If that's what you got out of their presentation, you really missed the boat.jmstokes wrote:The loser that stands out was the final team, Weiss/Manfredi. They said it best when they commented on how exciting car and train traffic is. They kept showing a development in Seattle that looked like total utter crap - disconnected from the city via a highway/train tracks, and just a mess. I pray they don't win.
- 6,775
- 1,218
shadrach wrote:Attended, left after the third presentation. Boring is one way to put it, but all pontifications of design philosophies are.
If these 5 teams were boring, who would you suggest to best them? We should be celebrating the fact that a project of the size and historical significance to our city is accessable to everyone free of charge. I walked into the Robert's Orpheum Theatre at 6:55 to a packed house that Joe Buck said was ~800 people. The average citizen accessibilty to this stuff is great in STL. Try being an average joe showing up 5 minutes before the start and getting a seat front and center in Manhattan to talk about the World Trade Center Memorial/Park. We should be counting our blessings today and hopeful for the future..not bored. I trust that most people who left the building were not bored.
Mark Groth wrote:[If these 5 teams were boring, who would you suggest to best them?
I'm not knocking their credentials nor abilities and I liked what I saw.
First, I'm not an architect nor urban planner and don't play on on TV. These were architects talking to an audience of architects. As a layman, I thought the presentation (not content) on design philosophy were dry.
(I have a BFA so I know art school lingo.)
I liked the PWP's presentation—especially the opening of public space in Trafalgar Square, the British Museum and the Reichstag.
That said, for me the biggest shockerwas that head of the NPS will 'move heaven and earth' to get this done by 2015.
BTW, I left because of other plans, not shear boredom. However, if they were more engaging, I would have stayed.
- 2,928
Eh, it was what it was: 800 people listening to a bunch of professionals talk about how smart they think they are and how they want to be a part of something big. I wasn't expecting them to pass out copies of renderings, or for free beer & hot dogs. They spoke about ideas & relevant examples of their work. Overall, not bad. As Joe Buck said, 800 people were there on a Home Game night. Solid crowd.
Can't remember all the names, but they went alphabetically:
The German guy was dull because he's German. English no speak good.
The second team did have a WashU Architecture alumnus speak; props for that.
The third team is in charge of the WTC Memorial, of which I'm biased and rightfully impressed.
The fourth team focused on pertinent river rehab in former industrial hubs, as well as Economic Development.
The fifth team spoke about how they love working with infrastructure challenges; we've got one.
For their previous work with like environments, and their focus on EconDev as a solid part of this, I'm an early fan of the fourth group, SOM.
Let it be noted as well that groups spoke of contemporaneous sites as well (Choteau's Landing), and the third group made special note of how they worked on Trafalgar Square and revitalized it by - specifically - closing down the contemporaneous road to car traffic. Big points for that.
And: There was an Ed Golterman sighting outside, quietly walking with a poster of the Kiel Opera House and advocating for its revival. I've ripped him to shreds previously, but I've got to say I've met him subsequent to that and actually have grown to like him. He's a smart and well-intentioned guy, definitely a bit off his gourd with what I (and most) see as his over-dedication for a work already in progress, but in the end very well-meaning and with a passionate love for Downtown StL. I think he just needs to work on how his advocacy is perceived by everyone who isn't him; glad he's not writing on the StLToday posts every day now.
Can't remember all the names, but they went alphabetically:
The German guy was dull because he's German. English no speak good.
The second team did have a WashU Architecture alumnus speak; props for that.
The third team is in charge of the WTC Memorial, of which I'm biased and rightfully impressed.
The fourth team focused on pertinent river rehab in former industrial hubs, as well as Economic Development.
The fifth team spoke about how they love working with infrastructure challenges; we've got one.
For their previous work with like environments, and their focus on EconDev as a solid part of this, I'm an early fan of the fourth group, SOM.
Let it be noted as well that groups spoke of contemporaneous sites as well (Choteau's Landing), and the third group made special note of how they worked on Trafalgar Square and revitalized it by - specifically - closing down the contemporaneous road to car traffic. Big points for that.
And: There was an Ed Golterman sighting outside, quietly walking with a poster of the Kiel Opera House and advocating for its revival. I've ripped him to shreds previously, but I've got to say I've met him subsequent to that and actually have grown to like him. He's a smart and well-intentioned guy, definitely a bit off his gourd with what I (and most) see as his over-dedication for a work already in progress, but in the end very well-meaning and with a passionate love for Downtown StL. I think he just needs to work on how his advocacy is perceived by everyone who isn't him; glad he's not writing on the StLToday posts every day now.
