KCRag Forum

aknowledgeableperson wrote: BTW, I would think St. Louis would have developed at the confluence of the rivers instead of its present site. Any idea why?

The chain of rocks is (i believe) the only major rapids on the mississippi river between minneapolis and new orleans. it was always an impediment to the navigation of larger vessels, and the river borne commerce between st. louis and new orleans far exceeded any fur traders on the missouri. later on, the large victorian riverboats had to unload at st. louis and transfer people/things into the smaller boats that traversed the mississippi up to st. paul and the missouri river. alton (and chicago backed grafton) was established intially as a rival to st. louis just upriver of the confluence, however further downn the illinois side right at the site of the confluence was/is low lying and a bit swampy, and is now the location of a massive oil refinery. (downtown) st. louis sits on a gentle bluff above the reach of spring floodwaters, not too high up but not too low. this was the closest, best spot south of the chain of rocks to establish a mercantile outpost of new orleans.

pash wrote: The more surprising one to me is why there isn't a major city at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

there are probably entire books devoted to why cairo didn't become a st. louis, or even an evansville. my mother grew up right across the mississippi river from cairo, and she said that the town still was fairly prosperous and had one of the only sizable jewish populations in the mid-south. today, it's nearly a ghost town. it's sort of like east st. louis without a metropolitan area. the surrounding country is lays very low, and what someone might call "unhealthful" in the 19th century, and certainly very vulnerable to flooding. i imagine that there wasn't that perfect slight rise on the river like cincinnati and st. louis near the confluence of the mississippi and ohio, and it's sort of a (literally) backwater area. it's completely surrounded by levees or floodwalls.

From a quick study of the terrain view on Google Maps, Wickliffe, Kentucky gets my vote for "major American city in an alternate universe".

Can we move this digression about the physical location of St Louis out of the Sports/Rams string?

I got my answer.

Rams cancel 2015 Fan Fest and other annual promotional events in St. Louis.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/19/8 ... t-canceled

Now there is talk of the Raiders and Charges getting together to build a stadium in Carson.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Now there is talk of the Raiders and Charges getting together to build a stadium in Carson.

I can totally understand the Raiders doing something to screw over their fanbase, but that would really suck for Chargers fans. I can't imagine the NFL would want to encourage that, but the NFL seems to think it is bulletproof lately.

Both teams are in old stadiums, on year-to-year leases, and can't get the community behind new stadiums. Can't see the NFL approving teams sharing a stadium that are in the same division, but throw in the Rams and drop the Chargers - YES.

Inglewood city council approves plan to build 80,000 seat stadium, plan developed by Rams owner Stan Kroenke

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/25/8 ... an-kroenke

The NFL should just put all 32 teams in NYC and LA. It's nothing but TV programming now.

Interesting blurb on npr yesterday, implying that the nfl/owners don't care about small/large markets, as long as they get a new stadium out of the deal. They get so much from profit sharing everything else is gravy.

Interesting tidbits for NFL - STL

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/02/st-louis- ... aguegm.com

More on Rams...

Jason La Canfora
CBS Sports NFL Insider
If St. Louis builds a new riverfront stadium, will the Rams stay?
January 13, 2015 1:33 pm ET


http://stlstadium.com/

EDIT: Please don't post entire copyrighted works here, thanks.

AEG abandons downtown LA football stadium plan. Carson and Inglewood plans are still a go though.

THANKS OBAMA

Is Obama proposal the end of taxpayer-subsidized sports stadiums?

Oakland "may" have a deal to save the Raiders. So that leaves the Chargers and the Rams for a move to LA.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

As the NFL moves closer to returning to Los Angeles, the dominos are falling in a way that has some speculating that the Oakland Raiders could end up in St. Louis when all is said and done.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-los- ... z3W72ZeFdL

Doesn't STL already have enough crime? What about San Antonio?

Rams might spend part of their training camp in Southern California.

Mobile link: http://m.stltoday.com/sports/football/p ... touch=true