Share
2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostAug 24, 2010#176

My personal hopes for the removal of the Depressed I-70 is to have the entire highway in the ditch converted into underground parking. After all, underground is the preferred parking for most people, at least on this board (out of sight, out of mind). Its primary hinderance is the cost of constructing it, but with the giant highway ditch already there, it would be a real easy converstion. I'd be in favor of even expanding that ditch to include all of the land under Memorial, right up to the foundations of the Hyatt and other proximate buildings. I've gone on this idea before, but the City+Arch+River has me rethinking what is possible.

Now, with the City to River presentation, I bet that each and every one of the design teams could see this concept being both a better option than the depressed highway, as well as providing convenient parking that doesn't take away from the beauty of the Arch Grounds. While I personally would love to have underground parking run all the way under Kiener Plaza as well, I'd be content with having this area converted, which would both be convenient for visitors to Downtown & the Arch and allow for other parking structures in Downtown in prime real estate to become replaceable with new building construction. I'd love to see the north two blocks of Kiener along Chestnut being something that is not a parking garage.

With all the positioning in the Arch Grounds competition of the Ely Smith park for new underground parking, I would like to request that any such new underground parking be incorporateable into a potential major underground garage in what is now Depressed I-70. More people Downtown, more cars out of sight, and more opportunity to find new uses to the major garages in Downtown.
40
New MemberNew Member
40

PostAug 24, 2010#177

Gone Corporate wrote:My personal hopes for the removal of the Depressed I-70 is to have the entire highway in the ditch converted into underground parking. After all, underground is the preferred parking for most people, at least on this board (out of sight, out of mind). Its primary hinderance is the cost of constructing it, but with the giant highway ditch already there, it would be a real easy converstion. I'd be in favor of even expanding that ditch to include all of the land under Memorial, right up to the foundations of the Hyatt and other proximate buildings. I've gone on this idea before, but the City+Arch+River has me rethinking what is possible.

Now, with the City to River presentation, I bet that each and every one of the design teams could see this concept being both a better option than the depressed highway, as well as providing convenient parking that doesn't take away from the beauty of the Arch Grounds. While I personally would love to have underground parking run all the way under Kiener Plaza as well, I'd be content with having this area converted, which would both be convenient for visitors to Downtown & the Arch and allow for other parking structures in Downtown in prime real estate to become replaceable with new building construction. I'd love to see the north two blocks of Kiener along Chestnut being something that is not a parking garage.

With all the positioning in the Arch Grounds competition of the Ely Smith park for new underground parking, I would like to request that any such new underground parking be incorporateable into a potential major underground garage in what is now Depressed I-70. More people Downtown, more cars out of sight, and more opportunity to find new uses to the major garages in Downtown.
I love your idea and it would allow us to follow behnisch's proposal of connecting all the streets as the parkiong within gentry's landing would become redundant. We could also maybe remove the parkinglot behind the missouri athletic club and the parking garage closest to the river next to ballpark village.
712
Senior MemberSenior Member
712

PostAug 25, 2010#178

Grant Park in Chicago has nearly 10,000 parking spots under Michigan Avenue. What you suggest is certainly possible. I'm more comfortable with that than putting the MetroLink on a new, unstudied alignment that would take an extra five years to figure out.
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostAug 25, 2010#179

Here's why I don't think "beyond 2015" for replacing the depressed and elevated lanes has any chance of being realized (and forgive me if someone has covered this earlier in the thread -- I haven't read for a while).

The new bridge is going in based on the existing I-70, which in a cruel piece of anti-urbanism is supposed to be renamed I-44 from the depressed lanes to the the new bridge interchange. I'd bet that new 70/44 interchange will have a pricetag in the multimillions, if not the tens of millions.

And don't several of the Arch Grounds proposals involve some rebuilding or reconfiguring of the current 55/70/44 interchange at the PSB?