- 11K
urbanSTL blog post is up... Five Arch Grounds Finalists Give Insight Into How They Will Address Complex Site: : http://tinyurl.com/23dvp4z
Learn to:Mark Groth wrote:shadrach wrote:Attended, left after the third presentation. Boring is one way to put it, but all pontifications of design philosophies are.
If these 5 teams were boring, who would you suggest to best them?
A. Create engaging presentations
B. Use enthusiasm or presentation skills
C. "own" the material and not read a script
I'd expect that of any good presentation, whether I was delivering it or watching it. I realize the subject matter may have been dull in some cases, but really, spending >5 minutes going through your team members, on one slide, is just piss poor.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote: If that's what you got out of their presentation, you really missed the boat.
What did I miss?
Their comments about the "energy of highways and trains" and their negative comments re: Millennium Park hiding its history turned me off immediately.
- 3,428
I was there last night, and I wasn't bored. It was what I expected at this stage of the competition. If they have specific detailed ideas on what they plan to do, they aren't going to present them in front of their competitors. They were obviously given an outline on what to present, and they aren't about to stray beyond that and risk alienating the competition sponsors. I'm surprised so many on this board were expecting some kind of slick hollywood presentation. The best designs come from people who have a wealth of experience and deep insight in how to solve these kinds of people circulation issues, not fancy marketeers.Mark Groth wrote:I'm a little surprised STL lovers were bored. These are 5 amazing teams, with exceptional portfolios. This is going to be nothing short of transformational to the area.
I was impressed that nearly every team touted their expertise in working with river environments -- rivers that flood. I was concerned we would get another design that included marinas and floating islands -- things that look awesome in pictures but don't work on a major flooding barge-supporting river. They all got that. I was also impressed that some teams emphasized landscaping, and all of the teams have done major successful similar projects, many bigger than this one. I think this experience will serve us well when we see the final designs. Forget the slick talker with gorgeous animation that won't work here. I want the boring guy with a track record of exciting time-tested design, and these teams have them.
- 6,775
Holy not understanding context Batman!jmstokes wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote: If that's what you got out of their presentation, you really missed the boat.
What did I miss?
Their comments about the "energy of highways and trains" and their negative comments re: Millennium Park hiding its history turned me off immediately.
You didn't answer my question. What should I have gotten from their presentation that I didn't? I'm being completely earnest here, because I have no idea.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Holy not understanding context Batman!jmstokes wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote: If that's what you got out of their presentation, you really missed the boat.
What did I miss?
Their comments about the "energy of highways and trains" and their negative comments re: Millennium Park hiding its history turned me off immediately.
- 3,428
- 6,775
One problem: The Arch has nothing to do with Lewis & Clark.
Maybe they could name the north leg "Jeff" and the south leg "Erson"? Or "Thomas" and "Jefferson".
- 11K
Someone should tell NPS - Lewis and Clark are featured quite prominently in the Museum of Westward Expansion.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:One problem: The Arch has nothing to do with Lewis & Clark.
Maybe they could name the north leg "Jeff" and the south leg "Erson"? Or "Thomas" and "Jefferson".
- 6,775
The Arch <> Museum of Westward Expansion.Alex Ihnen wrote:Someone should tell NPS - Lewis and Clark are featured quite prominently in the Museum of Westward Expansion.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:One problem: The Arch has nothing to do with Lewis & Clark.
Maybe they could name the north leg "Jeff" and the south leg "Erson"? Or "Thomas" and "Jefferson".
But you probably already knew that.
- 3,428
My suggestion was to inlay the word LEWIS into the pavement at the North leg of the Arch since it is nearest Lacledes Landing and the name CLARK into the pavement at the South Leg since it is nearest Clark Street and nearest Chouteu's Landing. This would give visitors a hint on what the monument is about as they approached. And if they didn't know their directions, they could tell friends to meet at the Lewis leg, vs. North leg on top of the word Lewis.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:One problem: The Arch has nothing to do with Lewis & Clark.
Maybe they could name the north leg "Jeff" and the south leg "Erson"? Or "Thomas" and "Jefferson".
This Gateway Arch would still be a monument to Jefferson's vision, although the name Gateway Arch doesn't seem to convey that vision in the way the Statue of Liberty conveys its vision to the public.
It would be better than "Special Sauce" and "Sesame Seed Bun", which is what most of the country seems to think the Arch represents.
- 11K
^ I like the idea. Currently they're just "North" and "South" legs, right? Boring. Reminds me of the conference name changes in hockey.
- 1
The Untold Story of the Gateway Arch
Over the course of a century a community took shape on the riverfront in St. Louis. At the same time, what happened in that community shaped the history of the nation. Finally, as those years of destiny unfolded, St. Louis came to see itself as a capital, as the great center of the Midwest.
