Brickline Greenway- Formerly Chouteau Greenway

luftmensch · PostMay 10, 2007#2762007-05-10T03:20+00:00

The Slay administration is not actively supporting this project. Geisman & Co. say that riverfront renovations are a bigger priority. (They want their silly water park, I guess).

They've basically left MaCormack Baron out in the cold.

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 10, 2007#2772007-05-10T03:30+00:00

^ Very disappointing. The waterfront poject is important, but a Chouteau Lake would have people living/working beside it AND it would connect increasingly vibrant parts of the city. So shortsighted.

trent · PostMay 10, 2007#2782007-05-10T13:39+00:00

Not only that, but theoretically, the Lake could be a useful water area, whereas the River is not. We can dress up the Muddy Miss all we want, but it's not practical for much of anything other than watching boats go by.

tbspqr · PostMay 10, 2007#2792007-05-10T18:46+00:00

I agree with you both. The Lake/Pond is a much more important long term development and sustainablity of the downtown area as a whole, BUT it requires SO much more including new large buildings, and the taking over of land from the railroads - easier said than done. Land by the river front is owned (i beleive) bu some governmental orginization, no huge structures are planned... a lot more people visit the arch every year... and this would be a relativly cheap, low risk way to enhance the image of the city.

gary kreie · PostMay 10, 2007#2802007-05-10T19:24+00:00

stellar wrote:They installed a 1/4 mile long urban waterway in Durham. NC. Something similar to this could be done as part of the Chouteau Lake district.

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/001050.html

So did Oklahoma City. They replaced some old alleys near downtown with a canal leading up to the new minor league ballpark.

debaliviere · PostMay 10, 2007#2812007-05-10T19:30+00:00

Perhaps a pond/lake is too unrealistic, but maybe a canal system like the one in OKC might be more feasible.

moorlander · PostMay 10, 2007#2822007-05-10T20:26+00:00

the area around the canal in OKC is veeeerrryy niiiiiiiceeee. (insert borat emoticon)

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 10, 2007#2832007-05-10T20:30+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:Perhaps a pond/lake is too unrealistic, but maybe a canal system like the one in OKC might be more feasible.

The original plan I saw included some canal off-shoots. Maybe they could start with those.

stellar · PostMay 10, 2007#2842007-05-10T21:47+00:00

bpe235 wrote:the area around the canal in OKC is veeeerrryy niiiiiiiceeee. (insert borat emoticon)

Have you been to San Antonio? Are they like the canals there? It's like a multi-tiered city. There's the lower canal level and then the upper vehicle level. It's very interesting and the walkways and boats are an alternative way of getting around. I never thought of something like that in STL, but WHY NOT!

tge-atw · PostMay 11, 2007#2852007-05-11T00:35+00:00

This is the most frustrating thread for me on the entire website. I want Chouteau's Pond so badly, but it seems to be just a dream that only the people on this website are still discussing. There was so much optimism at first with actual money (supposedly) being allocated and, if I recall, even a small property purchase. Now...........We need a real update. Where did the earmarked money go? What is happening with the award winning Grand Avenue Bridge plan from the Harvard (?) design students that incorporated the park beneath? I just can't say enough about how great this would be for the city. Who should we talk to? Can this thing be revived? Can it be brought back into public discussion? How can we draw more attention to it?

what4 · PostMay 11, 2007#2862007-05-11T03:55+00:00

i'm in agreement with everyone here. this project would have such a positive impact on downtown development.

luftmensch · PostMay 11, 2007#2872007-05-11T04:23+00:00

Richard Baron is the visionary force behind Chouteau Lake.

Unfortunately, he has not been very good at publicizing the project. He's very well connected in Democratic circles (there were rumors that a President Gore would have appointed him to higher office), but otherwise seems to enjoying keep a low profile. I heard him talk about Chouteau Lake with Greg Freeman on KWMU (back in the days when "St. Louis on the Air" actually tried to address issues specific to St. Louis), and he was brilliant and inspiring, but I haven't heard him anywhere since.

At some point, Senator Bond got excited about the project and used his power in the Republican-controlled Senate to shovel a little money in the Baron's direction.

Without the Mayor's support, however, it is hopeless. I'm just not sure Slay & co. will spend any political capital on a project that - in the best case scenario - won't come to fruition until they are long, long gone.

Besides, Barb Geismann can't stand anyone who is genuinely smart and idealistic and not beholden to the (mental) midgets of City Hall.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 11, 2007#2882007-05-11T13:49+00:00

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this wasn't a "serious" proposal, i.e. BPV, where it is "We will build this and it will be open in 20xx". It was more along the lines of "this is an example of what could be done here".

gary kreie · PostMay 11, 2007#2892007-05-11T16:18+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this wasn't a "serious" proposal, i.e. BPV, where it is "We will build this and it will be open in 20xx". It was more along the lines of "this is an example of what could be done here".

I'm surprised that the owner of land under the tracks hasn't computed that he could make more money turning all that land into a lake surrounded by buildings, condos, and restaurants, than by railroad tracks. It would easily be the most attractive real estate in town.

