urbanSTL

A bit of conversation on the Arch got on the crime thread (of all places).

If I were king, I'd focus the 2015 goals on the grounds themselves and not on the connections.... an expanded and modernized musuem space with more amenities as well as a healthy and activated landscape is what is sorely needed. Access is neither great nor a huge problem. Studying the complex issues of the surrounding street grid and access are important and should be part of the overall project, but it should be secondary to the fundamental need to improve the grounds and museum. That the private $$ raised so far are going to the lid project is pretty telling. If we get to 2015 and there is no wow factor on the grounds and all we really have is a lid, that will be a huge disappointment.

Re Arch grounds, I went there Saturday morning for the first time in a while. Going, I went down Wash Ave which of course takes you under the overpass. Accessing the park wasn't too bad and hopefully there will be more businesses opening on lower Wash Ave. Once in the park, I did notice a homeless man on a bench along the pathway (near the parking garage). But even more noticable to me were the singinficant number of trees removed from the planters.... not sure if they were diseased or not. Upon leaving, again the crossing of Memorial was not too bad, and I do think the pedestrian crossing improvements made a few years ago are a big improvement.

Overall, my impression of the grounds and access was that it was far from impressive but not a turn-off, either. There was a rather sizeable number of people going to the Arch grounds, btw.... many tourists as well some downtowners, for example a young woman walking her two dogs.

Not sure what was going on Saturday, but pedestrian access to the Arch can be downright dangerous during morning and afternoon rush hour. With all the flashing lights, I've seen tons of tourists stand at the cross walk, not knowing when to cross, hesitate, step in front of moving cars, etc. etc. It's a really confusing mess to drive, much less walk.

When I called the street department about this they acknowledged it was a bad & dangerous situation, and they're aware of the problems, but they were waiting for the redesign of the Arch grounds before they do anything.

I've never understood why they don't plant trees in the empty in the planters. One of my favorite things about the Arch grounds is the canopy the trees form, I'd love to see the blanks filled in. Maybe they're just waiting to figure out which trees are the best for the area?

I actually love the grounds the way they are, and to me, the wow factor is the Arch in the middle of a serene park, I love how it rises above the trees...some minor improvements to infrastructure and stuff would suit me just fine, but the museum does need updating.

And I too think it's a shame public input is clearly not wanted nor required...

roger wyoming II wrote:A bit of conversation on the Arch got on the crime thread (of all places).

If I were king, I'd focus the 2015 goals on the grounds themselves and not on the connections.... an expanded and modernized musuem space with more amenities as well as a healthy and activated landscape is what is sorely needed. Access is neither great nor a huge problem. Studying the complex issues of the surrounding street grid and access are important and should be part of the overall project, but it should be secondary to the fundamental need to improve the grounds and museum. That the private $$ raised so far are going to the lid project is pretty telling. If we get to 2015 and there is no wow factor on the grounds and all we really have is a lid, that will be a huge disappointment.

The whole purpose of the project (hence the name City+Arch+River) is creating connections between downtown, the Arch grounds and the River. Deleting the connections from the project and merely completing only the grounds improvement would probably result in another 50 years of poor or little to no connections. Also, the the entire notion of what people are fighting for is creating a connective, pedestrian-oriented, urban landscape. So unless you live in the Counties and are a big fan of driving your car everywhere, then yes, accessing the Arch grounds by car is no big deal.

The money raised for the Lid is not private - its mainly from state, local and federal funding sources (from 01/25/12 STLtoday article - $22 million - federal funds; $25 million - state highway funds; $10 million - private donations). Separately, GRG has committed $15 million to the Mississippi River Trail improvements which include Sullivan Boulevard improvements (GRG was created in 11/2000 via the passage of the Clean Water, Safe Parks and Community Initiative (Prop C) in City, County and St. Chas County with 1/10th of 1 cent sales tax funding the District - AKA GRG's contribution is public funding.

I'm not sure, but I do know some of the trees they took down didn't look sick, so maybe...I only know this because I'm on the Arch grounds each day and have noticed that the Park Rangers have been taking down some trees sporadically over the past year or so and I don't remember any of the trees looking bad.

I like that Cincinnati bridge, nice wide sidewalks to handle tourists

roger wyoming II wrote:^ The statement that the "whole purpose" of the project is connections is incorrect. But I do agree, and stated, that connections are important...

Sorry, three of the ten Design Goals of the C+A+R project are related to connections...

roger wyoming II wrote:^ No problem. btw, this all started when Jack Danforth tried to get NPS to sell some park land to the city so they could put in an aquarium or museum.... the complaint was that the grounds were inactive and not meeting the needs of an urban park.

The landscape, as beautiful and under appreciated as it maybe, is under-utilized. The original Dan Kiley plans for the landscape called for more active nodes, historical recreations, separate museums and cafes at the north and south overlook. Though, unfortunately, the original plan was reduced, simplified and combined (where feasible) to maintain as much of the original program as possible. The same could be said for today like fifty years ago - program elements are being reduced or simplified.

