Thread for discussion of PWP proposal. Link to PDF here: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=18
I can't believe this was an actual proposal. I (honestly) could have come up with this design, aside from the hand rendering.
- 712
Alex started his blog post on Kiener Plaza, I think it is important to note that there's a lot of parking there, and that the current facility is more or less fine as it is. If a person is going to redesign the plaza, the most important thing should be to consider the Gateway Mall Masterplan. Whatever happens in Kiener Plaza, the mall's hallway concept should be included.
They ignored the Poplar Street Bridge and the entire southern portion of the park. The other teams all include some sort of circular path where one can walk through both parks and along both bridges. The PWP plan only addresses one bridge, and doesn't do it as well as some of the other teams.
This competition, to me, is about connections. The two parks need to be connected to each other and to their respective downtowns. This plan doesn't connect the two parks as well as the other plans. The arch grounds don't connect to downtown St. Louis very well (wash ave under-highway development plaza) and the farmland plan on the east doesn't connect to downtown East St. Louis well either.
Their plan to replace the trees in the park is kind of insane.
The mound is interesting just because they had the audacity to actually suggest it. If it is big enough, and the viewing platform spacious enough, then it could be a fantastic place actually. If it is tall enough to see Clayton from... Of the designs submitted, it is the only idea that gives a clear vision of what you could see from the steps of the Old Courthouse.
Still the pastoral renderings are kind of a turn-off. I don't want to live in Broadacre City.
They ignored the Poplar Street Bridge and the entire southern portion of the park. The other teams all include some sort of circular path where one can walk through both parks and along both bridges. The PWP plan only addresses one bridge, and doesn't do it as well as some of the other teams.
This competition, to me, is about connections. The two parks need to be connected to each other and to their respective downtowns. This plan doesn't connect the two parks as well as the other plans. The arch grounds don't connect to downtown St. Louis very well (wash ave under-highway development plaza) and the farmland plan on the east doesn't connect to downtown East St. Louis well either.
Their plan to replace the trees in the park is kind of insane.
The mound is interesting just because they had the audacity to actually suggest it. If it is big enough, and the viewing platform spacious enough, then it could be a fantastic place actually. If it is tall enough to see Clayton from... Of the designs submitted, it is the only idea that gives a clear vision of what you could see from the steps of the Old Courthouse.
Still the pastoral renderings are kind of a turn-off. I don't want to live in Broadacre City.
I think the arch staircase swelling out is a really nice idea actually. If Wharf Street (I heard we shouldn't use that other name) became the riverfront trail, then the staircase pushing out into it would be a very visible invitiation to climb up and enjoy the park. Being at the arch and walking down the steps a little, a person would be able to view the park better to the sides and be much more drawn to the water's edge.
I really like the east side park in this concept, it captures the existing sense of place and it would be used during high demand times.
- 8,922
Really? I hate it. To me it screams podunk cow town fly over country.
- 10K
If this was one of the finalists, it makes me wonder how bad some of the non-finalists were.
I think that's the look they were going for. The elevator close by can be incorporated in the design before and after business occupancy. Realistically I don't see the east side park taking off and becoming extremely busy. The natural look weather agriculture or nature conserve would be a better fit.Moorlander wrote:Really? I hate it. To me it screams podunk cow town fly over country.
- 11K
^ But it doesn't address the mission of the competition - activating the East side.TheRemedy wrote:I think that's the look they were going for. The elevator close by can be incorporated in the design before and after business occupancy. Realistically I don't see the east side park taking off and becoming extremely busy. The natural look weather agriculture or nature conserve would be a better fit.Moorlander wrote:Really? I hate it. To me it screams podunk cow town fly over country.
- 8,922
TheRemedy wrote:I think that's the look they were going for. The elevator close by can be incorporated in the design before and after business occupancy. Realistically I don't see the east side park taking off and becoming extremely busy. The natural look weather agriculture or nature conserve would be a better fit.Moorlander wrote:Really? I hate it. To me it screams podunk cow town fly over country.
I don't understand how someone could advocate that corn fields be located within a couple hundred yards of our regions largest CBD while keeping a straight face.
