how about putting that money towards a bullet train from Union Station to Chicago. or spearhead a new airport terminal.
Those TWO things are the most important to reviving the image of the city imo. chouteau lake a distant third. the whole lid across 70 and museum on the grounds screamed 1965 to me... sorry..
how about putting that money towards a bullet train from Union Station to Chicago. or spearhead a new airport terminal.
Those TWO things are the most important to reviving the image of the city imo. chouteau lake a distant third. the whole lid across 70 and museum on the grounds screamed 1965 to me... sorry..
Wow - I don't think I can disagree more. Chouteau Pond and the I-70 lid would actually improve the city and the experience of residents and visitors. $50M towards a bullet train to Chicago from Union Station wouldn't even begin to pay for configuring 1,000 feet of usable track that would approach Union Station. And a new airport terminal? We have one mothballed right now.
I think Boston is even better now that they put their highways underground. Because of this, I support I-70 going underground as well, or with a lid on top.
Who needs the Boston Globe anyway? Journalists? Nah, I'll get my news from Fox . . .
Regarding the Big Dig:
A 2008 Boston Globe report asserted that waiting time for the majority of trips actually increased as a result of demand induced by the increased road capacity. Because more drivers were opting to use the new roads, traffic bottlenecks were only pushed outward from the city, not reduced or eliminated (although some trips are now faster). The report states, "Ultimately, many motorists going to and from the suburbs at peak rush hours are spending more time stuck in traffic, not less."
Charlie Brennan may be more idiotic than Mark Reardon. I do agree with him about the bureaucracy of the NPS, but he just always makes idiotic assumptions and comments.
New to St. Louis, just came from Boston. It seems that you've (Moorlander, Grover) never tried to drive through Boston pre-Big Dig and post-Big Dig. The difference is amazing. The project did cost exorbitant amounts of money (around $24b, all said and done), but it was well worth it. It allowed the city an opportunity to knit the urban fabric of the North End and downtown Boston back together, and eliminated a myriad of ugly on and off ramps from the highways.
That said, I'd warn other cities to be extremely careful, because the Big Dig was so expensive, and took about 30 years of construction-let alone planning. As for I-70, I would cap the 3 boats directly in front of the arch, as it would be the biggest difference in connecting the Arch ground back to the mall and the rest of the city. Develop the 2 side parcels, to hide the hideous towers that are there now, and leave the center open to allow the connection to the mall.
New to St. Louis, just came from Boston. It seems that you've (Moorlander, Grover) never tried to drive through Boston pre-Big Dig and post-Big Dig. The difference is amazing. The project did cost exorbitant amounts of money (around $24b, all said and done), but it was well worth it. It allowed the city an opportunity to knit the urban fabric of the North End and downtown Boston back together, and eliminated a myriad of ugly on and off ramps from the highways.
That said, I'd warn other cities to be extremely careful, because the Big Dig was so expensive, and took about 30 years of construction-let alone planning. As for I-70, I would cap the 3 boats directly in front of the arch, as it would be the biggest difference in connecting the Arch ground back to the mall and the rest of the city. Develop the 2 side parcels, to hide the hideous towers that are there now, and leave the center open to allow the connection to the mall.
Welcome to the STL (I'm actually sitting in Boston as I type this!). Anyway, I can't imagine that $24B is considered "worth it" by any public policy or business analyst. Maybe in the very long term that cost will be recouped or maybe you can't really put a dollar amount on knitting the urban fabric back together. That said, the Big Dig has absolutely zero in common with the Arch grounds and I-70. My priorities would be 1) remove sunken I-70 between I-64 and the new I-70 bridge, 2) cap the three blocks between the old courthouse and the arch (as you mention), 3) simply widen crosswalks and rebuild existing pedestrian connections - similar to downtown Cincinnati.
I'm still holding out hope that Slay and Rahn that would see the beauty of removing I-70 from downtown altogether and replace with good old at grade Blvd in its place. Unfortunately, I believe Dansforth set this vision behind at least five years or more (which will cost us dearly in the next Federal Highway Bill). Removal of I-70 will actually open more property to the type of development that Dansforth wanted in the first place while maintaining the Arch Grounds as is. The more he talked the more he came more fixated on a museum.
What we need is that the Arch Grounds along with Laclede's Landing to be brought back into Downtown. Not downtown to the Arch or the river. The Mississippi is muddy, straight, fast moving river with a lousy view on the other side.
The beauty of this is that we are not Boston in the respect that other our new bridge, which already has the funding, and a replacement Blvd will not require years upon years and billions upon billions of dollars to complete. The Big Dig was about burying the biggest and busiest freeway on the East Coast in a very old city underground while connecting the airport via a tunnel at the same time. Our downtown, like our airport, has multiple freeways coming in from multiple directions.
Just read your reponse and my post. Can I claim a long day of a long week at work?
What I was trying to say. Not a fan of the design competition nor Dansforth efforts because we should focus first on fundamentally changing the infrascture by immediately replacing the downtown I-70 Connector (after the new Mississippir River Bridge is built) with an at grade blvd in order to tie the street grid back into the Arch Grounds and Lacleade Landing. Which can be done much quicker and cheaper then what Boston needed to accomplish with the big dig
Here’s an idea with a little back story that has a different idea for what may be possible here.
I’m back in StL from a week working in downtown Memphis, right along Front Street. The street acts as a thoroughfare between the downtown infrastructure and their riverfront, home to Mud Island, a park series (with a streetcar along their riverfront road), and a couple small office buildings, including an old federal courthouse being converted to U of Memphis’ new law school. Entering Memphis from across the Mississippi River is done by either a) Highway 40 along a bridge north of downtown or b) Highway 55 along a bridge south of downtown.
