When I rode the London Eye, an observation wheel, we went around just once. It goes slowly so you can just walk into a capsule from a parallel moving sidewalk without stopping the wheel. And the capsule is enclosed, air conditioned, and you can walk around in it.
I think of a Ferris Wheel as something that loads up, and then runs for a while -- faster and through multiple cycles. It has to stop to load up and empty the chairs. And the chairs are open air.
Some operators prefer the term observation wheel to Ferris wheel and large Ferris wheels are sometimes marketed as observation wheels, to differentiate them from smaller Ferris wheels; however, the two are actually the same and any distinction between the two names is at the discretion of the wheel operator. Ironically, many of the wheels whose owners reject the term Ferris wheel, actually have more in common with the original Chicago Ferris wheel of 1893, particularly in terms of being an iconic landmark for a city or event.
The world's tallest wheel, the Singapore Flyer, is described as an observation wheel by its operators.[16]
The London Eye (world's tallest, 1999-2006) is also described as an observation wheel by its operators.[17]
The Star of Nanchang (world's tallest, 2006-2008) is usually referred to as a Ferris wheel, and less commonly as an observation wheel.
The Southern Star is described by its operators as "the only observation wheel in the southern hemisphere"[18] but also as a Ferris wheel by the media.[19][20]
For whatever reason (cost?), St. Louis rarely seems to get anything cutting edge in design lately.
Just look at the area in question: Lumiere is tame at best and awkward at worst, the Edward Jones Dome is an ugly monolith, and the new Mississippi River Bridge is uninspired and far from bold.
How can citizens demand designs that make a statement about our city (other than the message that we're boring Midwesterners)?
^I agree with the aforementioned list but don't at all about Busch III. Although I think things could have been done differently (and I admittedly did not like it originally), I feel as though it is classic baseball, and how else could you describe StL?
Matt Drops The H wrote:For whatever reason (cost?), St. Louis rarely seems to get anything cutting edge in design lately.
I think it's a lack of creative thinking, more than anything else. A lot of the cooler building designs in STL have been with the smaller projects. I really like the sky blue building that Killeen designed in Grand Center, for example. I'm sure that project had plenty of budgetary restrictions, but the end result is creative and interesting.
And as bad as the design has been in some recent projects, when compared to the buildings in Clayton, they look like freaking Frank Gehry designed them.
Matt Drops The H wrote:For whatever reason (cost?), St. Louis rarely seems to get anything cutting edge in design lately.
I think it's a lack of creative thinking, more than anything else. A lot of the cooler building designs in STL have been with the smaller projects. I really like the sky blue building that Killeen designed in Grand Center, for example. I'm sure that project had plenty of budgetary restrictions, but the end result is creative and interesting.
And as bad as the design has been in some recent projects, when compared to the buildings in Clayton, they look like freaking Frank Gehry designed them.
You are correct.
I think the Moonrise is nice (better than decent). Much of the East Loop infill blends seamlessly yet seems new to me. I love it. I too like the blue Grand Center building. Plus the Woolworth's renovation was out of this world. It's not as if the city lacks any good infill, it's just that these major, high-profile projects never really make the statement they should.
Hhmmm...if it weren't for the "saved" facade of the old funeral home, the Moonrise would look like every other cheap, buff-colored, generic hotel found at any freeway interchange. I think it's awful.
I know this thread is kind of dead, as is (presumably) the Laclede's Landing Ferris wheel plan, but I've been thinking of a possible alternate location. [NOTE: In no way am I condoning a downtown Ferris/observation wheel. The whole idea seems kind of gaudy and short-sighted. However...I think this idea could possibly work.]
Do you think there could be a justification for putting it in Union Station's trainshed or, more exactly, through it? If they were to remove parking directly under the shed and give that over to a more boardwalk-style destination, a Ferris wheel could work as the main visual draw. I imagine going to Landry's for some dinner, kids racing radio-controlled boats in the lagoon, taking pictures in vintage trains and cabooses...maybe drinks with friends in a beer garden or a game of skeeball and/or ringtoss near the old tracks to the west.
Then, acting as the centerpiece, the proposed 200-ish foot Ferris wheel, foundations in the shed and rising above through a perfectly-measured "slit" in the roof. Here you board below the shed and are lifted up and past the roof, where you're welcomed by sites of the lively downtown, the Arch, City Museum's roof, etc. I'd gladly take a few spins with friends on evenings just to get that amazing view of downtown and its main corridor.
