Share
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 29, 2012#51

My questions: 1. Why spend time and resources here when it won't help the problems of the city (education, crime, employment, failing infrastructure, shrinking tax base, population loss, etc)?
2. Does the public get to comment or have input on the design? When and how?
3. How does removing surface streets and bridges while adding highway infrastructure accomplish the project's goal of better connecting the city to the Arch and River?
4. What's the point in adding more (11 acres) lifeless park space? What about active uses?
5. Why build an expensive lid when highway removal would have a bigger return on investment for the project's goals and for the whole city?
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostJan 30, 2012#52

quincunx wrote:My questions: 1. Why spend time and resources here when it won't help the problems of the city (education, crime, employment, failing infrastructure, shrinking tax base, population loss, etc)?
2. Does the public get to comment or have input on the design? When and how?
3. How does removing surface streets and bridges while adding highway infrastructure accomplish the project's goal of better connecting the city to the Arch and River?
4. What's the point in adding more (11 acres) lifeless park space? What about active uses?
5. Why build an expensive lid when highway removal would have a bigger return on investment for the project's goals and for the whole city?
1. Instead of tourists, county-residents driving to garages on the park site, visiting the arch, and returning to their car and leaving downtown the new entry to the Arch grounds site will be at Luther Ely Smith Square which positions them within downtown and when they exit the Arch Grounds they return within downtown and in essence will spend more time and their 'resources' downtown - keep the people here longer, other people see people downtown and they see downtown as lively, full of energy, people spend money, drives local economy, economy creates jobs and growth, do I need to go on?

2. Yes, send your comments to ArchRiverCity website, twitter, Facebook page, or hell, go google MVVA and ring up Michael.

3. This is a topic we can talk about til 2015 and beyond, but the New River Bridge will push I-70 traffic north of Downtown, lessening traffic flowing through the moat and hopefully in the future, MoDOT and the others will see our way.

4. Lifeless Park?? The proposal will create an extension of Lacledes Landing into the Arch Grounds, create an Explorers Garden (focus on flora/fauna that was documented during Lewis/Clark Expedition - Jefferson was fascinated but these new discoveries, Open Lawn for programming with other Institutions (Art Miseum, Zoo, City Museum, etc.) or for general use for local residents (space for pick up sport games, other outdoor recreation, let the dog off leash, etc.) and expanded space for Fourth of July and other large events, also the only space where a acessible connection can be made to the new Riverfront Trail/Greenway.

5. See 2, and contact your local MoDOT, city official, alderman, mayor, etc.

Unlike some people who see this as stealing taxpayer money, paper dream, etc., you need only to look at our past history when the Arch Grounds were originally being planned and designed - go ahead and look it up, it may surprise you how identical the current situation matches the 1920's-1950's.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 30, 2012#53

#4 highlights the issue of programming quite well. I'm not optimistic on this account - and any activities are going to be for tourists/visits. Unless it's something quite remarkable, downtown and nearby residents aren't going to walk several blocks past dead storefronts (made dead by the hovering Interstate) to walk under I-70 to find the "discovery garden".
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 30, 2012#54

#1 Isn't that the same reasoning for building the new stadiums? I'd rather find a way with this level of resources to attract new residents and high-paying jobs to downtown and all over the city. I'd figure that would have a bigger impact on the City's economy and tax base than this.
I do like moving the museum entrance to face the Old Courthouse a lot. Even without the lid that would make a difference in keeping people downtown longer.


#2 I feel like our concerns are falling on deaf ears. It feels like a runaway train. In contrast check out the Vision for Parkview Gardens process http://www.parkviewgardensvision.org/. Didn't MVVA's entry (and every other entry) in the design competition say highway removal should happen? The design is heading in the other direction.

#3I hope so too, maybe in the end just get rid of the elevated section. The trouble is that they're doubling-down on a highway-focused agenda rather than a urban-street-grid one.

#4 Sounds good. I very much like removing the parking garage where most of that stuff will be. I want to keep Wash Ave though.

#5 I've been trying. I hope they're listening.
Unlike some people who see this as stealing taxpayer money, paper dream, etc., you need only to look at our past history when the Arch Grounds were originally being planned and designed - go ahead and look it up, it may surprise you how identical the current situation matches the 1920's-1950's.
Snarky comment-- You mean when a whole neighborhood of 10,000 was leveled? Did the residents there have a say or were they told? While we ended up with the symbol of the city was it so different than the clearance for the stadiums, Mill Creek, Interstates, new Lambert runway? We could have had an Arch within a city if the people living there counted for anything in the eyes of the powers-that-be.