But then, the currents of history changed. The river of history shifted its course and bypassed that community. Chicago, not St. Louis, became the capital of the Midwest.
Ever so gradually, the riverfront was forgotten. Then it decayed. Finally, it became
an embarrassment to the still thriving but less influential community that had grown
up around it following its century of greatness.
In that larger community, the humiliation of having lost out to Chicago lingered on.
The embarrassment ran deep and it was accompanied by amnesia—a defense mechanism to cope with humiliation. The amnesia masqueraded as conventional wisdom:
the riverfront is economically obsolete with regard to its building stock;
the riverfront is obsolete in relation to advances in transportation technology;
the riverfront is out of date in comparison to current styles of architecture.
All this conventional wisdom was, of course, true. However, it took hold not because
it was true, but because it addressed a psychic need to mask the profound sense of
loss that ate at the community's identity, a loss for which the decaying riverfront was a constant reminder.
And then the great depression arrived. Luther Ely Smith, a man of great vision and a
respected leader in his deeply embarrassed community, remembered that first century
of greatness—and was appalled by its decadent reflection in the mirror of the nearly
abandoned riverfront. He dreamed of something to replace the decadence, something
that would bring back to life that lost century of greatness. Smith prevailed on the federal government—in response to the depression—to build a national park on the riverfront. Then he organized a design competition to create a new vision for the site.
And of course he succeeded—beyond his wildest dreams—with the Gateway Arch and its surrounding parkgrounds. But there was a cost.
A city's built environment is nothing less than the accretion of its history. Whenever elements of that environment are wiped away, the material record of that history is lost. When the riverfront was cleared after 1939, the elements that were lost were the very elements Luther Ely Smith sought so hard to recover.
Any built environment tells the story of its history. But it’s also true that it tells that story in a special language, an arcane language that only people who are drawn to history, and those whose personal memories are embedded in its buildings, can easily understand. Still, despite its weaknesses, it is by far the best language for telling a community's story. When it’s silenced, other languages must be found if the story is to be remembered at all.
Today, a second design competition for the riverfront is in progress. This competition presents a magnificent opportunity for St. Louis and it has already generated widespread excitement. Most of the excitement focuses on possibilities for new connections between the arch grounds and the rest of the city. However, with the original built environment of the riverfront long since gone and forgotten, the hidden challenge of the competition is to find the next best language to tell that lost story. Then, and only then, can the amnesia that has prevailed for so long in St. Louis finally be healed.
Over the course of a century a community took shape on the riverfront in St. Louis. At the same time, what happened in that community shaped the history of the nation. Finally, as those years of destiny unfolded, St. Louis came to see itself as a capital, as the great center of the Midwest.
But then, the currents of history changed. The river of history shifted its course and bypassed that community. Chicago, not St. Louis, became the capital of the Midwest.
Ever so gradually, the riverfront was forgotten. Then it decayed. Finally, it became
an embarrassment to the still thriving but less influential community that had grown
up around it following its century of greatness.
In that larger community, the humiliation of having lost out to Chicago lingered on.
The embarrassment ran deep and it was accompanied by amnesia—a defense mechanism to cope with humiliation. The amnesia masqueraded as conventional wisdom:
the riverfront is economically obsolete with regard to its building stock;
the riverfront is obsolete in relation to advances in transportation technology;
the riverfront is out of date in comparison to current styles of architecture.
All this conventional wisdom was, of course, true. However, it took hold not because
it was true, but because it addressed a psychic need to mask the profound sense of
loss that ate at the community's identity, a loss for which the decaying riverfront was a constant reminder.
And then the great depression arrived. Luther Ely Smith, a man of great vision and a
respected leader in his deeply embarrassed community, remembered that first century
of greatness—and was appalled by its decadent reflection in the mirror of the nearly
abandoned riverfront. He dreamed of something to replace the decadence, something
that would bring back to life that lost century of greatness. Smith prevailed on the federal government—in response to the depression—to build a national park on the riverfront. Then he organized a design competition to create a new vision for the site.
And of course he succeeded—beyond his wildest dreams—with the Gateway Arch and its surrounding parkgrounds. But there was a cost.
A city's built environment is nothing less than the accretion of its history. Whenever elements of that environment are wiped away, the material record of that history is lost. When the riverfront was cleared after 1939, the elements that were lost were the very elements Luther Ely Smith sought so hard to recover.
Any built environment tells the story of its history. But it’s also true that it tells that story in a special language, an arcane language that only people who are drawn to history, and those whose personal memories are embedded in its buildings, can easily understand. Still, despite its weaknesses, it is by far the best language for telling a community's story. When it’s silenced, other languages must be found if the story is to be remembered at all.
