Share
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 26, 2012#26

I don't mean to be the wet blanket here, but at this point I am basically hoping for this thing to fall apart completely. From what has been presented this seems like it is going to do much more harm than good. I am cashing out. Dump the lid, dump the plans to scrap washington, sink all currernt monies into museum expansion and focus further fundraising efforts on that.

Come back with a much better plan for the connectivity to the city at a later point. This has turned into a clown show in relation to the citizens of the city.

I am also completely over MODOT. That entire entity is a joke. Nothing has ever been better positioned and would make more sense than transitioning 70 downtown to a blvd and removing the elevated lanes, yet no one seems to acknowledge that it is even an option. If Chicago can get by with Lake Shore Drive I am fairly confident we can survive without a full fledged sunken interstate. Comedy of idiots surrounding this whole thing.
1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostJan 26, 2012#27

Gary Krie wrote:
I'm not sure how much GRG is providing -- I thought I heard $15 million and I thought that would be used to raise LKS Boulevard by 2.5 feet, but I don't see that in the committed funds total. If it is committed, that would leave $300 million still to be raised, not counting East Side changes.
They said last night at the presentation GRG has committed $10 million. That's for the Leonard K. Sullivan part of the project.
827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostJan 26, 2012#28

The consensus obstacle to the river is the highway, right? And the best move would be to remove the highway imo...but that seems to be a separate project from attempts to reinvent the arch grounds...to pull off the laundry list of things I would like to see would probably take Kim Jong Il to demand and coordinate within the matrix of government spheres involved...

The current plan for the arch grounds does the next best thing to removing the highway (since this seems too much of a bite at one time), put a lid over it where it can...

One other thought...I'm not sure anyone is projecting this 2015 plan as being "the" catalyst for downtown and the region...it will surely be "a" catalyst and a significant one in the short run and important in the long run...
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 26, 2012#29

^I disagree. I think the lid is a horrible waste of resources.

If the issue they are trying to solve is "connectivity," IMHO they are failing spectacularly in everything they have presented. There is no reason why streets need to be closed and torn up. People seem to manage to get from the West side of Michigan Ave to Millenium Park without too much of an issue.

They are going about this entire project the wrong way and it is a waste of precious money in a time in which we cannot afford to do so. No matter how much grass you sod on the East side of 70, no one is going to be thrilled to navigate through the mess above that is I-70 to get there. If the objective is to destroy the usability of the city for the benefit of tourists, then I guess this might succeed, but if the objective is to turn the Arch and surrounding area into an asset for the use of the citizens they are making a mockery of the idea.

All of this is just my opinion, of course.
473
Full MemberFull Member
473

PostJan 26, 2012#30

If the issue they are trying to solve is "connectivity,"
I agree. It seems the goal of this plan is to funnel all visitors to the Arch via the lid at any cost. How do you create connections by taking them away?
destroy the usability of the city for the benefit of tourists
THIS! We shouldn't destroy the functionality of the City so tourists can cross the street without having to use a cross walk. Furthermore, I see no reason why Washington Ave. needs to be removed.

This money could be better spent elsewhere, if at all. I, too, hope this plan falls completely apart if it can't better connect downtown to the arch using only the almighty lid.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJan 27, 2012#31

The current Arch proposal is a colossal waste of time, money and energy. The oportunity wasted with this effort is symptomatic of the reasons folks like me (young and college educated) leave and never come back (even if we want to). St. Louis has so much potential only to squander it again and again; it makes me want to cry.
93
New MemberNew Member
93

PostJan 27, 2012#32

Personally I am still very excited about this project. I believe the connectivity is being brought in the right places that draw people into the main corridors of the city (lacleeds landing, wash ave and the gatway mall). Memorial drive is really an entrance and exit corridor to the city which is being made more efficient for that role with the new design. The simplifying of the Washington Ave and memorial drive intersection is long overduea well. The design also looks to provide much better bike routes and connects both sides of the river, although much of this will probably not happen in initial phases which is dissapointing. I do agree that removing the freeway would have been the ultimate solution, but there are many reasons that this is just not going happen. Would I like to have seen a bigger project, sure, but reality is we can't even come up with enough funds for a project of this size. Personal I think its time to get excited about this project, not complin about what it should have been.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 27, 2012#33

^Normally, I would be with you. I usually try to go for the best in situations.