I like having the arch. It symbolizes home to me. But considering the City's population is less than half of what it was in 1965, it seems we should have been focusing on other things then and now.

The Arch doesn't mean much to everyone:
Alex Ihnen wrote:The single most iconic image of Pruitt-Igoe is the implosion of a tower with the gleaming Arch in the background, two miles distant. Ms. Sills recounted that as a student she signed the time-capsule placed in the monument's keystone. In her Pruitt-Igoe apartment she wondered how a city could build something so beautiful while treating its people so poorly: "It serves no purpose. We built a monument to nothing." The Arch was completed in 1965 as the housing project descended into decay. Freidrichs noted that the proximity of the two public projects gives weight to the story that would otherwise being missing. Today, a $578M effort is underway to revitalize the Arch grounds.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostJan 30, 2012#55

quincunx wrote:Snarky comment-- You mean when a whole neighborhood of 10,000 was leveled? Did the residents there have a say or were they told? While we ended up with the symbol of the city was it so different than the clearance for the stadiums, Mill Creek, Interstates, new Lambert runway? We could have had an Arch within a city if the people living there counted for anything in the eyes of the powers-that-be.

I like having the arch. It symbolizes home to me. But considering the City's population is less than half of what it was in 1965, it seems we should have been focusing on other things then and now.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be 'snarky' - I am a landscape architect/urban planner so I have to put up with public comments and very often it's 'stealing taxpayer money...' and every time I see Elliot Davis' 'You Paid For It' my blood boils - the man is very ill-informed and only creates journalism to get people angry and riled up.

In the 20's-30's when the riverfront neighborhood was leveled, I agree that that was necessary for urban renewal/city beautification - Mill Creek valley, Interstates, Lambert on the other hand I don't agree with - Mill Creek created a connection between Lafayette Square, LaSalle Park, Tower Grove East, etc. to Downtown and Downtown West - now we have a great divide (but atleast we didn't get the Downtown Loop Highway, unlike KC); The Interstates were only a matter of time before they obliterated neighborhoods and caused an exodus out of the City (again, atleast we didn't get Bartholomew's grand Interstate plan).

I agree, that education among other issues are very important but what we have today is an opportunity to enrich Downtown not only for us but for non-St. Louisans - look at what Millennium Park in Chicago, Citygarden here, Highline in New York City have done - created great spaces for people and in turn created development opportunities and thus spured the economy, etc., etc.

I am and will be always on the basis that Great Spaces (parks, open space, plazas, etc.) benefit the community, people and economy far beyond any other improvement.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 30, 2012#56

geoffksu wrote:I agree, that education among other issues are very important but what we have today is an opportunity to enrich Downtown not only for us but for non-St. Louisans - look at what Millennium Park in Chicago, Citygarden here, Highline in New York City have done - created great spaces for people and in turn created development opportunities and thus spured the economy, etc., etc.

*Not sarcastic or mean in any way, just an honest question*

You are a landscape architect and you cannot see the fundamental difference between every (immensely succesfull) project that you listed and the current plan for the archgrounds? I am completely with you on Millennium Park, Citygarden, and the Highline Park. They are spectacular additions providing amazing momentum for their respective urban areas. This is literally the complete opposite of those efforts. It is singlehandedly attempting to set the entire field back decades.

Building off your comment, it is astounding to me that in this day and age with so many phenomenal examples of what *WORKS* (Including one literally BLOCKS away!), this project could have ever come into existence in its current iteration.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 30, 2012#57

quincunx wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:The single most iconic image of Pruitt-Igoe is the implosion of a tower with the gleaming Arch in the background, two miles distant. Ms. Sills recounted that as a student she signed the time-capsule placed in the monument's keystone. In her Pruitt-Igoe apartment she wondered how a city could build something so beautiful while treating its people so poorly: "It serves no purpose. We built a monument to nothing." The Arch was completed in 1965 as the housing project descended into decay. Freidrichs noted that the proximity of the two public projects gives weight to the story that would otherwise being missing. Today, a $578M effort is underway to revitalize the Arch grounds.
Thanks for reposting this - I'd forgotten about it and how powerful that segment of the Pruitt-Igoe Myth film really was.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostJan 30, 2012#58

newstl2020 wrote:
geoffksu wrote:I agree, that education among other issues are very important but what we have today is an opportunity to enrich Downtown not only for us but for non-St. Louisans - look at what Millennium Park in Chicago, Citygarden here, Highline in New York City have done - created great spaces for people and in turn created development opportunities and thus spured the economy, etc., etc.

