http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... efbdf.html

Does anyone else think the October 2015 deadline is unrealistic? What's the point of the deadline anyway? It's purely much ceremonial regardless, isn't it? If the project is funded, under construction, and on budget, what difference does a few months one way or another make?

And about this delay, it's described as pretty much totally based on an inefficient bureaucracy. I don't know about you, but in my job, delays cost money and are unacceptable. But in government, delays are just par for the course. There's really not the same pressure to deliver. You get paid regardless. So people lose confidence and trust in government.

And back to that October 2015 deadline, does it really matter? What if they finish on time, cut the ribbon on the park over the highway, and then the thing just turns into a mostly dead space - and traffic barrier? Did they ever test what would happen by closing Memorial Drive and rerouting all those streets around the lid? People can't manage to get around that area now without causing gridlock, so how do things improve by closing streets and reducing access in the area?

Still the big question remains, will people actually show up? After they cut the ribbon, what will Day Two look like? Day Three? Week Four? Month Five? After the novelty wears off? Will another big greenspace be transformational downtown? What are we getting for our $350,000,000? If you live in St. Louis, and you're looking for a park experience, where do you go? The Arch? Maybe if you live downtown. But for everyone else, their visits to the Arch are pretty limited.

Northside Neighbor wrote:http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... efbdf.html

Does anyone else think the October 2015 deadline is unrealistic? What's the point of the deadline anyway? It's purely much ceremonial regardless, isn't it? If the project is funded, under construction, and on budget, what difference does a few months one way or another make?

And about this delay, it's described as pretty much totally based on an inefficient bureaucracy. I don't know about you, but in my job, delays cost money and are unacceptable. But in government, delays are just par for the course. There's really not the same pressure to deliver. You get paid regardless. So people lose confidence and trust in government.

And back to that October 2015 deadline, does it really matter? What if they finish on time, cut the ribbon on the park over the highway, and then the thing just turns into a mostly dead space - and traffic barrier? Did they ever test what would happen by closing Memorial Drive and rerouting all those streets around the lid? People can't manage to get around that area now without causing gridlock, so how do things improve by closing streets and reducing access in the area?

Still the big question remains, will people actually show up? After they cut the ribbon, what will Day Two look like? Day Three? Week Four? Month Five? After the novelty wears off? Will another big greenspace be transformational downtown? What are we getting for our $350,000,000? If you live in St. Louis, and you're looking for a park experience, where do you go? The Arch? Maybe if you live downtown. But for everyone else, their visits to the Arch are pretty limited.

Well yeah, the deadline is ceremonial; the city (and maybe the NPS too? I forget...) is planning a big to-do in 2015 around the 50th anniversary of the memorial, and the goal is to have all of the improvements in place by that time that kicks off. But is it the end of the world if it's not done by then? No.

As for the purpose of the improvements; I think the point of the operation is not so much about getting folks to show up (though that may be a secondary goal) as it is getting the folks who do show up to do more than park at the Arch, go up the Arch, then drive home. It's about activating a connection to downtown and (ostensibly also about) making the riverfront a more engaging experience; about making sure the people here for the Arch experience also explore around the Archgrounds and into downtown.

That's why they're building the lid and building a brand new main entrance that faces it. The goal is to get visitors to park in downtown, then walk over the highway via the lid. That's also why they're demolishing the parking garage; it's less about reclaiming park space and more about eliminating the Arch-as-silo experience for tourists. Now, while I don't agree with their decisions regarding Memorial drive (what a traffic mess that design turned out to be...), I think that overall that's a very smart idea. Pointing the main entrance at downtown should funnel the not-insignificant tourist traffic into and out of the city itself. And this is a rare instance of designing for pedestrians first, even if it's an imperfect one. Also Laclede's Landing becomes a more viable point of entry once there's no longer a massive garage obstructing access to the memorial grounds; that too becomes a more active connection to the city.

-RBB

Reminder: One of the reasons against inclusion of the Boulevard was that it could not be done in time for the 2015 anniversary.

I don't have any idea how many regular contributors here spend much time downtown, but personally speaking, I'm downtown almost every day of the year. And I pass the Arch at least 2-4 times per day.

As for the purpose of the improvements; I think the point of the operation is not so much about getting folks to show up (though that may be a secondary goal) as it is getting the folks who do show up to do more than park at the Arch, go up the Arch, then drive home. It's about activating a connection to downtown and (ostensibly also about) making the riverfront a more engaging experience; about making sure the people here for the Arch experience also explore around the Archgrounds and into downtown.

I can tell you this, for the past 15 or so years, 90 percent of the people visiting the Arch on a daily basis are tourists. You can tell by the way they are dressed (fanny packs/goofy hats and glasses, with little kids in tow) and the lost looks on their faces.

Nearly all the rest of the people are walkers/joggers who live or work downtown. And they are a pretty tiny number.

Those tourists are coming from somewhere else in downtown. They are crossing the crosswalk at Memorial Drive. People come to the Arch to see the Arch. Not the riverfront. The Arch is an amazing, world-class landmark. It's a draw and always will be.

