urbanSTL

The landscaped barges are a ridiculous idea. They actually think they need to "create more land"? Dude, wake up and turn around; there's TONS of land surrounding the Arch. We just need to make better use of it.



Yes, we need to bring boats back to the Riverfront (starting with the Admiral), but floating gimmicks are not the answer.

I heard Arcturis - the lead firm on this project laid off 20% of staff today. they are in big trouble and could go under. What a bummer - they had some promise, but i dont think anyone there can pull this off.

Arcturis can't be doing any worse than the Lawrence Group.

And away we go..i love the idea of simply closing down some blocks of Memorial Drive..



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

I completely disagree, Slay and the rest of the regional leadership is losing out on the opportunity to completely reconfigure downtown infrascture along the riverfront by calling for the removal of the I-70 connector when the new Mississippi River Bridge is built and the multi-year transportation bill is up for renewal. This stretch should be reconfigured as an at grade blvd. The Park District concern is the park itself and completely ignore access between Laclede's Landing/Casino District with Washington Ave/Convention Center/and any future Bottle Works development.

^ Yes, but with all due respect to your group (and the fact that I've been on record, in print, promoting this idea for about a decade) -- NOT A SINGLE LOCAL "LEADER" has made a peep advocating the forward-looking, more efficient, visionary approach. Conversely, Saturday's article has City leadership and a local Senator claiming that we're "moving forward."



Perhaps you have some aces up your sleeve that can actually push your plan. Perhaps the Checkettses and McKees of the world might change the local calculus. But at present, it looks like the same ol' sounded-great-25-years-ago approach to reshaping our city into something that remotely resembles environmentally and pedestrian-friendly.

You probably need to remove the light pole coming out of the building as well. Otherwise, looks great.

I'm really looking forward to the international design competition. There's some great visionary architecture going on in the world these days, and I can't wait to see what they come up with for our front yard. Considering the world-class stature of The Arch, I would think many of the world's top architects would be interested in adding their mark to the grounds.

Read the entire General Management Plan (warning: 300 pages, 50MB) here, courtesy of The Beacon.



Actually, there are some pretty cool historical photos in there:















And a lot of parking:







-RBB

UrbanPioneer wrote: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.

The renderings look fantastic. It amazing how different downtown can look without the overhead highway in the way. That's why Boston and other cities spent billions to remove the overhead highways blocking downtown from the bays, rivers, and lakefronts.

All that parking makes me want to vomit. I'm shocked and appalled that they want to add even more.

UrbanPioneer those are awesome!

The competition is on!



And in passing to the current generation of urban boosters on this board, I hate to break it to you, but same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. (A '70s song. Fitting.)



Has anyone heard or seen a single word uttered about the possibility (just the possibility, mind you) of the plan including the removal of the redundant portion of I-70 that will be caused by the new bridge? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?



And as I write this, the President is announcing plans for a jobs program that includes significant infrastructure spending. As in additional federal money available. Perhaps maybe to remove unneeded Interstate highways from downtown areas?



No disrespect to his lawyering abilities, which are clearly superior, but the spokesperson-guy and member of the "governing body" ... "was a major player in the effort to build the Edward Jones Dome 15 years ago." Talk amongst yourselves about this fact.



The final irony: "Stastny said his goal will be to make the Arch grounds 'more a part of the city rather than an island sitting between different modes of transportation.' "



Welcome to St. Louis, folks. Keep dreaming, but don't get your hopes up.

bonwich wrote:The competition is on!



And in passing to the current generation of urban boosters on this board, I hate to break it to you, but same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. (A '70s song. Fitting.)



Has anyone heard or seen a single word uttered about the possibility (just the possibility, mind you) of the plan including the removal of the redundant portion of I-70 that will be caused by the new bridge? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?



And as I write this, the President is announcing plans for a jobs program that includes significant infrastructure spending. As in additional federal money available. Perhaps maybe to remove unneeded Interstate highways from downtown areas?



No disrespect to his lawyering abilities, which are clearly superior, but the spokesperson-guy and member of the "governing body" ... "was a major player in the effort to build the Edward Jones Dome 15 years ago." Talk amongst yourselves about this fact.



The final irony: "Stastny said his goal will be to make the Arch grounds 'more a part of the city rather than an island sitting between different modes of transportation.' "



Welcome to St. Louis, folks. Keep dreaming, but don't get your hopes up.

