citywatcher wrote:I cant think of anything more "tacky" than this
I don't have to <i>think</i> of anything more tacky. All I have to do is look at the Lumiere Place flat screen ad board.
- 479
I don't have to <i>think</i> of anything more tacky. All I have to do is look at the Lumiere Place flat screen ad board.
What they 'would' see or what they 'will' see?The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Ummmmm....What exactly would they see? This isn't London, you know.
jlblues wrote:^Do you consider the London Eye a tacky, carnival sideshow attraction?
How about the Ferris wheel on Navy Pier?
A lot of people in those cities said the same thing, and much more vehemently than you did, yet once they were up, the majority of residents loved them.
1. Having been to London, I do think the Eye is tacky. A very odd thing to see on the urban skyline. But, part of my objection here is not simply that I think it is odd to see on the skyline, but in what sort of environment is the proposal located.
2. I am more OK with the wheel on Navy Pier because it is located within an amusement like area on a pier. To me this is wholly different than locating the wheel within the Landing.
I am not opposed to the idea of a ferris wheel somewhere in the City or even close to downtown. I just happen to think that the Landing (or the Gateway Mall) is not the right place for it. I have this fear that the wheel would be stuck smack in the heart of the landing south of the MLK Bridge. Heck, even with the huge billboard on the new casino, I don't think such a wheel belongs south of Carr. This would simply represent yet another mistake in the City's decades long plan to revitalize the Landing, opting to allocate dollars for a tourist oriented gimmick rather than creating a functioning entertainment district. When someone can explain to me how the wheel would fit within a clear long term plan to develop the landing, maybe I will buy that the idea is worthwhile.
- 597
goat314 wrote:citywatcher wrote:I cant think of anything more "tacky" than this
You have the amazing Gateway Arch and then with in sight you have a side-show carnival attraction
WEAK and very TACKY
Okay....so is Navy Pier and the London Eye weak and tacky? Or is this just tacky, because St. Louis is trying to do this? Seriously guys how long are we gonna bash everything into the ground? Everyone should be happy St. Louis has been seeing some positive interest in the economic development of the riverfront and archgrounds. Not saying we have to accept every tacky idea that comes around, just saying the riverfront should at least have a Ferris wheel. Everyone is like Arch this Arch that, but what about the acres of (tacky) industrial riverfront on our front step?
I guess nothing says "Welcome to the Most Dangerous City in America" like an abandoned industrial waterfront.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_pier.jpg
navy pier is awesome looking. If the ferris wheel is part of something more akin to navy pier or coney island then I'm for it.
So far all we have is a proposition for a ferris wheel. I'll however remain optimistic.
Tacky or not Tacky is debateable question. What I want to know, does anybody think this will be a draw? or will just to take away from something else? Obviously it would be better ride then going up the archway tram to look out those windows. but, probably not as high so the view will not be as good. I believe it will draw people at the expense of the Arch.
Navy Pier might be tacky (don't forget about the expensive parking as a bonus). However, having a cold one at the beer garden looking out at Lake Michigan or whatever walks by on a hot summer day was worth the trip downtown for this former Chicago area resident. My last trip to Navy Pier included my young two kids; the Childerns Museum, Ferris Wheel as well as having some restaraunts & shops made it a no-brainer. Navy Pier does have some selling points.
Navy Pier might be tacky (don't forget about the expensive parking as a bonus). However, having a cold one at the beer garden looking out at Lake Michigan or whatever walks by on a hot summer day was worth the trip downtown for this former Chicago area resident. My last trip to Navy Pier included my young two kids; the Childerns Museum, Ferris Wheel as well as having some restaraunts & shops made it a no-brainer. Navy Pier does have some selling points.
- 8,911
^ U mean pointless? You could include that stupid lookout in this catagory as well.
- 52
I would like to see something like this maybe in Forest Park. A little bit of nostalgia and you would have a nice 360 view of DT/CWE, U-City, Clayton, and South City. Central location, not sky line altering and you would not have to look at Brooklyn, IL if you were not looking at downtown.
- 10K
Moorlander wrote:^ U mean pointless? You could include that stupid lookout in this catagory as well.
Yeah, weren't the two supposed to go together? Totally pointless. That money would have been better spent on something as seeming insignificant as trees and streetlights downtown.
- 6,775
innov8ion wrote:What they 'would' see or what they 'will' see?The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Ummmmm....What exactly would they see? This isn't London, you know.
Would.
- 923
::vomits in uncontrollable rage::
Not...another...stupid...ferris wheel...
::continues vomiting::
First...London...then...Melbourne...now...St. Louis (catches breath)...can't...understand...why...cities...allow themselves...to..fall..pray to...flash in the pan..ideas....that do nothing...but...waste...money...
::starts vomiting again::
Not...another...stupid...ferris wheel...
::continues vomiting::
First...London...then...Melbourne...now...St. Louis (catches breath)...can't...understand...why...cities...allow themselves...to..fall..pray to...flash in the pan..ideas....that do nothing...but...waste...money...
::starts vomiting again::
- 6,775
innov8ion wrote:If they're going to build a ferris wheel, make it spokeless!
And topless!