The problem in this specific case is that this is literally the centerpiece of our city whether we like it or not and we should not settle for a terrible outcome. Have you seen the pics of the archgrounds before the arch? Now is our chance to make it worthwhile for the first time and it is going to get squandered.

It is like taking a piece of gold and instead of turning it into a beautiful set of earings, you use it to gold plate a pipe fitting under your toilet.
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostJan 27, 2012#34

joelkamp wrote:I believe the connectivity is being brought in the right places that draw people into the main corridors of the city (lacleeds landing, wash ave and the gatway mall). Memorial drive is really an entrance and exit corridor to the city which is being made more efficient for that role with the new design.
I should be able to enjoy a stroll up and down Memorial Dr. I should be able have a coffee or a bite to eat at a café I find on Memorial Dr. I should be able to sit at one of the café sidewalk tables sipping my coffee with book in hand while every now and then look up from my book to watch the people passing by and gaze in wonderment at the majesty of the Gateway Arch.

With the current plan, I will never experience that feeling and for that I am sad.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 27, 2012#35

What makes urban areas like the arch assets is the amount of activity, be it pedestrian, auto, business, etc. This plan is going to result in even more dead space to compliment already dead space with less opportunity for activity.

The more I read over the plan the worse it gets. My view is transitioning from a waste of money and missed opportunity to horribly devastating consequences for the actual city.

I am downright terrified of the plan and this project right now.
710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostJan 27, 2012#36

The whole plan needs to be scrapped, and a new one centered around the removal of the depressed and elevated lanes of I-70 needs to be implemented. You know, so we can connect the city to the arch grounds (and I have an idea! connect the rest of downtown to lacledes landing!).

The "lid" is an expensive bandaid for a larger problem. Why does almost the entire stretch of downtown adjacent to the arch grounds feel like an alley? That MUST be fixed. Why blow 500 million dollars on a bad idea? I'd rather repave and improve the existing pedestrian crossing than blow money on a stupid, 1960s piece of infrastructure (the lid). At some point the current I-70 in that section is going to come down and filled in. Let's plan for it, instead of putting our heads in the sand, as City Arch River is doing.

Why doesnt City Arch River have the cojones to do this right? Someone there must know what a squandering this plan is!

PostJan 27, 2012#37

Primarily, I'm upset because this will be needlessly revisited again, instead of energy being directed elsewhere.
827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostJan 27, 2012#38

Sorry ... I still like what is being done by the design team and many government entities here...

The accessibility question is interesting to me...does creating greater accessibility mean improving quantity or quality...probably it means both, but the idea that a reduction in number of access points equals less accessible access isn't always so imo...the idea of routing both pedestrian and auto traffic into obvious accesses points makes some sense in that the pathways are obvious and easy to find...there maybe greater security afforded in this idea...greater ability to ensure quality access points...greater confidence from visitors that they are heading in the right direction...IOW I don't think there is a right way and a wrong way in making the arch grounds accessible...

I also like to think of the national mall in dc when thinking about the gateway mall...surrounded with enough activity, the mall can be an attractive respite with super, unobstructed views and for some a destination in itself...properly programmed and anchored by a reinvigorated union station at the western end, the plan could work...

As has been pointed out earlier, a completed lid could quite effectively integrate with a future transformed I 70...framing this plan as a zero sum alternative to other ideas for the river front is not really true I think...yes resources and attention are not infinite but the other options for much of the money that will be used for the 2015 project do not entail the st Louis river front (I would guess)...

Let's be very clear in our understanding of the past successes of this projects design team...agree or disagree with them for sure...but rest assured we have some of the best in the business trying to work FOR St Louis, the region, and the country...ultimately we are talking about America's arch...we take care of it...
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 27, 2012#39

^You don't need to apologize for a differing viewpoint!

My major concern at this point is that the entire project team seems completely uninterested in hearing anything from the actual citizens this is going to affect. This is an extremely dangerous thing IMO.

Obviously taking a complete guess here, but I would not be surprised at ALL if there is not a single person involved in any of this process that even lives in the city. This is not a good thing.
827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostJan 27, 2012#40

^as passionately opposed as some people are, I thought a non confrontational start would help further dialog ;)
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2012#41

"Let's be very clear in our understanding of the past successes of this projects design team...agree or disagree with them for sure...but rest assured we have some of the best in the business trying to work FOR St Louis, the region, and the country...ultimately we are talking about America's arch...we take care of it..."