So what do you think? Could this work? Would it work? And do you think it could create the kind of steady traffic needed to bring back our amazing Union Station from the brink of being a non-entity?
I for one love the idea. I envisioned where you would place it as soon as you said Union Station. That would be so unique. It would likely once again revitalize the station as many people from I-64 would HAVE to pull off to get a double-take. The views would also be an incredible feature, if not the highlight for the older crowd.
It would fit right in with Union Station's other post 1985 cultural assets - tourist oriented and semi-novel gimmicks that contrasts with the urban infrastructure being revitalized in the area. Too far from Chesterfield to attract that crowd on a regular basis, too far from any tourist stuff downtown to attract them.
Swing-around-fun-town doesn't belong in an urban area any more than the mini-golf facility proposed for the mall. The only semi-viable idea here was "taking pictures in vintage trains and cabooses"... but that has been brought up before.
"Tasters Choice" Ideas drove Union Station to where it is now, and killed City Centre - these kind of ideas do not work.
tbspqr wrote:It would fit right in with Union Station's other post 1985 cultural assets - tourist oriented and semi-novel gimmicks that contrasts with the urban infrastructure being revitalized in the area. Too far from Chesterfield to attract that crowd on a regular basis, too far from any tourist stuff downtown to attract them.
Swing-around-fun-town doesn't belong in an urban area any more than the mini-golf facility proposed for the mall. The only semi-viable idea here was "taking pictures in vintage trains and cabooses"... but that has been brought up before.
"Tasters Choice" Ideas drove Union Station to where it is now, and killed City Centre - these kind of ideas do not work.
I disagree. I think downtown needs more family oriented attractions. Other than the City Museum, a Cardinals game and City Garden, what else is downtown for a family to do? Sure, DT has attracted tons of new development in the last 10+ years, but its mostly been geared towards the 21+ crowd. Why not try to center the family friendly part of DT around (not within) a rejuvenated US. Washington & the Landing are already the "adult" parts of DT, give families some sort of reason to make DT a spot to go, other than a hotel room& view of the Arch on their way to the zoo.
tbspqr wrote:Swing-around-fun-town doesn't belong in an urban area any more than the mini-golf facility proposed for the mall. The only semi-viable idea here was "taking pictures in vintage trains and cabooses"... but that has been brought up before.
"Tasters Choice" Ideas drove Union Station to where it is now, and killed City Centre - these kind of ideas do not work.
Like Navy Pier, Millenium Park, and countless other family attractions in downtown Chicago? With that said, I'm not so sure about the 175' ferris wheel. It seems to lack purpose and context. The London Eye has it. This idea? Not so sure. And FWIW, I'm interested in the mini-golf idea on the mall.
Having ridden observation wheels in London and Singapore, I'd say they most certainly do work. People readily pay $30 to go up because it's something you are supposed to do when you visit such places. The bigger deal though is the ability to rent out pods for dinners and parties. That's a great addition to the hotels there. Although the same can be said for ideas like the gondolas suggested for the arch grounds.
Union Station is a much better option than the Landing, and could create much better views. The idea of dipping under the canopy, rising out of it, and then dipping back down again is pretty appealing. Downtown needs a more vibrant Spruce Street. The Cupples Station builidngs need to be restored and opened. The back of Union Station needs to be conceptually linked to the Amtrak station. We want people coming to St. Louis by train, so we ought to give them something to look at on Spruce when they arrive, not parking lots and highway ramps.
My only concern is that many observation wheels seem to suffer from technical and financing issues. Even when the money is secured, sometimes the wheel doesn't pass safety inspections, or the insurance is crippling, or whatever. It takes a lot of money and, often, government support.
innov8ion wrote:With that said, I'm not so sure about the 175' ferris wheel. It seems to lack purpose and context. The London Eye has it. This idea? Not so sure. And FWIW, I'm interested in the mini-golf idea on the mall.
Yeah. The London Eye gives great 360 degree views of one of the world's great cities. I was never sure who would ride the one here. "Look honey, there's the Casnio Queen, and there's some thugs in East St. Louis shooting each other and look at all the empty lots in North St Louis!"
So some developments create yet more development, and others come along at the end. Banks are never pioneers, they come only when the street is already nice, for instance. Perhaps innov8ion and CS have a point. An observation wheel requires something to observe. Urban prairies aren't the greatest thing to show tourists, but positioning a wheel at Union Station would easily afford views of Compton Tower and most of South City. Here's the view from across the mall at what is now CityView apartments. You can imagine a wheel poking out of the roof of Union Station.
You are correct.