- 597
^what's wrong with cornfields? they can be scenic - its not my favorite use of the eastside but I think its a nice contrast to downtown more than its a hindrance to it.
I'm not a big fan of this design but I love the simplicity of LESS - other than that I can do without the rest of it - but they nailed framing the Arch from LESS (pg 76). I don't think LESS needs a lot of activities on it. Tall trees, straight lines, it almost looks contiguous with the ArchGrounds.
Selfishly I wish the mound in the distance were a new rams stadium.
I'm not a big fan of this design but I love the simplicity of LESS - other than that I can do without the rest of it - but they nailed framing the Arch from LESS (pg 76). I don't think LESS needs a lot of activities on it. Tall trees, straight lines, it almost looks contiguous with the ArchGrounds.
Selfishly I wish the mound in the distance were a new rams stadium.
- 8,922
Arch_Genesis wrote:^what's wrong with cornfields? they can be scenic - its not my favorite use of the eastside but I think its a nice contrast to downtown more than its a hindrance to it.
- 597
^ 
I just don't think it would hurt downtown - is it the best idea? No. Is it my preference? hell no. I just see some charm to it. Would it change your opinion if instead of a cornfield it were a vineyard? To the naked eye, standing across the Mississippi river , there's not much of a difference. Who doesn't think of California Wine Country as beautiful and scenic? I guess cornfields just have that podunk stigma that vineyards don't give off.
I just don't think it would hurt downtown - is it the best idea? No. Is it my preference? hell no. I just see some charm to it. Would it change your opinion if instead of a cornfield it were a vineyard? To the naked eye, standing across the Mississippi river , there's not much of a difference. Who doesn't think of California Wine Country as beautiful and scenic? I guess cornfields just have that podunk stigma that vineyards don't give off.In 1982, conceptual artist Agnes Denes planted, cultivated, and harvested 2 acres of wheat on a landfill a couple of blocks from the World Trade Center. It was only a temporary installation, but it drew worldwide attention. The site has since been developed as the massive Battery Park City complex.
I'm not suggesting this for East St. Louis, but it was a pretty cool project:
http://www.islandsinstitute.com/gallery ... index.html
I'm not suggesting this for East St. Louis, but it was a pretty cool project:
http://www.islandsinstitute.com/gallery ... index.html
- 712
I was amused by the observation (perhaps from the Behnisch team) that St. Louis was the first corn power in the world (think original mound builders) and we hold a powerful place today with the corn lobby, Monsanto, et all.
Someone told me last week in casual conversation that St. Louis is the capital of world agriculture. Most important in the US, and therefore the world. This was a big of a surprise to me, but I suppose a case could be made. Several other midwestern cities could certainly make the same case, of course.
Given that... should we plant corn in East St. Louis? Absolutely not. It is important for people to be closer to the production of their food, and it is certainly a local strength that should be part of our future, but I personally find the PWP proposal a bit offensive. It consigns our future to be the same as our past. I don't see a future Battery Park, but a failure to look at the full spectrum of local potential. flyover country.
Corn should be part of the local economy and planning, but it shouldn't be the counterpoint to our most important civic symbol.
Someone told me last week in casual conversation that St. Louis is the capital of world agriculture. Most important in the US, and therefore the world. This was a big of a surprise to me, but I suppose a case could be made. Several other midwestern cities could certainly make the same case, of course.
Given that... should we plant corn in East St. Louis? Absolutely not. It is important for people to be closer to the production of their food, and it is certainly a local strength that should be part of our future, but I personally find the PWP proposal a bit offensive. It consigns our future to be the same as our past. I don't see a future Battery Park, but a failure to look at the full spectrum of local potential. flyover country.
Corn should be part of the local economy and planning, but it shouldn't be the counterpoint to our most important civic symbol.
I would prefer to see something big on the east side, like the WM proposal. However, I question whether there will be enough funding to do that. If not, I like the idea of a well designed ag landscape (a variety of crops - not all corn). Ag is already a dominate theme of the east side due to Cargill. Why not turn it into something beautiful? It would be a vast improvement to what is there now.