Today, a second design competition for the riverfront is in progress. This competition presents a magnificent opportunity for St. Louis and it has already generated widespread excitement. Most of the excitement focuses on possibilities for new connections between the arch grounds and the rest of the city. However, with the original built environment of the riverfront long since gone and forgotten, the hidden challenge of the competition is to find the next best language to tell that lost story. Then, and only then, can the amnesia that has prevailed for so long in St. Louis finally be healed.
- 3,428
I see in the BJ that the owners of the Cargill Grain Elevator have agreed to cooperate with the winning design to the extent that it does not interfere with their business operations. What might a design team propose for the grain elevators? How about at least painting a giant mural on the elevators such as: Another Arch as if projected on the two elevators with a projector as a reflection in the river. A map of the Louisiana Territory. Giant portraits of Lewis and Clark, or Thomas Jefferson. A Thomas Hart Benton painting. Or paint the bins as giant roman columns or something. No, not a six pack of Budweiser.
Additionally, actually project rotating pictures of other St. Louis attractions on the elevators. It may only be visible at night this way. Or use it as the background for some kind of laser show every night in the summer.
Additionally, actually project rotating pictures of other St. Louis attractions on the elevators. It may only be visible at night this way. Or use it as the background for some kind of laser show every night in the summer.
- 11K
^ Sounds cool to me. They're likely also thinking of rail access and any viewing platforms, more fountains, etc. - the less sexy infrastructure stuff. Personally, I love the grain elevators. It say "In case you were wondering, yes, YOU'RE IN THE HEARTLAND!"
- 3,428
Rail access as in Metrolink? I guess they won't be planning access to East bank via Duck Boats now. The Arch viewing platform on the other side is pretty nice -- looked packed during the air show.Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Sounds cool to me. They're likely also thinking of rail access and any viewing platforms, more fountains, etc. - the less sexy infrastructure stuff. Personally, I love the grain elevators. It say "In case you were wondering, yes, YOU'RE IN THE HEARTLAND!"
I suppose adding public access to the top of the grain elevators as a viewing platform would be out of the question.
I think we need a contest for gradeschoolers to color the grain elevators. Then paint them with the winning design.
- 339
gary kreie wrote:I see in the BJ that the owners of the Cargill Grain Elevator have agreed to cooperate with the winning design to the extent that it does not interfere with their business operations. What might a design team propose for the grain elevators? How about at least painting a giant mural on the elevators such as: Another Arch as if projected on the two elevators with a projector as a reflection in the river. A map of the Louisiana Territory. Giant portraits of Lewis and Clark, or Thomas Jefferson. A Thomas Hart Benton painting. Or paint the bins as giant roman columns or something. No, not a six pack of Budweiser.
Additionally, actually project rotating pictures of other St. Louis attractions on the elevators. It may only be visible at night this way. Or use it as the background for some kind of laser show every night in the summer.
Originally, I thought the only way to spruce up the Cargill Grain Elevator was to tear it down...but now I'm thinking that it might be better to add more development around it. Would more be better than less? Or should the ESTL side of the arch grounds be better suited as a park linked to the arch by the Eads bridge?
^ Personally, I think we need to build up on the East Side, though not just in buildings. I'm sick of going to the arch and seeing this awesome city to the West, then a trashy riverfront to the East. Sure, East side has that park, but the rest of it really pales in comparison to the buildings of the West. Of course, East side has that bad rep, and it'd be really difficult to clean up, but I really like that "YOU'RE IN THE HEARTLAND!" idea. In my little dream world, we'd have the bigger STL to the west, and a cool farming town to the east, complete with elevators and equipment, not just fields. It'd be a ying/yang kinda thing, a showcase of the two great communities of America.
- 712
The HOK viewing platform is cheap garbage and is hopefully temporary. Hope I'm not being too harsh there. 
I just find the idea of a handicap ramp to nowhere unimaginative, and the structure in general to be quite ugly.
Build a real viewing platform, like Park Guell in Barcelona, a large platform with benches projected out from the top of a hill (or mound).
![]()
![]()
I just find the idea of a handicap ramp to nowhere unimaginative, and the structure in general to be quite ugly.Build a real viewing platform, like Park Guell in Barcelona, a large platform with benches projected out from the top of a hill (or mound).
How about a hovering mountain like in avatar!!DaronDierkes wrote:The HOK viewing platform is cheap garbage and is hopefully temporary. Hope I'm not being too harsh there.
Build a real viewing platform, like in Barcelona, a large platform with benches projected out from the top of a hill (or mound).
true genius loci!