All the fancying up of the area around it will be nice, but won't be the draw. The Arch is the draw. People coming to St. Louis from Des Moines or Paris who want to see the Arch will see the Arch. They won't show up because there's a better connection to Laclede's Landing or because Lenore K. Sullivan Drive is not flooded.

You can visit the Arch regardless of flooding on the riverfront. And if anything, lessening flooding will lessen curiosity with the riverfront. It's cool to see flooding.

Northside Neighbor wrote:They are crossing the crosswalk at Memorial Drive. People come to the Arch to see the Arch. Not the riverfront. The Arch is an amazing, world-class landmark. It's a draw and always will be.

All the fancying up of the area around it will be nice, but won't be the draw. The Arch is the draw. People coming to St. Louis from Des Moines or Paris who want to see the Arch will see the Arch. They won't show up because there's a better connection to Laclede's Landing or because Lenore K. Sullivan Drive is not flooded.

You can visit the Arch regardless of flooding on the riverfront. And if anything, lessening flooding will lessen curiosity with the riverfront. It's cool to see flooding.

^ That's the key. The folks who come here today *are* coming for the Arch and nothing else. And while some are walking over from downtown hotels, the vast majority park in the Arch garage and when they're done drive off without ever having seen anything else.

And you know what? They're missing out on a pretty great downtown. By forcing them to park in downtown, off the Arch grounds, maybe some of them will look around and say 'you know what? This is a pretty great downtown. Let's see what else there is to do around here....' They'll get to see St. Louis, not just the St. Louis Arch.

And the city will benefit too. It voluntarily ceded 62 acres of its downtown for a National monument, and while that's brought the city international name recognition it hasn't done as much as it could have done for the city economically and it (along with I-70)'s effectively cut off the downtown from the riverfront. This, hopefully, will make the Arch more of an organic part of downtown St. Louis and less of a barrier to the river.

-RBB

Call me a "Debbie Downer" if you like, but I really don't think the riverfront in front of the Arch is very interesting. Raising it out of the flood plain does exactly what?

The riverfront in front of Laclede's Landing is much more interesting, even more so when it's flooding. There you can see the slow creep of the river up the streets, across the cobblestones, lapping at the rising bank of the river, in close proximity to historic buildings.

Controlling flooding in front of the Arch to make it more bikeable just won't do that much for the average person. A gussied up Arch grounds might keep some people on the Arch a bit longer. But if it were me recommending places for people to visit in St. Louis, it wouldn't be a lot of time at the Arch.

I'd tell them, go see the Arch, take some pictures from the outside of it, walk around it, soak in its majesty. Sort of like the apes around the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then leave.

Go to Forest Park. The City Museum. Lafayette Square. Crown Candy. The Botanical Garden. Elsah. Cahokia Mounds. A Cards game. Whatever.

But spending your day on an enhanced Arch grounds? Seriously? Meh. How could it really be that exciting??

Call me a "Debbie Downer" if you like, but I really don't think the riverfront in front of the Arch is very interesting. Raising it out of the flood plain does exactly what?

Hey Debbie,

It gives you more days of the year to be accessible which should hopefully encourage more programming and thus make the riverfront more interesting.

Its more than just raising the street. Its adding the bike trail to encourage more bikers and joggers. Its adding vendor/receptacle power to allow for food tucks and the like. Its adding first class street lighting and camera infrastructure. Its increasing the days of the year its usable so that other boats will stay there on a permanent basis.

I get they're adding a lot of stuff (what is "camera infrastructure"??) and accessibility, but what is intrinsically interesting about it (not the fancy improvements but the actual riverfront itself) ? It's a pretty barren stretch of river, with giant flood walls and the Arch steps behind you and a view of a casino and the ESL riverfront on the other.

"Adding more days" of accessibility doesn't change the fact that it's generally pretty uninspiring to begin with, especially compared to all those other more organic attractions previously mentioned. If you want a nice water view, where do you go: the Mississippi riverfront in front of the Arch, or say, the Boathouse at Forest Park?

And as far as food trucks, what food truck is going down by the river when all the people are at City Garden, around Met Square, or on Wash Ave?

The concepts being promoted about the future vitality around the Arch, especially along the river edge, seem highly suspect to say the least.

Just look at the numbers. In terms of attracting visitors, what works and what doesn't? River City Casino is tops in Missouri. Lumiere, adjacent Laclede's Landing and all sorts of amenities, is losing money.

You'd think Lumiere would be doing better with its scenic downtown location, right near the Arch, but for whatever reason, it's not. St. Louisans and tourists alike have spoken, and they prefer River City Casino.

Yet a gazillion dollars spent to make the riverfront in front the Arch nicer is going to pack in visitors?

On this one, I'm being a true Missourian. You'll have to "show me".

They're installing fiber the length of the project so existing and new security cameras can be installed the length of the street. And for any future city communications use.

And as far as food trucks, what food truck is going down by the river when all the people are at City Garden, around Met Square, or on Wash Ave?

Um...the Arch gets 3 million visitors a year. That's an average of 8000 people a day. Most of them will probably go by the riverfront at some point. If I owned a food truck, I'd take those odds.