*Not sarcastic or mean in any way, just an honest question*

You are a landscape architect and you cannot see the fundamental difference between every (immensely succesfull) project that you listed and the current plan for the archgrounds? I am completely with you on Millennium Park, Citygarden, and the Highline Park. They are spectacular additions providing amazing momentum for their respective urban areas. This is literally the complete opposite of those efforts. It is singlehandedly attempting to set the entire field back decades.

Building off your comment, it is astounding to me that in this day and age with so many phenomenal examples of what *WORKS* (Including one literally BLOCKS away!), this project could have ever come into existence in its current iteration.
The MVVA current plan may not be the perfect plan but what it is doing right is:
1. Moving the entry to the Arch Grounds Downtown, thus encouraging, if not forcing visitors to experience and explore Downtown.

2. Converting Leonor K Sullivan Blvd from a primarily auto-focused streetscape to a pedestrian-focused streetscape, thus encouraging visitors to experience the river, promote new activity on the waterfront and developing the link in the Riverfront Trail between North City and South City (all creating new connections: to riverfront, to North City or to South City).

3. Creating necessary connections to Laclede's Landing that were removed with the parking garage and incomplete implementation of the Kiley plan.

4. Overall emphasis on the pedestrian first, public transit second, and vehicle last. Walkability is KEY.

Yes, the plan keeps the moat but atleast we are progressing slowly to creating the necessary connections between the Arch/River and City - that is an element completely out of the hands of the designers - MoDOT is unwilling to decommission an Interstate on grounds that there is no precedent (couldn't be more of a lie - Portland is doing so right now among other cities).

I still stand by my notion that these improvements have the potential to do what Millennium Park, Highline, Citygraden have done for their respective communities.

Be it what lots of others are thinking, but I for one, am optimistic and excited for the future of our City.

Still going to call me out on my viewpoint??
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 30, 2012#59

Ha I was not "calling you out."

I simply disagree with the viewpoint.

Getting rid of the North garage is a good move, along with some other things they are doing as well. I am not saying there are not elements that I believe would be great additions. I do. I simply think that they are attempting to do good things without eliminating the gigantic and most crushing problem about the space, and because of this the good things will fail at worst and at best have a negligable effect on the city.

Removing garage = good. Removing Wash Ave = misguided and will further disconnect both places from the rest of the city.

Creating more connections = good. Building a lid and focussing all efforts into one singular entrypoint = misguided and will further disconnect the massive amount of land from the city.

I know that MoDOT is resisting removing the interstate. My point is that going along with this is the easy route and won't result in anything other than a half-assed effort. If there was ever a time to take the hard route and put the effort in that is required to have a superior result, I would say immediately before a $550M effort to re-configure the entire space is probably the best time to do so.

Interaction with the rest of the city should be the effort of this project IMO (and is stated as such in everything that I have read), but the only things they have proposed have the effect of increasing the amount of parkland while sealing it off from the city even more than it already is.

To me, removing everything but the pedestrian experience will not result in a better pedestrian experience. As I have stated, I believe the places that work (City garden, millenium park, highline) work because of the amount of activity that immediately surrounds these spaces. This plan proposes to have nothing interacting with it besides itself, and for this reason IMO will fail at its ultimate goal.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 30, 2012#60

Alex Ihnen wrote: Thanks for reposting this - I'd forgotten about it and how powerful that segment of the Pruitt-Igoe Myth film really was.
No doubt I will always remember. Especially because I asked the question that lead to Ms. Sills remark!
1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostJan 30, 2012#61

One part of the plan I did like (though I wish they would go farther with it) is the "loop" they will have that can be used for biking and walking. I think that will help bring residents or maybe workers on their lunch breaks to the grounds on a daily basis to excersie.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostJan 30, 2012#62

newstl2020 wrote:Getting rid of the North garage is a good move, along with some other things they are doing as well. I am not saying there are not elements that I believe would be great additions. I do. I simply think that they are attempting to do good things without eliminating the gigantic and most crushing problem about the space, and because of this the good things will fail at worst and at best have a negligable effect on the city.
Agreed.
newstl2020 wrote:Removing garage = good. Removing Wash Ave = misguided and will further disconnect both places from the rest of the city.
Agreed on parking garage, Washington Ave. - disagree, continuing the connection east at the five-leg intersection makes no sense, especially with the removal of the parking garage, Lacledes Landing's streetscape should be converted to a pedestrianized-only experience (similar to what Denmark did decades back) and serve the Landing with one or two perimeter parking structures. I will agree with you on keeping Wash Ave in tact if the Interstate Moat was removed and converted to a Boulevard.