I submit that there's not even a minute chance that the federal and two state governments will spend many millions to build the new bridge and interchange, and possibly many millions more to redo the PSB interchange, and possibly many millions more to build "the lid," only to redo it during any of our current lifetimes. This all has to be done with a master plan, which requires a scale of leadership that simply doesn't exist currently.
8,911
Life MemberLife Member
8,911

PostAug 25, 2010#180

^ C2R is certainly embarking on uncharted territory for StL.

Just take a sec to read Alex's signature.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostAug 25, 2010#181

bonwich wrote:This all has to be done with a master plan, which requires a scale of leadership that simply doesn't exist currently.
Don't think that those involved with the City to River effort don't know this...stay tuned.
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostAug 26, 2010#182

Bonwich, I think the opportunity for City to River and local leadership in all this is not the new bridge being built at the moment even though it provides the critical link to make it happen but what hasn't happened on the politcal end and a grant application that strengthens the City to River case.

What hasn't happened is a multi year transportation bill which got pushed off the plate. In other words, the best shot of securing federal funds for removing I-70 will come in political horse trading still left to be done. I would say City to River's timing is better then ever and a blessing that it wasn't competing against the bridge outright. Even the fact that the new bridge master was not full funded as originally envisioned might be a blessing in disguided.

The other opportunity is that East West Gateway council put together a strong TIGER II grant application for downtown, the grant takes on a connectivity approach from funding of a new 22nd street interchange to securing funds for the greenway trestle on the northside. The point being is that the TIGER grant application emphasizes connections and the grid that ties things together from the north and west. City to River is making the case of connecting to the east. The Tiger II application in itself is a much more comprehensive approach to regions transportation needs and such a grant for downtown would be a definitive push in what the feds favor.

Finally things do change, case in point is the 22nd Street Parkway that was part of a master planned inner beltway. That plan has been replaced by a MoDOT/City agreement to share cost the removal of what was a feeble attempt to build an nner beltway.
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostAug 26, 2010#183

Dredger wrote:Finally things do change, case in point is the 22nd Street Parkway that was part of a master planned inner beltway. That plan has been replaced by a MoDOT/City agreement to share cost the removal of what was a feeble attempt to build an nner beltway.
We should hope that the 22nd Street Parkway evolution isn't a precedent for anything. Its origins lie in the Eisenhower-era destruction of the downtown grid that gave us the very part of I-70 we're now trying to remove. And best I can tell, the current unfinished connections at 22nd Street were built about 1980, which would provide an analogous completion of any removal of the depressed lanes in about 2045.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostAug 27, 2010#184

All 5 teams support removing I-70: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=18
8,911
Life MemberLife Member
8,911

PostAug 27, 2010#185

Alex Ihnen wrote:
bonwich wrote:This all has to be done with a master plan, which requires a scale of leadership that simply doesn't exist currently.
Don't think that those involved with the City to River effort don't know this...stay tuned.
I could care less or I couldn't care less? You know or you don't know? :D
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostSep 22, 2010#186

In the drawings on the City to River web site, it shows the narrowed boulevard pushed to the East side of the current I-70 corridor against the Arch grounds, and new buildings on the West side of the Boulevard in front of existing buildings. I noticed in MVVA's narrative, page 240 (and 251) in the Beyond 2015 section, they propose putting the narrowed boulevard on the West side of the I-70 corridor to allow for the remainder of the strip against the Arch grounds to be used for the bicycle loop, and to "carve out landscape rooms that could be filled with buildings or park space as new Park Service needs arise".

I'm not sure who would actually own that strip against the park, but new buildings there -- such as restaurants -- could open right out onto the park without a road to cross. It could be real interesting down by the new Cathedral Square if the Old Cathedral could be adjacent to city buildings again as it was when it was built.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostSep 22, 2010#187

Any updates for City to River? Any new ground gained?
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostSep 27, 2010#188

Should the I-70 trench be utilized as a 2,000-space underground parking garage? (Requisite link to my blog post)



And a link to Gone Corporate's previous essay on the matter, as well:
Gone Corporate wrote:How about the closure of the depressed sections of I-70, as an integral part of the City-to-River initiative, be combined to create a consolidated parking area?