Such an entrance system may soon be comparable to StL when the New Mississippi River Bridge is completed.
Front Street is comparable to what Memorial could be without Highway 70. It’s a solid boulevard along the business district that allows easy access into the parkland along the riverfront. It also provides quality access into the city from Highway 40, connecting to their downtown directly & easily for new visitors getting where they need to go. For what many hope in comprehensive redevelopment, it’s a great comparison to Memorial’s potential in linking the Arch grounds to Downtown StL. Plus, the existing infrastructure along the parklands (the federal building / future law school) are a template for the type of development that a new museum (the Danforth proposal) could be.
Noting that downtown Memphis is smaller than downtown StL as a business center, and that the highway and general transportation infrastructure needs of Greater StL are greater than those of Greater Memphis as a strong urban center, I think that such a development could be possible if we could create another comparative infrastructure system for vehicular traffic. The perceptions of the voting constituency in providing a substitute may require it to get that stretch of 70 negated.
Such a major thoroughfare may be possible with a 22nd Street extension north, turning it from the POS exit it is now into a busier, and potentially covered, mini-highway, and in a way less invasive than the Big Dig. The development of the Blairmont proposal may be an impetus to this idea being reinvigorated. I believe that, if 22nd Street is extended (properly), and it connects with the New Mississippi River Bridge’s new road networks into North City, we may realize the decreased utility of 70 through downtown and can then begin to convert Memorial into the strong thoroughfare we all want.
From there, we can best realize quality a reconnection between Downtown StL and the Arch grounds.
Now, I’m not an urban planner, nor an architect, nor a designer. I’d like to hear what you all who are think of this idea. Thanks.
Of course St. Louis doesn't need a project to the scale of the Big Dig, I didn't mean to imply that. However, either sinking or doing away with 1-70 altogether would be a very smart idea. What really does need to be sunk is the I-64/40 elevated highway near Busch Stadium...it's literally a belt restricting development past itself (except for that lonely luxury loft building).
Still not familiar with a new bridge going on, there must be a thread for that on here? Are there any plans to restore that bridge with the Metro on it near Laclede's? And also, that big industrial building right on the riverfront near Lumiere/4 Seasons-what is it? It would be beautiful if someone restored it. Oh, one more, that 1,000' tower? HORRIBLE idea.
Thanks for the welcome, I look forward to contributing thoughts (and some pictures!) in the future. And Grover, hope you're enjoying Boston!
Gone Corporate, Are you thinking something along the lines of what McKee is proposing for 22nd street or something more substantial? I believe he takes 22nd to Cass Ave with an interchange that ties into Jefferson Ave. Probably a question to answer on another thread. I believe their is one for 22nd street interchange.
Kennedy22, East West Council approved stimulus funds to repaint the Eads bridge (the one that takes Metrolink over the river). Which gets me to another thought.
Has any of the competitions ever discussed/pursue or even seek a better approach between the Arch Grounds and Lacledes Landing. I know the barrier of Eads Bridge will never be removed and don't desire as such (it is a truly a landmark bridge on the Mississippi River). However, the parking garage is truly hideous. We can do better and would be a great place to start for some meaningful change.
Absolutely-ever since I first visited the Arch Grounds I've felt that garage should be buried. Even the transition from the garage to the Arch, or garage to the Landing, is awkward. Bury the garage, restore the bridge, and continued development in the Landing will help reconnect the Arch to the Landing, and the Landing to Lumiere, and hopefully, to the rest of the city. And then, covering the three blocks of I-70 will connect the Arch to the Mall and the rest of downtown.
A few thoughts on the idea suggested by Gone Corporate:
I think it is certain that if I-70 between the PSB and the MRB were removed, downtown would defiantly need to improve other north-south connections.
It is not clear that a revived 22nd Street Parkway would actually be the best option. 22nd does not connect well to the 44/55 interchange and dead-ends into the newish warehouse on MLK. Of existing streets, the most likely linkage would be Tucker, which could effectively funnel traffic north-south through downtown in tandem with a boulevard on the site of the removed I-70 (you can also throw in improvements to 14th as well). The idea of using Truman Parkway as part of a north-south Boulevard is interesting as well, but given its connection into 18th (which just doesn't and should not have the capacity to handle such traffic), it cannot take on such a role.
The City to River Group is a citizen coalition committed to reconnecting downtown and the riverfront. We have been pushing the removal of that section of I-70 for months now, and keep pushing. We submitted a statement on the General Management Plan for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial stating strongly that removal should be on the NPS agenda for management. Landmarks Association and the National Trust for Historic Preservation also support removal of that section of I-70.
If you are interested in joining our cause, contact me off-list. We just met two nights ago, as a matter of fact.
The problem is that a lid only addresses three blocks that would connect the Arch grounds and the Old Courthouse. Removing I-70 would help to reconnect everything between Spruce (Busch Stadium) and Cole (Convention Center and Dome) to the riverfront. This would be very, very significant and encourage much more development than simply a three-block lid.
I just don't see how we would fund a project like that anytime soon. Even with the federal stimulus money in the mix, the city had to fight just to get fixing the Tucker bridge funded.
The depressed section runs from just south of Eads Bridge to highway 40. East of this section we find nothing else but the Arch grounds. I don't see a lot of development other than a museum and a restaurant happening, either with or without a parkway or lid.
North of Eads bridge an at-grade parkway would make more sense, connecting Laclede's landing, the casinos and the North Riverfront.
Again, I agree with you that a parkway would be nice but I would be happy to see a lid over the depressed section if that would be the affordable option.
Actually, I would love to see a parkway on the IL side of the river, from Eads bridge to Poplar street bridge. This could become a promenade lined with retail, office and residential towers. All with the best views of downtown St. Louis.
Maybe we're not behind schedule as much as we think.