[quote="newstl2020"Creating more connections = good. Building a lid and focussing all efforts into one singular entrypoint = misguided and will further disconnect the massive amount of land from the city.[/quote]

Agreed, without a proper Interstate to Boulevard conversion, this will be a downfall.
newstl2020 wrote:Interaction with the rest of the city should be the effort of this project IMO (and is stated so in everything that I have read).
Agreed, no matter what public comments, websites created, officials spoken to - the design will never change from its current course.
newstl2020 wrote:To me, removing everything but the pedestrian experience will not result in a better pedestrian experience. As I have stated, I believe the places that work (City garden, millenium park, highline) work because of the amount of activity that immediately surrounds these spaces. This plan proposes to have nothing interacting with it besides itself, and for this reason IMO will fail at its ultimate goal.
Agreed, without realizing the Interstate to Boulevard conversion, and even more so with the past planning to surround the park site by a Interstate Bridge and a Historic Bridge (granted the Eads does allow for connections due to its design) the site can never be surrounded by development.

The best hope is that through the Arch Grounds improvements, both the Chouteau and Lacledes Landings will develop to their full potential and create proper North/South side connections.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 30, 2012#63

^Not surprisingly it appears we all want the same result just disagree on how we'll get there :D Where is the shocked emoticon? Lol.
3,428
Life MemberLife Member
3,428

PostJan 30, 2012#64

Alex Ihnen wrote:#4 highlights the issue of programming quite well. I'm not optimistic on this account - and any activities are going to be for tourists/visits. Unless it's something quite remarkable, downtown and nearby residents aren't going to walk several blocks past dead storefronts (made dead by the hovering Interstate) to walk under I-70 to find the "discovery garden".
How about letting residents downtown use just that portion of the grounds for softball games, a kids playground, and maybe even a soccer field. That would bring continuous activity there and would not detract from Kyle's vision -- certainly no more than the garage did. Washington residents get to use part of the National Mall that way. At first I thought it was inappropriate, but now I realize it keeps the Mall non-sterile and doesn't seem to detract. It's the people's park.

PostJan 30, 2012#65

Here is a link to the slides presented January 25, 2012.

http://www.cityarchriver.org/wp-content ... b-copy.pdf
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 30, 2012#66

Slideshow is also in the nextSTL story, of course:

http://nextstl.com/downtown/arch-ground ... ty-streets
1
New MemberNew Member
1

PostFeb 01, 2012#67

Hello, fellow Saint Louisans. Glad to find a venue to talk about Saint Louis development. :D

So, I read A LOT of comments about the proposed "lid/park" over the 70, and very little about everything else. Anyone care to share their opinions on that, i.e. the expanded museum, Explorer's Garden, demolishing the garage, Kiener Plaza (beer garden, performance pavilion, etc.) and Luther Ely Smith Square, new landscaping, the Riverfront?
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostFeb 01, 2012#68

Expanded museum = Phenomenal. Should get immediate funding. Great plan. love the new entrance in the original proposal. Not sure how much of that is still on the table.

Explorer's Garden = Good idea. Admittedly not going to get anyone overly excited. Builds off our impressive Botanical Garden. Could be usefull for tours and tourists, not usefull at all for actual city residents. Support the idea though, and should add an interesting element to the space.

Demolishing the garage = Great idea. Not needed. Plenty of parking elsewhere. *Should* lead to better connection with the landing if done correctly.

Kiener plaza re-do = Not sure what the plan is for this anymore. Not included in updated presentation. Funding coming from...? Will be good if they emulate city garden and continue the theme CG started further down the mall towards the arch.

Beer Garden/performance pavilion/etc = Not sure what is left of this. Have not heard anything about their inclusion in the current plan since the original proposal which at this point has been changed A LOT. Would be better done if private spaces for businesses where created as a result of i-70 to boulevard conversion.

New Landscaping = Always great to invest in the archgrounds. Much needed. Long time coming. Excited to see how they modernize the space.

