I went to a presentation of the General Management Plan last night. The Nation Parks Service presented the various alternatives, one of which is a design competition.



http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntID=25548



The ideas they have seem decent enough, even though concern was brought up in the formal public comments that they were not thinking about the area holistically enough. A representative of Mayor Slay and Danforth brought up concern that the redevelopment does not focus nearly enough on the riverfront (I couldn't agree more).



The St. Louis Beacon wrote an article on the presentation (I was interviewed and was quoted in the article).



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



We definitely need to fix the flaws that are abundant in the Arch Grounds: namely the horrendous connections to downtown, the riverfront and Laclede's and Chouteau's Landings neighborhoods. Hopefully if the National Parks Service goes through with plans to fix these problems through a design competition they do it right. The last thing we need is a "solution" that neglects the flagrant discontinuities that make up many (most?) of the problems in the area.

^alternatives 4 and 5 definitely have some great elements, but option 3 (the design competition) seems best to me because a competition will bring out a diverse set of ideas leading to the best solution. 4 and 5, while strong, neglect the idea of competition.



I was extremely pleased to find out that if they go with the competition, ideas from 4 and 5 could be incorporated at will. They are in no way mutually exclusive. The alternatives certainly overlap quite a bit, so a combination of the three seems like the best way to go.



....



I'm pretty shocked this whole process hasn't been given much attention on this site. The Arch is arguably most important element of the region's built environment, so for a thread on a redesign of the area to not be multiple pages is baffling.

^ Maybe. Maybe not. If a half-assed lid plan is pushed through in the next few years, then the region may well loose the opportunity to make any changes for the next 20 years.

^ The "no action" plan is really just a baseline for comparing the other options. They aren't seriously considering using it.



^^According to the people from the NPS that I talked to, they are definitely considering getting rid of the highway and Memorial Drive altogether. While at first glance it may not seem realistic, the lady I talked to said they've met with traffic engineers and it is definitely an option that would work.

metzgda wrote:


UrbanPioneer - I didn't realize the plans could be combined, that's a good thing. I'm 50/50 on the idea of a design competition. It seems like we've been down this road so many times. At this point I'd almost rather just improve accessibility to the site than further delay the project. I would be supportive of a competition so long as the timeline was advantageous (6 months or so).

I was thrilled when they said the plans could be combined.



The design competition, in my mind, is the best option because it opens up the most possible solutions. It would be a shame to hire one design firm to do the whole thing and have to live with whatever they came up with. Much better to have hundreds of options and pick the best one. The only downside is the costs associated with a competition, both for the NPS and the firms involved.



And while your six month timeframe would be nice, that doesn't leave much time for thorough design iterations and to secure financing from Danforth had a much more realistic idea: make sure the entire thing is completed (construction and all) by 2015, the 50th anniversary of the Arch and just in time for the Olympic in Chicago (if they get them of course). Unfortunately, the NPS seemed pretty apprehensive of that idea.

Selling point:

The purchase of large tracts of land across the Jefferson Memorial in Illinois by the Federal goverment would provide for:

1. solid constructive reuse of blighted land;

2. creation of new opportunities for Federal parks development (and revenues); and

3. spurring a tremendous amount of economic revitalization to East Saint Louis, both in terms of revenues for land sales, the requisite taxes from such sales, and creation of economic development opportunities in one of the poorest cities in the Unied States.



The worst part of the Arch today is looking across the river into the worst urban blight in the country. If we're going to work to fix the problem, let's make sure to fix both sides of the Mississippi.



Plus, if we're already spending hundreds of billions daily & freely in DC this year, what's another quarter billion for land reuse with quantifiable economic impact?

As much as I hate the highways cutting through Downtown next to the Arch grounds, I think we need 70 to cut through. If you are on 55 or 44, the only easy way to get to 70 in the city is that loop. If it were removed, the options would be to cut through the regular grid, go over to the Illinois side and come back, or go out to 270. I don't mention 40 or 170 because they are already disconnected from the rest of the highway system, which is a pain already. I can't imagine how much of a pain this would cause.



The simple fact is that we need to allow the depressed 70 lanes remain. Memorial Drive, on the other hand, has got to go. If they did this and covered up the 70 section with a lid, this is the best option. This wouldn't reclaim all that much land, but it would sure be a lot more functional and pedestrian friendly.