Thank you Mr. Bonwich for your repeated cynicism on this board...it accomplishes NOTHING

sirshankalot wrote:Thank you Mr. Bonwich for your repeated cynicism on this board...it accomplishes NOTHING

Well, it's already got one person to take the bait.



I didn't realize that board postings were limited to happythoughts on Pollyannish fantasies like 90-story buildings and giant Ferris wheels.



Perhaps I could have sugar-coated it, but what good would that do? Ask ThreeOneFour, or RBB, or some of the other gristled veterans on this board, about things like St. Louis 2004 and DowntownNow! (and, to an extent, Metropolis) and all the meetings we attended that asked for public input (in the case of 2004, meetings that even were held in St. Chuck and Chesterfield to get buy-in about the future of downtown). This is simply another in a series of repeated incidents where an unaccountable, self-appointed group of "leaders" claim public participation, but already have their own general frameworks set and refuse to even consider options.



My intent was to make all of you who believe in a more participatory, progressive approach uncomfortable, even angry. For many, many years, I've watched as groups of young visionaries have come and gone, each one with really great ideas that were given lip service but then completely ignored.



The only time I've witnessed "outsiders" (i.e. weren't born here or didn't go to the right high school or don't belong to the correct country club or political party) make even moderate inroads is when they were loud and persistent. (For example, long ago, the VP organization actually got hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidy from the City. One of those annoying alternative newspapers finally got that practice stopped.)



Dismissing it as "cynicism" simply falls right into the trap. They'll keep doing whatever the hell they please (like holding monthly private meetings at all-white country clubs with absolutely no accountability or transparency to the public) and you'll continue to be marginalized.

I believe one of the options was to have no streets at all between the Arch grounds all the way up to Broadway and the Old Courthouse. I don't recall if it kept the highway in a tunnel or not. So Memorial Drive is in play, and probably the I-70 depressed lanes also.



So I am hoping one or more of the proposals will have some verying interesting things to say about the depressed I-70 lanes in front of the Arch grounds, especially if they know that I-70 will be going across a new bridge a mile North starting about the same time that the Arch grounds are supposed to be complete -- 2015.

bonwich wrote:

sirshankalot wrote:Thank you Mr. Bonwich for your repeated cynicism on this board...it accomplishes NOTHING

Well, it's already got one person to take the bait.



I didn't realize that board postings were limited to happythoughts on Pollyannish fantasies like 90-story buildings and giant Ferris wheels.



Perhaps I could have sugar-coated it, but what good would that do? Ask ThreeOneFour, or RBB, or some of the other gristled veterans on this board, about things like St. Louis 2004 and DowntownNow! (and, to an extent, Metropolis) and all the meetings we attended that asked for public input (in the case of 2004, meetings that even were held in St. Chuck and Chesterfield to get buy-in about the future of downtown). This is simply another in a series of repeated incidents where an unaccountable, self-appointed group of "leaders" claim public participation, but already have their own general frameworks set and refuse to even consider options.



My intent was to make all of you who believe in a more participatory, progressive approach uncomfortable, even angry. For many, many years, I've watched as groups of young visionaries have come and gone, each one with really great ideas that were given lip service but then completely ignored.



The only time I've witnessed "outsiders" (i.e. weren't born here or didn't go to the right high school or don't belong to the correct country club or political party) make even moderate inroads is when they were loud and persistent. (For example, long ago, the VP organization actually got hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidy from the City. One of those annoying alternative newspapers finally got that practice stopped.)



Dismissing it as "cynicism" simply falls right into the trap. They'll keep doing whatever the hell they please (like holding monthly private meetings at all-white country clubs with absolutely no accountability or transparency to the public) and you'll continue to be marginalized.

You may have missed my point. Being loud and persistent on a web site's forum that functions correctly only 2/3rds of the time is like the tree falling in the woods with no one around. And I'm not trying to criticize this web site, just telling truths...(btw, what is your fascination all-white country clubs? Similar to the lilly-white neighborhoods in Chesterfield?)

I like that they are including Kiener Plaza in the design.

southcitygent wrote:I like that they are including Kiener Plaza in the design.

ditto. What's this about them not giving up land though? Aren't they aware of my dream to build a new NFL stadium on the east riverfront (think soldier field's view of the chicago skyline but better) and towers in place of EJD?



I really can't wait to see what becomes of kiener plaza, not a big fan of it currently, but I yet don't know what I want to see happen there.