I absolutely 100% agree. But you must understand that designers design for a client.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 27, 2012#42

The place of most frustration for me is that with ZERO urban design, architectural, etc eperience or training other than my passion for StL, it is blatantly obvious what the best design would be for this project and it is being ignored completely.

Not to mention, removing I-70 would be the cheapest option BY FAR! All you would have to do would be fill in a trench, demo the elevated section (which could be used to fill the trench), and pave a blvd! It is mind-numbingly dumb that this isn't the ONLY option being considered!
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJan 27, 2012#43

While some on the forum seem to like the proposed designs, I think it should be reiterated that what has been proposed isn't necessarily what is actually going to happen. The precedent has been set.
710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostJan 27, 2012#44

Agreed, what is being presented is not an urban design. It's a knee-jerk armchair reaction to a complex problem. Say, let's build a bridge and ignore the future.

*watches as the can is kicked down the road by another generation, for another generation*

That's the St. Louis way, right?

I'm sure that there is some eye-rolling at MVA.

This whole process is jarringly out of step with current best practices, at all levels. It's dusty and insular. Simply, it's too much money to spend on a half ass process and a half ass solution. Something smarter can be done. I didn't move back to this city because I thought things would continue as they have in the past!
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJan 27, 2012#45

warwickland wrote:I didn't move back to this city because I thought things would continue as they have in the past!
As The Faces say, "I wish...that...I knew what I know now...when I was younger!"

*joking
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostJan 27, 2012#46

I took the liberty to photoshop City To River's original concept plan and the updated Arch River City/MVVA plan together to get a look of what could be...

First, the unfortunate plan...



And, the preferred plan...



I like the thinking of Count On Downtown's latest post:
Let me start by saying that I’ve always been a proponent of a lid over I-70, unlike other groups who’ve wanted to fill up the depressed section and replace it with an at-grade boulevard. My thinking was: build this lid first; open the New Mississippi Bridge; evaluate the traffic volume, and then look at ripping out the elevated section. Then, if all goes well, in a later stage an at-grade boulevard could be realized.
Let the dull-minded officials have their way, then when the dust settles - blow out the moat and build the on-grade boulevard.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 27, 2012#47

^Problem I see, is that in going through with the current plans, all areas not "the lid" are going to see a reduction in activity. This, in turn, is going to hurt these areas, making them less attractive to businesses, visitors, etc. As this happens, there will be less and less incentive to connect any of these areas to the arch. If anything there would be a push to keep it separate and away from the tourists.

Another problem, is that this proposes to waste a massive amount of money, but more importantly, a massive amount of time. The city is at a vital point in its revival and I simply do not think we have a decade or two to spare waiting for the plan that should have been there all along to materialize.

Not to mention, why do something half assed and lazily with the need to do it again later when you could do it right the first time? The former results in systemic failure, the latter in success. I for one, have had quite enough of systemic failure and am sick of having to deal with the person doing things wrong over and over again.

The photoshop is terrific, though!
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2012#48

"^Problem I see, is that in going through with the current plans, all areas not "the lid" are going to see a reduction in activity. This, in turn, is going to hurt these areas, making them less attractive to businesses, visitors, etc. As this happens, there will be less and less incentive to connect any of these areas to the arch. If anything there would be a push to keep it separate and away from the tourists."


YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.

Instead of even attempting to activate less-than active areas, the entire plan doubles down on existing activity, on further concentrating it into a very un-urban design. ACK!
719
Senior MemberSenior Member
719

PostJan 27, 2012#49

geoffksu wrote:
I like the thinking of Count On Downtown's latest post:
Let me start by saying that I’ve always been a proponent of a lid over I-70, unlike other groups who’ve wanted to fill up the depressed section and replace it with an at-grade boulevard. My thinking was: build this lid first; open the New Mississippi Bridge; evaluate the traffic volume, and then look at ripping out the elevated section. Then, if all goes well, in a later stage an at-grade boulevard could be realized.
Let the dull-minded officials have their way, then when the dust settles - blow out the moat and build the on-grade boulevard.
To add some context, here's the whole post: The Arch Grounds' French Connection

By the way, fantastic job rendering that map!
678
Senior MemberSenior Member
678

PostJan 29, 2012#50

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 6cef2.html

"and City-ArchRiver has covered the rest with $10 in private donations." :lol:
Read more posts (28 remaining)
Share