As a landscape architect/urban planner, I can speak to that over 75% of our original concepts are simplified, altered, or otherwise removed from a design. For the most part, it is a client-driven, funding-driven, or a regulatory-driven decision that changes a design. During the competition, designers were expected to develop concepts that were eye-catching, unique and lived up to the nature of a international design competition. Though, during the design development and final design stages of a project, parts of that eye-catching design have to be lessen to meet regulatory, permitting, and other approvals necessary to move forward to contract construction documents.

As much as I would love to see a boulevard between downtowns eastern edge and the Arch grounds, a focus on connections/linkages to Chouteau's Landing (to create a catalyst for development to the south), and other larger scale project elements - there needs to be a point where we all remain grounded to what is feasibly and financially possible. As well as understand that projects evolve and can be accomplished in a phased approach (i.e., overall design completed in early stages, phase one-infrastructure put in place, phase two-design fleshed out and constructed).

Just look at the Gateway Mall - Citygraden was the first step in completing a master plan to transform the Mall. Kiener Plaza and Luther Ely Square are phase two implementation of the Mall Master Plan. With subsequent smaller, phased implementation we can be sure that the final design has been well thought and fleshed out to achieve the grand plan.

The other key component by utilizing a phased approach - private investment has an opportunity to partner to see the grand master plan completed rather than relying on public financing to push a larger, yet lesser design, project to completion.

I hadn't seen the newest mock-ups for the design until the new site launched. Interestingly, it looks like they've incorporated the sweeping glass convex museum entrance into an elongated hobbit-hole (still think the convex entrance alone is better).

I still don't think it's imaginative or fresh enough to encourage any serious private funding -- this will be a project that comes out to a 70-30 public-private split...not the original intention.

The lid is really only a failure in that they are closing Memorial Drive in favor of it. Heaven forbid someone in a city encounter traffic! The removal of Washington Avenue is a sore spot, the added I-70 infrastructure is ominous and the new pics seem to show a fully-pedestrian riverfront. And count me among those who think the new Kiener design is a far cry worse then the current one.

Their slowly revealing a competent design, but based on the 2015 deadline, I suspect the project design won't get to the point it needs to be at to justify the expense.

But we shall see...

Here's the response I got:

"Imran,
Thank you for your inquiry about the CityArchRiver project. The Foundation
and our partners are always willing to meet with, and listen to, all groups
and individuals that have thoughts and concerns about this project. We are
very familiar with City to River's proposal and have met with the
organization's leadership on many occasions over the last few years. They
have also met with other partners involved in the project, including MoDOT.

Removing the interstate and replacing it with a boulevard would not ease
pedestrian or bike flow from downtown into the Arch grounds or to the river.
A four to six lane boulevard would restrict pedestrian and bike access, not
make it better because it would force pedestrians to interact with cars,
tractor trailers and other trucks that use this essential north-south
interstate corridor, one of only two that exists in the region. Even with
traffic lights and a slowing of traffic, pedestrians are safer when
segregated from interstate vehicle traffic. Even after the new Mississippi
River Bridge is completed, this stretch of highway will carry significant
numbers of vehicles (traffic from northbound I-55 to westbound I-70).

Covering the depressed lanes of I-70 with a landscaped park is a cost
effective way to provide a safe and accessible entrance to the Arch grounds
by all tourists and residents, including people with disabilities and young
families. It will make the Arch grounds part of the city and the region by
providing a continuous connection from the Old Courthouse to the River, with
no steps, curbs or cars to contend with.

Thank you again for your interest. We realize with a project of this
magnitude, not everyone will agree with the design that is chosen. We
firmly believe the Park Over the Highway and other street improvements are
the best solution to connect the city with the Arch and the river in a way
that is safe and accessible for the broadest number of visitors."

imran wrote:Here's the response I got:

"Imran,
Thank you for your inquiry about the CityArchRiver project. The Foundation
and our partners are always willing to meet with, and listen to, all groups
and individuals that have thoughts and concerns about this project. We are
very familiar with City to River's proposal and have met with the
organization's leadership on many occasions over the last few years. They
have also met with other partners involved in the project, including MoDOT.

Removing the interstate and replacing it with a boulevard would not ease
pedestrian or bike flow from downtown into the Arch grounds or to the river.
A four to six lane boulevard would restrict pedestrian and bike access, not
make it better because it would force pedestrians to interact with cars,
tractor trailers and other trucks that use this essential north-south
interstate corridor, one of only two that exists in the region. Even with
traffic lights and a slowing of traffic, pedestrians are safer when
segregated from interstate vehicle traffic. Even after the new Mississippi
River Bridge is completed, this stretch of highway will carry significant
numbers of vehicles (traffic from northbound I-55 to westbound I-70).