He could put a switch yard anywhere -- someplace where the land is a lot cheaper -- or utilize underutilized switching yards elsewhere, rather than tying up prime real estate. Who owns that land? I don't see property data online for the city.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 11, 2007#2902007-05-11T16:26+00:00

Gary Kreie wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this wasn't a "serious" proposal, i.e. BPV, where it is "We will build this and it will be open in 20xx". It was more along the lines of "this is an example of what could be done here".

I'm surprised that the owner of land under the tracks hasn't computed that he could make more money turning all that land into a lake surrounded by buildings, condos, and restaurants, than by railroad tracks.

How do you know he could?

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 11, 2007#2912007-05-11T16:35+00:00

How does anyone "know" anything? The point is that this is prime land at the intersection of growing and revitalizing areas of the city. A connection to South St. Louis is still needed after 200+ years of urban development. This project would pull together several neighborhoods. The Mill Creek Valley is keeping the central park of the City from becoming a cohesive, connected unit.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 11, 2007#2922007-05-11T16:51+00:00

Grover wrote:How does anyone "know" anything? The point is that this is prime land at the intersection of growing and revitalizing areas of the city. A connection to South St. Louis is still needed after 200+ years of urban development. This project would pull together several neighborhoods. The Mill Creek Valley is keeping the central park of the City from becoming a cohesive, connected unit.

But unless one knows how much the land and potential improvments might be worth, vs how much money the railroads make from having those tracks there, then the whole point is moot really.

tge-atw · PostMay 11, 2007#2932007-05-11T16:59+00:00

I also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't serious environmental remediation needed for the area. $$$$$$ Industry, RR's, and the city's largest trunk sewer have been there for over 150 years.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 11, 2007#2942007-05-11T17:01+00:00

TGE-ATW wrote:I also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't serious environmental remediation needed for the area. $$$$$$ Industry, RR's, and the city's largest trunk sewer have been there for over 150 years.

Nor would it surprise me.

threeonefour · PostMay 11, 2007#2952007-05-11T17:07+00:00

Luftmensch wrote:The Slay administration is not actively supporting this project. Geisman & Co. say that riverfront renovations are a bigger priority. (They want their silly water park, I guess).

They've basically left MaCormack Baron out in the cold.

At least McCormack Baron has a vision. Where's the city's vision for the riverfront?

gary kreie · PostMay 11, 2007#2962007-05-11T17:49+00:00

Sacremento's plans for Downtown Railyards

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacra ... %5E1461284

moorlander · PostMay 11, 2007#2972007-05-11T17:50+00:00

Ok, I know the pond used to be there, and they filled it in for health reasons, but what's this about a trunk sewer?

^gary, that link doesn't work.

tysalpha · PostMay 11, 2007#2982007-05-11T17:59+00:00

^ The old central sewer (pre River des Peres--which wasn't really turned into a sewer until the Central West End was subdivided) runs through that area. I didn't realize it was under the trainyards, but it does make sense since that is one of the lowest points in the city east of Jefferson.

Interesting trivia: At the turn of the century the city was actually working to upgrade and extend the trunk out towards the west end, and they were discouraging people/developers from using the River des Peres as a sewer. But before they could get very far the river was already putrified, and it became cheaper to channelize the RdP than it was to extend the downtown sewer trunk.

tge-atw · PostMay 11, 2007#2992007-05-11T18:41+00:00

The Mill Creek Sewer runs under the yards. Construction was begun in the 1850's. This has been discussed earlier in this thread, but Chouteau's pond resulted from a dam on Mill Creek. After the foetid pond was drained, St. Louisans continued to use the creek as a giant open sewer. By about 1855, the city started developing a real sewer system and Mill Creek was among the first major trunks. I mentioned this earlier, but I never miss a chance to tell one of my favorite stories. In 1896, a fire at a factory that refined petroleum products (and I think made paint) resulted in a massive amount of combustible liquids (and their attendant volatile gasses) being washed into the Mill Creek sewer. A bar owner in the valley, between Chouteau and the tracks, went down in his basement to get something and lit a lamp near a drain that went into the sewer. A large portion of the sewer exploded killing (If I remember) 6 people and ripping up the line for several blocks. Also blew manhole covers into the air throughout the southeastern CBD. Reference can be found in "Draining the Metropolis." An essay published in the volume Common Fields, an Environmental History of St. Louis."

mattonarsenal · PostMay 11, 2007#3002007-05-11T22:37+00:00

I want Chouteau's Pond so badly, but it seems to be just a dream that only the people on this website are still discussing.

I know for a fact people are actually working on this project. But, don't hold your breath. When dealing with train tracks you have to multiply project timelines by several times.

For example it only took a couple of months to tear down and rebuild the Compton bridge over 40. How long did it take to tear down and rebuild the Chouteau bridge between Spring and Vandeventer? Seems like at least two years. Or, the Arsenal overpass by the Schnucks on the Hill, that 100 foot section took almost a full year.

Maybe we'll see something happen in the next decade or so?

Brickline Greenway- Formerly Chouteau Greenway

Choose Display Mode