urbanSTL

geoffksu wrote:Yes and No.

We have made changes to MoDOT's plans to integrate more urban streetscape principles. MoDOT's version wasn't bad but still treated Third Street similar to a suburban outer road. We eliminated the road that bisects under the highway to connect to the surface parking lot entrance/exit and converted the Third Street/Morgan Street intersection from signalized to a stop sign. Lastly, we added more on-street parking on Third Street and the street adjacent to Hampton Inn.

MoDOT says that they are committed to creating pedestrian-friendly streets but everything during this process from MoDOT has been 'Move the Cars' suburban-oriented concepts.

Maybe this is a question no one person can really answer, but given that you appear to have done some work with them: Do you get the impression that this response is because they're really just doing lip-service to the idea or because they really just don't have a full understanding of what it means or how to do it? Rephrased: Is it BS or good-natured bafoonery?

I'm an engineer (electrical) and work for a firm that does quite a bit of road projects.

MoDOT's approach to projects isn't necessarily BS or bafoonery but efficiency. Their job is to build roads/highways for the citizens and to do that as cheaply as possible for the state and its tax payers. So in order to do that you get a lot of "cookie-cutter" design. Its saves their client (us) money. Another way to look at it is, their job is to engineer not to beautify. Make sure it is safe and efficient not necessarily artful.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. Just the reason behind their methods. They have a standard book of designs for roads, lighting, etc. When you open the door for more input, costs can sometimes go up. Doesn't look good on them, and we pay the price.

geoffksu wrote:The majority (70%) of our work would be cohesive with the building of a boulevard, (i.e., improvements that would complement the addition of a boulevard); the rest is dealing with a already bad situation (elevated highway) and improving pedestrian connections, defining public realm and pedestrian scale, and developing underutilized land into attractive and inviting spaces.

Thanks for that, geoff. Having worked on the Landing before, and walking there from the CBD every day, I've thought many-a-time about ways to activate this area as a Park UNDER The Highway (see what I did there?) from a Taste of the Landing, to art exhibits, to simple benches and buskers. And yes, I even wanted to propose a City to River rally/awareness event there shortly after LLRC and LLMA threw in their support.

Of course, traffic patterns will adjust somewhat, but I have yet to see convincing reasons for City+Arch+River's plan to remove Washington Avenue. Even with an updated streetscape leading people along 3rd Street, it's a very short stretch until you encounter the MLK Bridge/LL Blvd. intersection. Continuing Washington Avenue east toward the river helps diffuse traffic into the Landing -- traffic that can't be handled by Morgan Street/LL Blvd. alone.


Just spit-balling here. Penny for your thoughts?

^I was just explaining the methods to their madness (which it can literally seem like sometimes). Not saying their reasoning is correct. Their current philosophy is archaic and it comes from the old political establishment.

I don't think its necessarily how MoDOT works. Its how the government works. MoDOT is a reflection of the government.

I agree Alex! If MoDOT was truly concerned with cost and efficiency we would actually have a Department of Transportation instead of a Department of Highways and Bridges. Missouri is totally dropping the ball on being a truly multi-modal transportation agency. They are completely driven by the political interest of the out-state legislature and have little interest in promoting a complete transportation network.

The big problem with MoDOT is that they don't innovate - they follow a set of Standards from the Federal Highway/Roadway Guidelines, State Roadway/Highway Guidelines (and to a further extent Local municipalities only adhering to their own predefined Guidelines).

Following a set of Standards is good to a degree but when you won't even consider an alternative due to it not being a predefined Standard goes to show how ridiculous the Department is.

The same problem exists in our current zoning/land use regulations, i.e. minimum parking standards, etc.

Kevin B wrote:Of course, traffic patterns will adjust somewhat, but I have yet to see convincing reasons for City+Arch+River's plan to remove Washington Avenue. Even with an updated streetscape leading people along 3rd Street, it's a very short stretch until you encounter the MLK Bridge/LL Blvd. intersection. Continuing Washington Avenue east toward the river helps diffuse traffic into the Landing -- traffic that can't be handled by Morgan Street/LL Blvd. alone.

Just spit-balling here. Penny for your thoughts?

Removing Wash Ave won't happen in the short term - a replacement parking garage has to be constructed first before the Arch parking garage is demo'ed and thereby Wash Ave removed. Though, in the short term Wash Ave will be reduced to one-way from the new off-ramp/current Memorial Drive directing traffic just to the parking garage entry.