Covering the depressed lanes of I-70 with a landscaped park is a cost
effective way to provide a safe and accessible entrance to the Arch grounds
by all tourists and residents, including people with disabilities and young
families. It will make the Arch grounds part of the city and the region by
providing a continuous connection from the Old Courthouse to the River, with
no steps, curbs or cars to contend with.

Thank you again for your interest. We realize with a project of this
magnitude, not everyone will agree with the design that is chosen. We
firmly believe the Park Over the Highway and other street improvements are
the best solution to connect the city with the Arch and the river in a way
that is safe and accessible for the broadest number of visitors."

Proper and calculated croswalks would allow for a comfortable crossing experience. What's most frustrating might be the complete disregard for the elevated lanes just north of this project. I guess that's out of CAR's jurisdiction.

^ The boiler plate answer. They're wrong about how best to connect a city and riverfront, and wrong about traffic. CAR, STL Streets Dept and MoDOT are wedded to the same process - other ideas be damned.

Boiler plate is right. I got almost the exact same answer in a letter from MODOT in regards to my questions about the boulevard.

I wish they'd prove to me why a boulevard isn't possible rather than just telling me they don't think it will work.

Disappointing to say the least, but they've made up their minds and any public forum for conversation is just a farce.

Question - whatever happened to the 'a boulevard can work with the lid' talk? Are we back to an either-or scenario?

Not that I think C+A+R will listen either way - just thought that was an elegant compromise.

-RBB

Removing the interstate and replacing it with a boulevard would not ease
pedestrian or bike flow from downtown into the Arch grounds or to the river.
A four to six lane boulevard would restrict pedestrian and bike access, not
make it better because it would force pedestrians to interact with cars,
tractor trailers and other trucks [...]. Even with
traffic lights and a slowing of traffic, pedestrians are safer when
segregated from interstate vehicle traffic. [...]

[The "Lid"] will make the Arch grounds part of the city and the region by
providing a continuous connection from the Old Courthouse to the River, with
no steps, curbs or cars to contend with.

I can understand government agencies and other people arguing that I-70 is too important to the region to remove. The rest of the argument from CAR, however, baffles me completely, especially the part about them apparently closing Broadway, as well.

imran wrote:Here's the response I got:

"Imran,
Thank you for your inquiry about the CityArchRiver project. The Foundation
and our partners are always willing to meet with, and listen to, all groups
and individuals that have thoughts and concerns about this project. We are
very familiar with City to River's proposal and have met with the
organization's leadership on many occasions over the last few years. They
have also met with other partners involved in the project, including MoDOT.

Removing the interstate and replacing it with a boulevard would not ease
pedestrian or bike flow from downtown into the Arch grounds or to the river.
A four to six lane boulevard would restrict pedestrian and bike access, not
make it better because it would force pedestrians to interact with cars,
tractor trailers and other trucks that use this essential north-south
interstate corridor, one of only two that exists in the region. Even with
traffic lights and a slowing of traffic, pedestrians are safer when
segregated from interstate vehicle traffic. Even after the new Mississippi
River Bridge is completed, this stretch of highway will carry significant
numbers of vehicles (traffic from northbound I-55 to westbound I-70).

Covering the depressed lanes of I-70 with a landscaped park is a cost
effective way to provide a safe and accessible entrance to the Arch grounds
by all tourists and residents, including people with disabilities and young
families. It will make the Arch grounds part of the city and the region by
providing a continuous connection from the Old Courthouse to the River, with
no steps, curbs or cars to contend with.

Thank you again for your interest. We realize with a project of this
magnitude, not everyone will agree with the design that is chosen. We
firmly believe the Park Over the Highway and other street improvements are
the best solution to connect the city with the Arch and the river in a way
that is safe and accessible for the broadest number of visitors."

I think the design issue to focus on now is the closure of Memorial Drive. Even the most optimistic of us now recognize that the downtown depressed (and elevated) lanes aren't going anywhere for awhile. But to close Memorial Drive and reroute that traffic onto Broadway and Fourth, is just asinine.

What would be a worse experience for pedestrians -- accessing the Archgrounds via an integrated lid, crossing four relief lanes of Memorial Drive or crossing unfettered and dealing with the constant noise/annoyance of cars constantly backed up, being forced to turn onto Chestnut and Market off Memorial?

I'd go with the first option, personally. I suspect C+A+R's response would be that people on the lid wouldn't cross at the crosswalks, causing safety issues -- but it's a safety issue they're creating. Just because there's a "park over the highway" doesn't mean you can't force people into or out of it from crosswalks at its edge.

No, the best option now is probably to combat the closure of Memorial Drive. Their response to you, imran, is that they can't make a boulevard because it would be filled with I-70 traffic. Well, with I-70 still in place, Memorial Drive doesn't hold that traffic and their point is moot. Pedestrians already are segregated from interstate traffic, and Memorial Drive doesn't have the 55-to-70 connector traffic.