- 9
Instead of the landing, what about the western edge of the Gateway mall? This may act as a nice terminus and might be tied into any future plans to revitalize Union Station.
- 362
expat in Milwaukee wrote:Instead of the landing, what about the western edge of the Gateway mall? This may act as a nice terminus and might be tied into any future plans to revitalize Union Station.
I had the same thought when I first heard about this. There is not enough people to make it work at that location, but if Saint Louis is going to agree to any nonsense like this, they should at least put it in a location that aides other projects, such as the mall.
- 9
Little Egyptian wrote:expat in Milwaukee wrote:Instead of the landing, what about the western edge of the Gateway mall? This may act as a nice terminus and might be tied into any future plans to revitalize Union Station.
I had the same thought when I first heard about this. There is not enough people to make it work at that location, but if Saint Louis is going to agree to any nonsense like this, they should at least put it in a location that aides other projects, such as the mall.
If you build it they will come.
JMedwick wrote:^ On the Mall is an ever worse idea...
Why worse? I am envisining something like the mall in DC where you have the Capital, Lincoln and Washington monuments to balance each other. In this scenerio it would be The Arch, Civil Courts and the proposed wheel. How would an attraction that brought people Downtown be a bad thing?
In Milwaukee we now have the extremely tacky Bronze Fonze. It is not art but it has generated a lot of interest that brings people downtown who would not normally come downtown.
Based on your example you equate the following:
National Mall= Gateway Mall
US Capital Building= The Arch
Washington Monument= Civil Courts Building
Lincoln Memorial= A giant ferris wheel
The very notion that the appropriate development to "balance out" and complement the Arch, the Civil Courts, and the Old Court House is a gigantic ferris wheel is laughable. Maybe you think it would work aesthetically, but I think it would look ridiculous. The city is not some damned theme park for tourists and dropping a random ferris wheel on a poorly planed mall next to some parking lots, a highway interchange, and a failing mall will not change the fate of the mall as a colossal mistake.
National Mall= Gateway Mall
US Capital Building= The Arch
Washington Monument= Civil Courts Building
Lincoln Memorial= A giant ferris wheel
The very notion that the appropriate development to "balance out" and complement the Arch, the Civil Courts, and the Old Court House is a gigantic ferris wheel is laughable. Maybe you think it would work aesthetically, but I think it would look ridiculous. The city is not some damned theme park for tourists and dropping a random ferris wheel on a poorly planed mall next to some parking lots, a highway interchange, and a failing mall will not change the fate of the mall as a colossal mistake.
- 479
MSU South Sider wrote:I would like to see something like this maybe in Forest Park. A little bit of nostalgia and you would have a nice 360 view of DT/CWE, U-City, Clayton, and South City. Central location, not sky line altering and you would not have to look at Brooklyn, IL if you were not looking at downtown.
Got a problem with B.B. King's home town?
- 6,775
ecoabsence wrote:MSU South Sider wrote:I would like to see something like this maybe in Forest Park. A little bit of nostalgia and you would have a nice 360 view of DT/CWE, U-City, Clayton, and South City. Central location, not sky line altering and you would not have to look at Brooklyn, IL if you were not looking at downtown.
Got a problem with B.B. King's home town?
Ummmm....what?
BB was born in Itta Bena (sp?) MS, and has long considered Indianola to be his home town (which happens to also be the birthplace of Albert King).
- 479
Long day...I meant <i>Albert</i> King, who called it home in the 1950s.
My bet is the Arch is the far better view by the end of the day so this idea a non-starter in my mind and only takes away from the Arch.
yes, lets tear down everything and not allow anything to be built so people outside of downtown can better see the arch.....
Ecoabsence, we agree on almost everything, but you don't like the Lumiere Place sign? I think it actually adds some "pizzaz" to downtown. 70 years ago, would you oppose all the "tacky" electric/neon signs on buildings all over downtown? All of the "tacky" signage that was in Grand Center? Certainly, if they had the technology at the time, this would have included signage similar to Lumiere's. Being the St. Louis historian, have you ever seen the old Lion Gas sign? I say, bring as much modern signage to the city as possible including the retro signage that is gone, but include the "movie screens". maybe one day we can have that shark on washington avenue - Back to the Future II style!
As for this ferris wheel? eh, it'd add some additional life to LL. IT wouldn't detract from the arch. jesus people talk about the arch like its holy, sacred ground. A ferris wheel not even close to it doesn't bother me. Just NO TIF for this, let a private developer build this if they want. TIF can be used for other projects.
- 214
The Post-Dispatch has an article about the wheel project, with an artist's rendering and a diagram showing the relative sizes of the wheel and the Arch:
<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... nt">Ferris wheel on Landing</a>
At 443 feet, the London Eye is more than twice the height of the proposed Saint Louis wheel, which will be dwarfed by the Arch and overtopped by several downtown buildings. Given its relatively small dimensions, I'm not sure if passengers will be able to see much more than the immediate surroundings along the riverfront.
<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... nt">Ferris wheel on Landing</a>
At 443 feet, the London Eye is more than twice the height of the proposed Saint Louis wheel, which will be dwarfed by the Arch and overtopped by several downtown buildings. Given its relatively small dimensions, I'm not sure if passengers will be able to see much more than the immediate surroundings along the riverfront.