^ I think any plan to remove I-70 must be coupled with other transportation network improvements. There are plenty of decent cross-city options to move people from 55 and 44 east bound to 70 westbound. The key is improving the connections with 70. Tucker and 14th provide the best options (in addition to a surface level parkway were Memorial Drive/ 70 is now).



It is unfortunate that Truman Parkway runs into 18th Street, which does not have the capacity to handle the cross-traffic.

^I agree that it would be preferable to have a different route, but considering the points you made about those other options and the fact that it would simply be easier to revise the current scheme, I just don't see this as feasible.



Everyone with half a brain can agree that the status quo is not ideal. Change is on the horizon. If we push to remove the 70-55-44 interchange on the Missouri side, you are going to run into a lot of opposition from city and county dwellers alike. The annoyances caused by the change with just give more ammunition for the city-haters. We need to make it as easy as possible to get in and out of the city. I think a lot of people avoid Downtown, not because of any crime fears or lack of interest, but because they have a hard time finding their way around.



We need to find a happy mix or pedestrian, bicycle, car, bus and Metrolink friendliness. Covering up 70 and removing Memorial Drive as we know it would improve pedestrian access and probably even make things easier on the automobile. It is also the least invasive approach and could easily be fit into the new bridge project. Whether it is the best option in a vacuum is up another debate, but considering the players involved and the budget, we need to focus on making this plan the best it can be.

^I don't understand why you say number 1 makes no sense at all. It, at least, makes some of sense to me so convince why I am wrong. As for your second point, you must not drive out to St. Charles our the other westward areas very often. My family lives in St. Charles and I used to commute to South City from there myself. Taking 55 to 70 is hands down the fastest route. Cutting through the city on a side route or taking another interstate route is not an option.



You act as if the interstate system is only used by people traveling across country. A lot of people commute in and out of the city daily and your changes would add time and miles to their trips. I would venture to say we have more intra-city traffic than inter-city. I'm sure some on this board might say "Well to hell with them, they should move closer to the city or work in the city" but that is not a helpful argument. The fact is, if you cut out an existing and viable transportation corridor into the city, the net result will be lost jobs and revenue. We are already losing too many businesses to the county, lets not give them another reason to go.



And what do we gain for this change? Not much. Even if we removed the highway there would still have to be a road of some sort where Memorial Drive is. No matter the scenario, there will not be enough land reclaimed from the effort to justify this move. It makes no sense. Cover the highway, reinvent Memorial Drive and we have a huge net gain. Even if the risk of pissing off businesses is small, its not worth the gamble when we will gain little to nothing in the end.

scb wrote:We should not care how the depressed lanes help the residents of the county, we have to worry about the city, it's residents, and the tourists who choose to visit.

You haven't taken voting into consideration. Representative government calls for protection and advocacy of minority interests but not to the exclusional detriment of the majority, and no actions will be supported by MODOT, the State of MO, or the Federal Highway System if it means the majority of taxpaying voters are against the idea. As Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.



Focus: When considering Arch grounds improvement, we're not going to be able close off the stretch of highway now called the "I-70 depressed lanes" completely. As well as Conurbation's positions, which all make perfect sense, who wants to be the one who disconnects Lambert Airport from South City on a direct route? Anyone want to tell that to AB Inbev?



Didn't think so.



Serious Question:

Can we reasonably put the "I-70 depressed lanes" further underground without disrupting the MetroLink connection onto the Eads Bridge? Because if it is feasible, both by design and reasonable costs, going deeper underground could be the best answer to all our issues. Plus, it would allow us to reconnect the city grid to the Arch grounds while taking down the rest of the overpass lanes disconnecting Laclede's Landing.



The question is hinged on reasonability. If not, we're stuck with it.

Moorlander wrote:
Why would anyone need to go EAST on 44 and then WEST on 70? Why not go west on 44 270 or cut through to 170. Basically there are a plethora of options is someone still desires to drive in circles.

I live at Jefferson and 44 and take this route all the time. It is the best way to get to 70 and is not a circle. Going to 270 takes me SW whereas 70 goes NW. Why add miles to my trip when I can backtrack half a mile and hit the straight route. Taking 55 to 270 would take me even further out of the way. I don't want to be cut off from the interstates and I imagine I am not alone.



I welcome you to convince me otherwise. What do we gain by removing the 70-44 connection rather than covering it?