacent amenities than cities like Houston or Phoenix.



I'm optimistic that redevelopment in the adjacent area will resume once the economy rebounds, but what can or will be done to address labor costs at the dome and convention center? I can see the pros and cons of unions, and I don't want to sidetrack the discussion or get into another pointless and heated debate about this, but I want St. Louis to do everything it can to be competitive for events like this.

I'm confident too that redevelopment will happen at the Stix/St. Louis Centre building when the economy gets better, but I doubt very seriously that NCAA suggested the vacant Stix and St. Louis Centre buildings nixed the deal for St. Louis - especially considering they awarded St. Louis the 2005 FF when lower Washington Avenue was in worse shape. If this is the case, however, I want to see the documentd response to St. Louis.



I am sure the NCAA is aware of the tough economy we're experiencing too and downtown New Orleans itself is still not 100%. Furthermore, LaClede's Landing was host to lots of NCAA-oriented events and media in 2005 - not just lower Washington Avenue. In addition, the NCAA, newspapers and magazines praised St. Louis for hosting a great NCAA Final Four in 2005.



If labor costs and such are problematic, then yes, let's work on that, but I doubt two vacant buildings in the vicinity were that much of an issue - if at all. Certainly it would be good to have them renovated as soon as possible, but if their lack of renovation were a major deal-breaker then why has St. Louis been awarded other large NCAA sporting events which took place at the dome in recent years - including NCAA regionals?



While people are entitled to make their own assessments, I think personal feelings about the lack of redevelopment of the buildings are spilling over into the discussion. For the record, I wanted them renovated like yesterday, but knowing Atlanta and Houston like I do - and New Orleans to a lesser extent - I just don't think two dusty buildings were the deal-breaker for St. Louis.

Arch City wrote:I'm confident too that redevelopment will happen at the Stix/St. Louis Centre building when the economy gets better, but I doubt very seriously that NCAA suggested the vacant Stix and St. Louis Centre buildings nixed the deal for St. Louis - especially considering they awarded St. Louis the 2005 FF when lower Washington Avenue was in worse shape. If this is the case, however, I want to see the documentd response to St. Louis.

I probably should clarify that this isn't what I necessarily think was a major factor that may have swayed the NCAA's decision to pass on another Final Four in St. Louis in the near future. I was just wondering aloud, because even if I don't necessarily think the status of the Stix/Dillard's Building and St. Louis Centre was a factor in the decision making process, I remember some grumblings from out-of-towners that were shocked to see the former department store and the mall (which was then open, which IMHO made a worse impression than it does now with no stores and locked doors) in such deplorable shape.



I even recall suggesting on the SkyscraperPage forum at the time that I felt like I should apologize to out-of-towners for the condition of that area and direct them to what was then Famous-Barr and downtown's other shopping and dining options. And of course, there were fewer options then compared to present-day lower Washington Avenue and the immediate area. On the bright side, Lumiere Place alone adds multiple lodging, entertainment, dining, and shopping options. Despite any real or perceived shortcomings I still think our city is well-positioned.

I am sure the NCAA is aware of the tough economy we're experiencing too and downtown New Orleans itself is still not 100%. Furthermore, LaClede's Landing was host to lots of NCAA-oriented events and media in 2005 - not just lower Washington Avenue. In addition, the NCAA, newspapers and magazines praised St. Louis for hosting a great NCAA Final Four in 2005.

I don't know whether Hurricane Katrina factored into the NCAA's decision about New Orleans, but I would have to imagine it was somehow taken into account given its significant impact on the city over three years later. And while I recall fondly the effusive praise heaped upon St. Louis by the media, I do remember some critical comments about the abandoned buildings downtown. Again, I'm not suggesting this was necessarily a key factor in eliminating St. Louis from consideration, but it was also something that was (and still is, unfortunately) difficult to ignore.

While people are entitled to make their own assessments, I think personal feelings about the lack of redevelopment of the buildings are spilling over into the discussion. For the record, I wanted them renovated like yesterday, but knowing Atlanta and Houston like I do - and New Orleans to a lesser extent - I just don't think two dusty buildings were the deal-breaker for St. Louis.

You're probably right about the first point- and actually- you're probably right about the second point you made as well.



My point is that I don't want St. Louis leaders to take this snub lightly. Stuff happens, and life goes on, but I think we can and should host another Final Four even if we're looking further into the future than we'd like. Regionals are fine, and the more we get the better IMHO. However, we're not exactly Greensboro, so we should strive for the big prize IMHO! In other words, I don't want our leaders to dwell on the loss of the Final Four, but I do hope they'll view this development as an opportunity to take a comprehensive look at ways to make St. Louis more competitive for major sporting events and conventions.