Reasoning: All that depressed space could be turned into multilayered underground parking, which I see as preferable to above-ground parking towers and far superior to surface lots. It could be accessible to the terminal stops of 70 eastbound and 44/55 northbound. It would be a solid revenue source as well as a centralization point for commuters and visitors, emerging from their vehicles at the foot of the Arch grounds and the very front of Downtown, easing access to Downtown for those visiting. We could end up with a major Downtown parking area easily comparable in size to the parking garages for the Galleria, totally underground and out of sight.

[Read 875 more words...]
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 27, 2010#189

I think it's a bit of overkill to have 2,000 spaces, they simply aren't needed, BUT utilizing the already excavated depressed lanes would allow approximately 400 spots, which would be great! This would also mean that Smith Square would not need to be excavated.
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostSep 27, 2010#190

^ Definitely overkill if parking is not removed from elsewhere at the same time. But the garage is also extra long and would be capable of servicing almost the entire length of Memorial Drive along the Arch grounds.

How do you calculate 400 spots? By my own measurements, quite a bit of trench widening would still be required as I-70 as it is is too narrow to accommodate a minimum 2 rows of parking (100-120 ft wide).
8,911
Life MemberLife Member
8,911

PostOct 05, 2010#191

Dallas has a similar project going on where they are building a lid over a highway that slices through downtown. Neat to see how other cities are combating portions of their urban freeways.

http://www.woodallrodgerspark.org/
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 05, 2010#192

I do think the Dallas project is pretty cool, but it's interesting to note that they're addressing a different problem. They identified a lack of common green space in their downtown as a problem and are creating a needed park. Downtown St. Louis doesn't need more green space. We have the Gateway Mall and the Arch grounds, as well as a few smaller civic gathering spots. This is what makes covering I-70 downtown an expensive aesthetic issue and not an answer to a real need.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostNov 09, 2010#193

Does this initiative still have a pulse?
453
Full MemberFull Member
453

PostNov 09, 2010#194

ttricamo wrote:Does this initiative still have a pulse?
I expect the main desire right now is to ensure that the Memorial Dr. plans related to the Arch design -- which should be revealed in a bit more than another month -- do not conflict with the ability of a boulevard being built in the longer term.

It would be nice to see greater public engagement on behalf the Arch team... it is woeful at this point, so who knows what they are thinking.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 09, 2010#195

Roger Wyoming wrote:I expect the main desire right now is to ensure that the Memorial Dr. plans related to the Arch design -- which should be revealed in a bit more than another month -- do not conflict with the ability of a boulevard being built in the longer term.
Ding, ding, ding! (We're in the trenches - so to speak)
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostJan 31, 2011#196

In the "Report to the Community" schematics for the 2015 site plan, I see that we have a "lid" over roughly a one city block wide tract of I-70.

Has the "Boulevard" ship sailed?
547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostJan 31, 2011#197

ttricamo wrote:In the "Report to the Community" schematics for the 2015 site plan, I see that we have a "lid" over roughly a one city block wide tract of I-70.

Has the "Boulevard" ship sailed?
Alex suggested in another thread that the BLVD could still work. I hope that it comes a reality.
30
New MemberNew Member
30

PostJan 31, 2011#198

I was extremely disappointed that Michael Van Valkenburgh didn't even mention the concept of highway removal on Wednesday. I was expecting him to address it when he talked about the cap. At least a passing "this wouldn't preclude further development" would have been nice.
190
Junior MemberJunior Member
190

PostFeb 01, 2011#199

in theory, the boulevard could dip under the lid.
38
New MemberNew Member
38

PostFeb 02, 2011#200

I don't know if this link has already been posted but this is a link to the Congress for New Urbanism's initiative called, "Highways to Boulevards." It's pretty interesting to read the success stories in Portland and Milwaukee and the ongoing campaigns in New Orleans and Seattle.

http://www.cnu.org/highways
Read more posts (574 remaining)
Share