It doesn't have to be permanent. When Cargill goes away and there is funding for something bigger and better, it can replace the crops. I actually think that's what PWP has in mind. I was at their presentation, and a juror asked how the Gateway Gyeser fit into their plan. Peter basically said it may or may not fit into whatever someone else does with the land in the future. So basically, PWP is punting on the the majority of the east side, just like they did with the north and south ends of the arch grounds. It may not be exciting, but it may be the most practical approach.
It doesn't have to be permanent. When Cargill goes away and there is funding for something bigger and better, it can replace the crops. I actually think that's what PWP has in mind. I was at their presentation, and a juror asked how the Gateway Gyeser fit into their plan. Peter basically said it may or may not fit into whatever someone else does with the land in the future. So basically, PWP is punting on the the majority of the east side, just like they did with the north and south ends of the arch grounds. It may not be exciting, but it may be the most practical approach.
- 2,938
My favorite part so far - UNDERGROUND PARKING!
Luther Ely Smith Park: capacity for 300 cars.
Kiener Plaza: capacity for 800 cars! Bury the suckers!
Should the proposals have selections from each team be a part of the final project, I surely hope this is included. What better way to respect a minimalist masterpiece than to remove a whole load of traffic & congestion from the area? That, and it could eventually lead to constructive reuse of the 600 and 700 block of Chestnut that are now the gawd-awful Kiener Garages.
Am still hopeful for the adaptive reuse of depressed I-70 into parking for cars, with direct contact to the highways, which would both keep cars out of sight, free up the city roads, and (knock wood) allow for current parking lots and garages across the city, and especially the Stadium West garage, to be repurposed or built upon.
Luther Ely Smith Park: capacity for 300 cars.
Kiener Plaza: capacity for 800 cars! Bury the suckers!
Should the proposals have selections from each team be a part of the final project, I surely hope this is included. What better way to respect a minimalist masterpiece than to remove a whole load of traffic & congestion from the area? That, and it could eventually lead to constructive reuse of the 600 and 700 block of Chestnut that are now the gawd-awful Kiener Garages.
Am still hopeful for the adaptive reuse of depressed I-70 into parking for cars, with direct contact to the highways, which would both keep cars out of sight, free up the city roads, and (knock wood) allow for current parking lots and garages across the city, and especially the Stadium West garage, to be repurposed or built upon.
I've been working on a few ideas for the east side of the river, loosely inspired by the PWP proposal.
![]()
For explanations of the elements of this plan, visit http://morrich.blogspot.com/.
For explanations of the elements of this plan, visit http://morrich.blogspot.com/.
- 3,444
Why does this picture make me think that archeologists had just unearthed a giant croquet ball? Maybe we should do plantings in two wide red stripes on the dome to heighten this illusion. (I assume they are still looking for the giant croquet mallet over in Illinois or Indiana.) 
![]()
Actually I think the giant round mound could become a great attraction itself. Who wouldn't want to go to the East side of the river for a photo op after seeing that mound from the top of the Arch?
Actually I think the giant round mound could become a great attraction itself. Who wouldn't want to go to the East side of the river for a photo op after seeing that mound from the top of the Arch?
The overall concept is weak, I agree, and they do miss some aspects of the mission. Although, I think it will take more than anything this project brings to make the east side "active" on a consistent basis, this would be about as active as I can see it. For implementation within the next five years, I think we are somewhat limited.Alex Ihnen wrote:
^ But it doesn't address the mission of the competition - activating the East side.
I am more a fan of the mound in the design, although I am one who can appreciate corn fields, and agricultural crops. Furthermore I think the juxtaposition of urban space / city, and farmland crop could be interesting. Where the corn field Idea falls short is the general safety. Placing something like this around gives me visions of the ending to the film Casino. A low growing crop would be much better for the area.Moorlander wrote:
I don't understand how someone could advocate that corn fields be located within a couple hundred yards of our regions largest CBD while keeping a straight face.
- 11K
Very, very true.TheRemedy wrote:Alex Ihnen wrote:For implementation within the next five years, I think we are somewhat limited.
gary kreie wrote:Interesting idea. I kind of like the giant dome that PWP proposes, and your vision takes it a little further. I wonder if cities are going to start creating giant land paintings that are mainly viewable on Google Earth.
That is one of my beefs with how planning and landscape architecture have been taught...its all about the plan view, top down approach.