Riverfront = Like the idea of raising the street. Should result in cleaner/more use for the riverfront.
547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostFeb 04, 2012#69

geoffksu wrote: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.
First, nice rendering. But, I am not surprised a KSU grad could crank this out. Had to throw out the KSU shout out! :wink:

Second, what exactly do you see happening (in your preferred scenario) where the boulevard meets the lid? I was exploring the same sort of idea, where the lid gets built and then we later implement the boulevard system. The main obstacle I see in carrying out the boulevard underneath the lid is clearance height. The slope required to satisfy a dip that deep would negate connections to Market and Chestnut... possibly more streets. If the Boulevard does not cross under the lid, then its probably pretty pointless to implement.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostFeb 05, 2012#70

zun1026 wrote:First, nice rendering. But, I am not surprised a KSU grad could crank this out. Had to throw out the KSU shout out! :wink:

Second, what exactly do you see happening (in your preferred scenario) where the boulevard meets the lid? I was exploring the same sort of idea, where the lid gets built and then we later implement the boulevard system. The main obstacle I see in carrying out the boulevard underneath the lid is clearance height. The slope required to satisfy a dip that deep would negate connections to Market and Chestnut... possibly more streets. If the Boulevard does not cross under the lid, then its probably pretty pointless to implement.
Utilizing Google Maps and the Forest Park underpass at Grand as a reference tool - the boulevard traveling under the Lid would begin its descending vertical curve at Clark, full depth at the Lid, and begin its ascending vertical curve from the Lid to Locust - though, as everyone knows Clark and Locust have no current connection to Market, they both die at Broadway.

The other factor to consider is what Design Speed the new Boulevard would be designed to, hence a slower speed (slower than along Forest Park at Grand) would permit a shorter descending/ascending length but I don't know why the Boulevard would be much slower than the current Forest Park design speed.

Though, one could imagine a design where the Boulevard splits (similar in design if one was traveling Forest Park east towards Grand) you have the option to travel below Grand (avoiding the intersection) or travel alongside the descending route at normal grade, and create a bridge that carries traffic across the descending Boulevard to Downtown.

In short, I do believe that with some give and take in proper engineering we could devise a route that travels below the Lid while maintaining proper cross-street connections.

Thanks for the shout-out... Go State!
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostFeb 05, 2012#71

^ I measured it out once and the dip by FP Parkway under Kingshighway would mirror this and allow for at-grade intersections at Walnut and also Pine.
547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostFeb 05, 2012#72

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I measured it out once and the dip by FP Parkway under Kingshighway would mirror this and allow for at-grade intersections at Walnut and also Pine.
If that is the case then its pretty good news. The design speed for forest park is somewhere near 30-40 MPH, correct? If Memorial Drive follows suit with that type of design speed then it could work out rather well. It would be interesting to do some renderings of the dip and other connections. I don't have time right now to take on another project, but I might be able to work on it around mid-March.

Connection of Memorial Drive and 64/55 should be explored as well. What happens there? Do ramps get replaced or reutilized? etc..
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostFeb 06, 2012#73

City to River has done renderings of a dip and connections at Walnut and Pine. 64/55 could be tricky. One option would be for 55 to connect to 64 E&W with new ramps and transition into the boulevard by remaining northbound.

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostFeb 06, 2012#74

Alex Ihnen wrote:City to River has done renderings of a dip and connections at Walnut and Pine. 64/55 could be tricky. One option would be for 55 to connect to 64 E&W with new ramps and transition into the boulevard by remaining northbound.
After a quick search and some (on lunch) quick calculations, I think the dip under the lid will be close. All overhead structures (overpasses, etc. ) must maintain over 14 feet of clearance in urban areas for highways (I would assume Memorial Drive would classify as a highway especially if connected to 55). This information is from the AASHTO Highway Design Manual.

Maximum Grades on Construction/Reconstruction Projects for Interstate and State Highways at a 40 MPH design speed is 5% on level surfaces and 6% on rolling surfaces.

Maximum Grades on Construction/Reconstruction Projects for Urban Arterials at a 40 MPH design speed is 7% on level surfaces and 8% on rolling surfaces.

The current distance from the ending edge of the overpass at Walnut and the the beginning edge of the overpass at Market is roughly 285 ft. The current distance from the ending edge of the overpass at Chestnut and the the beginning edge of the overpass at Pine is roughly 235 ft.

Assuming the design speed of 40MPH for Memorial Drive and a clearance height of 15ft (not factoring in the lid infrastructure depth), the grade percentage between Walnut and Market is 5.26%. The grade between Chestnut and Pine is 6.38%.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostFeb 06, 2012#75

The speed limit on FPP is 40 which is too fast for Memorial drive. I'd rather it be 25 mph. How would that change the grade requirements?
Read more posts (3 remaining)
Share