urbanSTL

jlblues wrote:

cumulonimbus wrote:Will the lake have adequate flood control?

OK, well, my first response was to laugh and dismiss this post. But then I gave it some thought, and this actually might be a valid concern. The lake will probably only be about 5 to 6 feet deep, but it will cover over a hundred acres when all phases are complete, so it is a large volume of water. In addition, the lake is at a lower elevation than all of the surrounding terrain, EXCEPT that to the east, between the lake and the river. If an earthquake were to weaken the fill at the east end of the lake, I suppose you could have a scenario which would send hundreds of millions of gallons of water cascading through Chouteau's Landing to the river. I just can't imagine a scenario where it would all pour out at once. Much more likely that even in the worst case, it would just be a slow leak.

I just think that there should be a pump system just in case.

cumulonimbus wrote:

jlblues wrote:

cumulonimbus wrote:Will the lake have adequate flood control?

OK, well, my first response was to laugh and dismiss this post. But then I gave it some thought, and this actually might be a valid concern. The lake will probably only be about 5 to 6 feet deep, but it will cover over a hundred acres when all phases are complete, so it is a large volume of water. In addition, the lake is at a lower elevation than all of the surrounding terrain, EXCEPT that to the east, between the lake and the river. If an earthquake were to weaken the fill at the east end of the lake, I suppose you could have a scenario which would send hundreds of millions of gallons of water cascading through Chouteau's Landing to the river. I just can't imagine a scenario where it would all pour out at once. Much more likely that even in the worst case, it would just be a slow leak.

I just think that there should be a pump system just in case.

A pump system?! To do what? That makes no sense. You can't pump water that is rapidly rushing downhill.



Where do you suggest that these pumps be located and where should they pump to? If the threat is for a rapid release towards the Mississippi as jlblues suggusts, then a pump system would be useless......the water will flow towards the river and then dissapear into it......It won't fester like in New Orleans, which is located below sea level. Downtown is located at a higher elevation than the river, water will naturally flow into it.



Usually people with no engineering background suggust ridiculous things such as this.

Urban Elitist wrote:

cumulonimbus wrote:

jlblues wrote:

OK, well, my first response was to laugh and dismiss this post. But then I gave it some thought, and this actually might be a valid concern. The lake will probably only be about 5 to 6 feet deep, but it will cover over a hundred acres when all phases are complete, so it is a large volume of water. In addition, the lake is at a lower elevation than all of the surrounding terrain, EXCEPT that to the east, between the lake and the river. If an earthquake were to weaken the fill at the east end of the lake, I suppose you could have a scenario which would send hundreds of millions of gallons of water cascading through Chouteau's Landing to the river. I just can't imagine a scenario where it would all pour out at once. Much more likely that even in the worst case, it would just be a slow leak.

I just think that there should be a pump system just in case.

A pump system?! To do what? That makes no sense. You can't pump water that is rapidly rushing downhill.



Where do you suggest that these pumps be located and where should they pump to? If the threat is for a rapid release towards the Mississippi as jlblues suggusts, then a pump system would be useless......the water will flow towards the river and then dissapear into it......It won't fester like in New Orleans, which is located below sea level. Downtown is located at a higher elevation than the river, water will naturally flow into it.



Usually people with no engineering background suggust ridiculous things such as this.

Settle down Francis.



There will be a pump system to pump water into and out of the lake, for a variety of reasons.



At least he didn't post a ridiculous idea like fining people for giving money to another person.

There is already underground drainage for storm water. I don't think Choutuea Lake will be designed like a real lake with a dam and runoff collection. It will be a bigger version of the Arch ponds, or the fake canal winding through Oklahoma City, or the Union Station lake. The engineering for these contolled pools is well understood -- this isn't a Core of Engineers Project.

tbspqr wrote:I can't imagine the prospect as huge and costly as an 81 story building being even "proposed" on a lake development if there were freight trains running thru at all hours day and night. I agree with everything that Trent says in 99% of cases (as he seems to be a deistic being in these matters) I have to be childly optimistic and have some faith in MW and other people involved.

Maybe then I should lobby to have my title changed from totally addicted to burgoning deity.

Heh, nice...

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Settle down Francis.



There will be a pump system to pump water into and out of the lake, for a variety of reasons.



At least he didn't post a ridiculous idea like fining people for giving money to another person.

trent wrote:Maybe then I should lobby to have my title changed from totally addicted to burgoning deity.

I'll 2nd that motion.....

cumulonimbus wrote:I just think that there should be a pump system just in case."

The only real pumps that I could think of would be for the substructure of the buildings around the lake. A project like this is terribly easy to design such that any "extra" would end up right in the Mississippi - not on the streets of the development. Also there is a "lot" of water here, but when you consider the vast amount of water that the Mississippi has running past the city every minute... if this whole thing were to "come loose" in an earthquake and drain into the Mississippi - other than the poor paddle-boaters, I do not think any one would notice (if there was a large enough earthquake to drain this puppy – all the 1800 and early 1900 un-reinforced brick houses would probably be flattened – and thus we would care a little more about that than any lake having vanished). The Mississippi is VERY efficient at moving vast and varying quantities of water with little disturbance.



On a side note - I hope they make it more like 10 feet deep - make it so that small sail boats (sunfish) can use it, because that would be a great picture.... and image for STL....

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
There will be a pump system to pump water into and out of the lake, for a variety of reasons.

A pump system to pump water in and out of the lake is one thing. A pump system to try and stop fast moveing water is another. If the lake sprung a leak it would be similar to what happened at Taum Sauk last year. Water would rush to a lower elevation, destroying much of what is in it's path. Pumps would be useless.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
At least he didn't post a ridiculous idea like fining people for giving money to another person.