I think River City Casino is doing well due to the fact that its more easily accessible by residents. There aren't a lot of residential buildings next to Lumiere and compared to the Queen, it pricier. Most people (visitors or residents) don't come downtown to gamble when there is a casino closer to home.

Anyways, I don't think the only purpose of the riverfront project is just to attract visitors. Its also something to be used everyday by bikers, joggers, families, etc.

Try to be a little optimistic. The GRG has a good track record with projects. There's the new property given to the GRG by Lumiere to develop on, and the Prte Cochere that's ripe for reuse (maybe as a concert venue?). There's also stuff going on behind the scenes with the city as far as programming that we aren't privy to.

Hmmm. Never thought of that before....

Given that I am down by the Arch pretty much every day, morning, noon, and night, it never dawned on me before you brought it up. That "8,000 visitors per day" figure sounds high. Very high. Ridiculously high. ECKSTREMELY HIGH!

Is that a real number? Where did they come up with it? You never see someone down there with a"clicker", and it's not exactly like park attendance figures aren't padded (witness the STL Science Center stats).

What I do know is that you never see more than a tiny handful of people crossing Memorial Drive at any time of day. So if that adds up to 8,000 per day, well, I guess...

rbb wrote:Now, while I don't agree with their decisions regarding Memorial drive (what a traffic mess that design turned out to be...), I think that overall that's a very smart idea. Pointing the main entrance at downtown should funnel the not-insignificant tourist traffic into and out of the city itself. And this is a rare instance of designing for pedestrians first, even if it's an imperfect one. Also Laclede's Landing becomes a more viable point of entry once there's no longer a massive garage obstructing access to the memorial grounds; that too becomes a more active connection to the city.

That's the thing though...this isn't a pedestrians-first design. The best way to serve pedestrians is to create a system by which pedestrians are respected and share the footprint, interacting with other modes of mobility in a safe, recognizable system -- mainly well-lit, well-marked, and well-maintained signaled intersections. The "Lid" is simply a street-level version of the elevated walkways we're so happy to see being dismantled downtown -- they might be "safer", but they're separated. And even worse, the design results in re-routing a completely serviceable north-south stretch in Memorial Drive. That's not how a City should function.

There's a lot to like about this project -- the new underground museum and its gorgeous westward-facing entrance, the raising of Wharf Street between the flood gates and the beautification/reactivation of the riverfront, the ORIGINAL design for the park over the highway (which still incorporated Memorial Drive both ways), new paths and features on the Grounds, removing the parking garage (actually, I'm still not sold on this one...), etc.

And there's things to downright hate -- closing Washington Avenue, removing Memorial Drive, the damn tram idea, etc.

And there are certainly things that they've missed -- south Archgrounds activation, pond paddle boats, opportunity for Metrobus drop-offs, a Memorial Boulevard (but that's a battle for another day), etc.

Overall, the idea is there, the implementation will happen eventually and an initial small-to-medium spike in attendance will once again level back into our current average. Its frustrating though, because there's either a poor understanding of what the City should be OR a (frankly-insulting) perception of what St. Louisans want/need.

^I think those involved understand the problem with Memorial Blvd and I-70. Its a pretty obvious problem.

I think the issue is that they don't have the desire/will/courage to do anything about it. While it sucks, its hard to blame them. The current project alone is a huge undertaking. There's dozens of agencies involved for about 5 to 10 different construction projects.

Removing I-70 is a huge, huge amount of work. Not only do you have to convince the established leaders. You also have to convince the region and people that use that stretch on a daily basis. Its of course too much for current leaders to stomach.

I'm hopeful it'll eventually happen. It takes time and a LOT of negotiation.

^ Everyone's pretty much accepted that removing I-70 through downtown at this point isn't going to happen. That's not the issue. My complaint though is the final design which basically terminates Memorial Drive both ways in favor of some cockamamie plan to force cars arriving from the north and south into the interior.

Instead of recognizing this as an opportunity to upgrade and improve the Memorial Drive connection past the Archgrounds, the powers that be opted instead to destroy it. The end result is a diluted (and potentially disastrous) rush hour traffic system, more highway exits and on-ramps downtown, the removal of Washington Ave. (the Central Business District's ONLY full east-west connection to the river) and a further expansion of the NPD's grounds -- grounds which, as we've seen as recently as a month ago, can be defunded/ignored/held hostage by the whims of a stubborn majority of statesmen.

I'm sure the new "park over the highway" will look very pretty, be hailed as a landmark success, and be sparsely used within a year. Why create this grand new entrance/pavilion to the museum on the Archgrounds if you want people chilling 30 yards west above I-70? Just by doing nothing with Memorial Drive, covering I-70 for a block and configuring the crosswalks, timers and traffic mitigation infrastructure, the new pathway to the Arch and its museum could have been more inviting and much more serviceable as a part of the City.

My complaint though is the final design which basically terminates Memorial Drive both ways in favor of some cockamamie plan to force cars arriving from the north and south into the interior.

I don't argue with you there. It seems completely illogical to bottleneck everyone on to the same block.