urbanSTL

http://www.stlbeacon.org/development/pa ... anksgiving



The riverfront rendering shows a cleaned-up pedestrian-friendly riverfront with a ribbon-like promenade near water’s edge, and walkways leading to attractions such as cafes, pavilions, even landscaping and trees for shade that would be atop barges floating on the river. The improvements are designed to survive even if the river floods.



"There's a lot you can do to recycle a barge," said Chip Crawford, a senior vice president and director at HOK's Planning Group. "You can even fill them with soil and grow trees to create shade.



"And if you hook them together, it's a way to create more land," he said. "They float up if the river rises. If things get really bad, you could always move the barges downstream until the flooding subsides." .



What! What a disgrace to the Admiral and rather Hoosier.



"Many of the CEOs think the notion of having a destination something on the Arch grounds is very important," said Tom Irwin, executive director at Civic Progress. If a competition is held, he said, "the experts could decide" what it should be."



I don't think anything should be built on the Archgrounds except for shops lining what would be a new urban boulevard replacing memorial drive. The other "destination," besides the Arch and these new shops, should be the Admiral.



IHMO this is all virtually useless unless the highway is removed from the Bernard F. Dickmann Bridge to the new Mississippi River Bridge. Funneling everyone onto a lid several blocks away, when it's still a pain to walk to the Archgrounds from Washington Avenue (where people live Downtown), seems futile. A removed highway would promote development from Columbus Square to Laclede's Landing and also eventually help spur the redevelopment of North Broadway (though Lumiere does still provide a large barrier). This would surely have positive impacts for the industrial buildings south of the Dickmann as well. Pedestrian connections to that area should be included in the study. This could have an impact as far south as Kosciusko.

A: the islands are silly, the problem with the arch grounds is not the lack of land or trees. They would be unique, but costly - no matter was the architect says.



B: I like the pedestrian connections across Memorial. As I've mentioned before, crossing Ft. Washington Way in Cincinnati is much, much more pleasant that crossing Memorial currently. It's a wider span in the 'Nati, but well landscaped with wide sidewalks, etc.

This isn't rocket science. Remove the damned highway if you want to better link the City with the Arch Grounds.

This manufactured problem must be corrected with a scale and scope far greater than its original inception. Insofar as they vivisected Downtown and caused this problem, Federal Dollars should be used to remove this the highway -- blight -- not simply provide an incremental bandage. Of course the City should also pay a hefty sum, since the bonds were also used to clear the Riverfront.



If we're going to get this done then we shouldn't go for the piecemeal approach: barges and a lid. We must remove the highway and get the Admiral listed upon the National Register, or even as a National Historic Landmark (among others in the City, the Arch, Union Station, the Wainwright, the Old Post Office, and Tower Grove Park are listed as National Historic Landmarks). In this case we should "think big," or rather simply copy highway removal already done in other cities, as we have a convergence of forces actually capable of delivering such an outcome.

JMedwick wrote:This isn't rocket science. Remove the damned highway if you want to better link the City with the Arch Grounds.

I agree it isn't rocket science - so why not employ the most simple way to greatly improve the connection and rebuild sidewalks, provide curb cuts, add trees, etc.?

Gary Kreie wrote:Also, if we remove I-70 from the depressed lanes, should we consider re-routing the current street-level memorial drive traffic through the depressed lanes for just those 3 blocks so the Arch Grounds grass and landscaping can stretch all the way to the Old Courthouse with NO traffic lanes for people the cross at all to get to downtown?

I like this a lot and it's something I've been trying to draw/map for a blog post. Removing I-70 would be fantastic, but if traffic doubles (or more) on Memorial Drive I don't know that what results is more ped-friendly. Doing what you suggest would eliminate the elevated part of I-70 between Wash Ave and the Eads Bridge while not increasing surface traffic.

Gary Kreie wrote:Also, if we remove I-70 from the depressed lanes, should we consider re-routing the current street-level memorial drive traffic through the depressed lanes for just those 3 blocks so the Arch Grounds grass and landscaping can stretch all the way to the Old Courthouse with NO traffic lanes for people the cross at all to get to downtown?

If you wish to go this route, I would think sending Memorial underneath Market and Chestnut would be sufficient. Keep Memorial at-grade at Walnut and Pine.

^ That's really too bad about Arcturis. They have done some quality work and hopefully they can make it through this economy. But how exactly are they the "lead firm" for a competition that hasn't even been announced, let alone take place?

^ You're exactly right and The City To River Group is currently putting together a proposal for that very idea. We should have a presentation available soon. In the mean time, I have some before and after renderings that I'll post sometime this weekend.

^ Unfortunately you're exactly right. While we don't have city leadership on board (yet?), we do have the support of other groups and individuals who have a stake in the project. Regardless of the odds stacked against our idea, we're still going to keep swinging for the fences. St. Louis deserves a true transformative solution.



Here are a couple renderings I made for the group showing the before and after condition while standing on the Wash Ave bridge looking north and west.





















*EDIT* I've updated the images to reflect various suggestions. Keep the constructive criticism coming.

You need more people in the renderings doing things like as we have in the Gateway Mall Presentation. Lots of activity! Dog walking! Maybe kids playing basketball in the street.



Unfortunately, I don't think the highway will be going anywhere.