urbanSTL

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.

sirshankalot wrote: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?)

Well, of course I missed your point. You've now posted twice and contributed 1) a response that was nothing but (gentle) name-calling; 2) the incredibly ironic response chiding me for wasting my time on a message board. In the process, you insulted the people who run this board. (And I'm cynical?)



BTW, if you don't understand the difficulty with the major civic-financing (and de facto policy-making) group in the region meeting in secret once a month, and doing it at an all-white country club, well, you deserve to live here.



PS: My neighborhood in Chesterfield is eminently more diverse than my old neighborhood in Richmond Heights, then or now. Go figure.

^zing!

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. (A '70s song. Fitting.)



Talking Heads "Remain in Light" containing "Once in a Lifetime" was released in 1980



There is nothing in the competition manual that I saw, which precludes eliminating the freeway.



i do like the idea, I am sure some designers will include it, but between MODOT and Federal Highways it would probably be a tough sell.



In the end execution will come down to acquirable funds, and the Corp

Beer City wrote:Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. (A '70s song. Fitting.)



Talking Heads "Remain in Light" containing "Once in a Lifetime" was released in 1980



There is nothing in the competition manual that I saw, which precludes eliminating the freeway.



i do like the idea, I am sure some designers will include it, but between MODOT and Federal Highways it would probably be a tough sell.



In the end execution will come down to acquirable funds, and the Corp

I stand corrected. The Heads (and the B-52s) were two of the most popular bands at UW-Madison when I started grad school, which was '79. I'm sure there's a Psycho Killer ('77) joke in here somewhere, but I can't construct it.



And of course it would be a tough sell. But once again, no one with any local clout is even trying to sell it. We have a Once In A Lifetime opportunity to restore the downtown street grid, reconnect not just the Arch grounds but also Laclede's Landing to downtown, and to realize and fix what many progressive cities have already fixed: Interstate highways that run through downtowns and create artificial, unneeded barriers.



Although there's nothing that precludes eliminating the freeway, there's nothing that promotes it, either. And those billions in infrastructure funding sitting out there now (with, if he gets his way based on today, more soon to follow) will be long gone by the time the competition is over.



I know, I know: Stop Making Sense. (Next to "Big Yellow Taxi," it's probably the most appropriate theme song for the past 40-50 years of downtown planning.)

My two cents even before looking at the link, a football stadium would at least get people to East St. Louis. The Feds creating open space for the sake of saving East St. Louis is already a bad play in my game book. The novelty of paying for parking and a ferry boat to see the Arch would soon wear off when everybody drives back over Poplar or Eads Street Bridge.

Bonwich -



Why not write something up to be published in our fine paper? What's stopping you from authoring or co-authoring a piece on this very topic? Maybe a collaboration to be published in Building Blocks?

^And while you are at it, copy the ***** thing and send it to mayor Slay.

UrbanPioneer wrote:Wow... After reading the competition manual, it's fairly evident that this competition is a joke. Only 4-5 hand picked teams will even participate... it's inevitable that every shortlisted design team will be a starchitect. Extremely disappointing.

Not sure where you're getting that. From the competition manual:

Participation in this Competition is open to all; however, no member of the Sponsor or its staff is eligible to participate. The Lead Designer may be an individual, a studio, or a close collaboration of individuals. The Design Team shall be comprised of, as a minimum,

representatives of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, engineering and an artist. Individuals may represent more than one discipline. The Architects and Engineers of Record shall comply with the State of Missouri and State of Illinois licensing requirements.

1.6. Stage I Evaluation and Selection: All portfolios complying with the requirements will be evaluated equally and without prejudice. The Jury will analyze and evaluate all complying portfolios and select a maximum of ten (10) Lead Designers/Design Teams to be invited to

participate in Stage II of this competition.

2.8. Stage II Evaluation and Selection: The Jury will evaluate all complying Stage II submittals and interviews and choose a maximum of five (5) Teams to be invited to participate in Stage III of the competition. The selection will be based on the Stage I submittal, the Stage II submittal, and the interview.

3.9. Stage III Evaluation and Selection: The Jury will evaluate and rank the design concepts based on the Stage III evaluation criteria. From this evaluation, the Jury will determine the final ranking of the competition and forward its decision to the Sponsor.

I understand skepticism, but on the surface I'm not seeing where you're getting your pessimism. Do you read something I've overlooked?



-RBB

I hear what you're saying - it's pretty tough for a small, unknown firm to crack this nut, no matter how brilliant their concept may be.



But...



I'm excited to see what some of the world's top designers come up with. This could be huge.

bonwich wrote:I stand corrected. The Heads (and the B-52s) were two of the most popular bands at UW-Madison when I started grad school, which was '79. I'm sure there's a Psycho Killer ('77) joke in here somewhere, but I can't construct it.



And of course it would be a tough sell. But once again, no one with any local clout is even trying to sell it. We have a Once In A Lifetime opportunity to restore the downtown street grid, reconnect not just the Arch grounds but also Laclede's Landing to downtown, and to realize and fix what many progressive cities have already fixed: Interstate highways that run through downtowns and create artificial, unneeded barriers.



Although there's nothing that precludes eliminating the freeway, there's nothing that promotes it, either. And those billions in infrastructure funding sitting out there now (with, if he gets his way based on today, more soon to follow) will be long gone by the time the competition is over.



I know, I know: Stop Making Sense. (Next to "Big Yellow Taxi," it's probably the most appropriate theme song for the past 40-50 years of downtown planning.)

This gristled veteran thinks your analysis is spot-on...especially the observation about the most appropriate theme songs for downtown planning.



I'd love to think that removing Interstate 70 through downtown is something the local powers-that-be would even consider, and that this process isn't just another one of those "let's pretend we're promoting the democratic process even though we have three or four hand-picked finalists", but as you pointed out, I've been around long enough to know how these massive projects unfold. I'm optimistic we'll wind up with something very nice, but I think we'll fail to maximize the potential for the connection between the Gateway Arch grounds and downtown unless that highway is removed.



(I'd suggest a Big Dig, but that was fraught with problems and colossal cost overruns, and it was in Massachusetts, where the mindset couldn't possibly be much more different than Missouri, where St. Louis is lucky to get more than pocket change from MoDOT.)