That was a better idea than you've ever had in your life

Urban Elitist wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
At least he didn't post a ridiculous idea like fining people for giving money to another person.

That was a better idea than you've ever had in your life

Ouch! That hurt.

trent wrote:



Maybe then I should lobby to have my title changed from totally addicted to burgoning deity.

You want me to?



BTW, can we stop arguing children.

MattnSTL wrote:

trent wrote:



Maybe then I should lobby to have my title changed from totally addicted to burgoning deity.

You want me to?



BTW, can we stop arguing children.

Sorry dad. He started it.

MattnSTL wrote:

trent wrote:



Maybe then I should lobby to have my title changed from totally addicted to burgoning deity.

You want me to?



BTW, can we stop arguing children.

On another forum that I post on, they randomly change peoples titles to funny stuff. It could be a fun way to liven things up amongst the regulars.



Besides, I'm not so sure that I'm totally addicted, just that I've been around forever, and I open my mouth a lot.

Water systems don't always drain into the Mississippi. Remember, in 1993 the River Des Peres flooded because of excess water flowing into it from the Mississippi. I don't know how much higher Chouteau Lake will be than the Mississippi, or even if it will be connected to it at all, but this kind of back-wash flood may be a valid concern.

^^ You always have to have a factor of safety - especially for such a marquee project. To plan for the 1993 floor levels would be smart, but to go much higher wouldn't be prudent. From what I know - Des Peres is a drainage corridor. This lake wouldn't drain much more than the parks right adjacent to it. This being the case, they wouldn't need an "open channel" leading in to the Mississippi - thus if the Mississippi were to flood up to 1993 levels, unless the surrounding area were to flood (thus connect the lake to the river) it shouldn't matter a whole lot. This project is a big deal for aesthetic and the development of the city, but from an engineering point of view, the size and controllability of the water situation (its in an area with extensive water control systems, sewers and no drainage running into it) isn’t one to get too concerned about -- you must consider the flooding (obviously) but I think that it’s being vastly overstated in here.



I (personally) am much more concerned with how its going to integrate into the fabric of downtown considering its isolated from the rest of the CBD by a raised highway. Also when a LOT of people on this forum are saying “get rid of the parks” we are here adding more parks??? Doesn’t that leave open the possibility of another central string of parks… and how will the railroads be managed. I wouldn’t want a beautiful office building sitting right next to some derelict looking train tracks…. My biggest fear is that this thing will end up looking like a very large version of those office buildings along I-64 in chesterfield.... just a large useless water feature infront of one or two buildings.... There are 100,000 questions to ask before discussing further the prospect of a 500 year floor affecting our proposed pond.

I think some of those concerns are valid, but all that can be addressed with smart planning. Approaching the Lake/Waterway as a usable waterspace makes all the difference. Having an area where boats can be kept is important. People love to be near the water, but that is usually because people enjoy using the water. I can't imagine a successful Chouteau Lake w/o sail boats and the like littering the water on nice days.



I don't want water for the sake of water, I want an urban lake setting where we can utilize the water for sports.



Like I said, it's all about good planning (isn't it always?).

trent wrote:I can't imagine a successful Chouteau Lake w/o sail boats and the like littering the water on nice days.

And we would certainly want to limit it to sail boats and pedal boats. No hoosiers with wave runners or speed boats!

Oh please, oh please, oh please!







Sursly though - it has to be functional, paddle boats and row boats are nice and leisurely, but let's get the SLU/Wash U rowing teams out there - let's hold Olympic trials!

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:And we would certainly want to limit it to sail boats and pedal boats. No hoosiers with wave runners or speed boats!

I agree, the noise pollution would be enough, IMO, to justify no motor craft. Creve Coeur lake has a nice sail boat marina, i could imagine something like that. Team up with St. Louis Sailing Center (as well as any rowing clubs) to teach lessons and have demonstrations there. It could be very pleasant... but if you get enough 81 story (or just tall / wide) buildings around the lake - the wind would be too unpredictable to have decent sailing.... not that sailboats should be a nix to development over 5 stories.

fyi: Olympic rowing uses a 2000m course. That's roughly the distance from 8th to just past Jefferson. Chouteau Lake, according to all the renderings posted thus far, will only reach to 18th from 8th, 7 long blocks short. Of course, extend the lake any farther than 18th and you'll have to consider relocating Metrolink to Market/Forest Park.

no problem ... just make them circle back

Framer wrote:Water systems don't always drain into the Mississippi. Remember, in 1993 the River Des Peres flooded because of excess water flowing into it from the Mississippi. I don't know how much higher Chouteau Lake will be than the Mississippi, or even if it will be connected to it at all, but this kind of back-wash flood may be a valid concern.

I don't think Chouteau Lake is in danger of flooding from the Mississippi. It would take an extreme river flood to do that. I was thinking more along the lines of flash flooding from excessive rains.

Bastiat wrote:What's the minimum distance to hold any trials at all? It should be long enough to hold some events if that is possible at all.

If you're talking Olympic trials level, according to FISA's rules for a standard course:

minimum 8 lanes

minimum 2,150m length

minimum 135m width, ideally 162m

minimum 3.5m depth

as straight as possible



2,150m is equivalent to the distance from 8th St. to just past Jefferson Ave. Beijing 2008 and London 2012 will use new artificial lakes far from their city centers. Oklahoma City dammed the Oklahoma river.



Of course, there are lots of events that use shorter lengths, curves, and turnarounds. 8th to 18th is around 1000m.

Hey, hey, there's always going to be someone that tells you that 1,000m doesn't equal 2,150m . . . not the point. Let's just have something we can USE - not like the rendering showing Interstate-like limestone drainage rubble twenty feet high on the sides of a drainage ditch! Still, if Ameren would sacrifice a parking lot maybe we could squeeze it in!