In the future, I can understand Wash Ave's removal given that in its place will be a generous pedestrian corridor connecting Wash Ave's terminus to the riverfront. A small sliver of Wash Ave will remain between Second Street and First Street acting as a drop-off/access point between the Arch grounds and the Landing.

It's going to be exciting seeing how the reinvigorated Arch grounds re-activates Laclede's Landing as well as Chouteau's Landing.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Except that Washington Avenue removal next to the Eads is part of Phase I. There's a "temporary" driveway to access the garage that would then be torn down and replaced elsewhere - likely within Laclede's Landing, at a later date.As ugly as that garage is, it's making money (was recently paid off) and now we're going to tear it down and build a brand new garage 200ft away and likely within Laclede's Landing? Just awful. One of the design competition teams had an idea that would slice into the existing garage, but leave it in place - maybe that should be explored.

We are working with plans (developed by MVVA/MoDOT) for Third Street Streetscape and they show Washington Ave as a one-way/one lane street from Memorial Drive to Second Street and in its present configuration from Second Street to the riverfront.

The garage needs to go - its a barrier between Laclede's Landing and the Arch grounds - it has served itself well in its short existence but will be better served in the Landing providing parking for both the Landing and the Arch Grounds (and with the new Museum main entry located across from the Old Courthouse more visitors will park downtown and walk through the improved Keiner Plaza, Courthouse, Luther Ely Square and then to the Museum). And with constructing the parking garage in the Landing, we can finally develop a parking lot into something more useful (yes, a parking garage with street-level retail is more useful and pleasant than a surface lot).

At this point, MVVA's exploration/conceptual designing has to be over - if CityARchRiver plans on making the October 2015 deadline, MVVA has to be developing Construction Documents as we speak in order to get the project bid out and constructed.

Response to MoDOT's claim of two north / south routes in STL. Also, completely agree with the above. Closing Washington Ave. to LKS is an awful, awful idea, which I might expound upon soon.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

The only sane way to keep Wash Ave from Memorial to the riverfront is with I-70 converted to a Boulevard - in its current configuration there is no active connection - Wash Ave. just becomes Eads Bridge.

In the proposed improvement plan (below), there is no connection from eastbound Wash Ave to the riverfront (the oddball connection becomes a Texas U-turn for people getting off the new off-ramp to turn to southbound Memorial Ave.

geoffksu wrote:The big problem with MoDOT is that they don't innovate - they follow a set of Standards from the Federal Highway/Roadway Guidelines, State Roadway/Highway Guidelines (and to a further extent Local municipalities only adhering to their own predefined Guidelines).

Following a set of Standards is good to a degree but when you won't even consider an alternative due to it not being a predefined Standard goes to show how ridiculous the Department is.

This actually isn't true. MODOT has been a leader in "Practical Design", which allows for flexibility from the traditional standards/guidelines. The problem is that Practical Design generally has been used to focus on cost-cutting as opposed to using design flexibility for better community-oriented solutions. In contrast, "Context Sensitive Solutions" is being adopted more and more elsewhere to harness greater public involvement and interdisciplinary professionals along with design flexibility to arrive at superior outcomes that have greater public support.

geoffksu wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:Except that Washington Avenue removal next to the Eads is part of Phase I. There's a "temporary" driveway to access the garage that would then be torn down and replaced elsewhere - likely within Laclede's Landing, at a later date.As ugly as that garage is, it's making money (was recently paid off) and now we're going to tear it down and build a brand new garage 200ft away and likely within Laclede's Landing? Just awful. One of the design competition teams had an idea that would slice into the existing garage, but leave it in place - maybe that should be explored.

We are working with plans (developed by MVVA/MoDOT) for Third Street Streetscape and they show Washington Ave as a one-way/one lane street from Memorial Drive to Second Street and in its present configuration from Second Street to the riverfront.

The garage needs to go - its a barrier between Laclede's Landing and the Arch grounds - it has served itself well in its short existence but will be better served in the Landing providing parking for both the Landing and the Arch Grounds (and with the new Museum main entry located across from the Old Courthouse more visitors will park downtown and walk through the improved Keiner Plaza, Courthouse, Luther Ely Square and then to the Museum). And with constructing the parking garage in the Landing, we can finally develop a parking lot into something more useful (yes, a parking garage with street-level retail is more useful and pleasant than a surface lot).

At this point, MVVA's exploration/conceptual designing has to be over - if CityARchRiver plans on making the October 2015 deadline, MVVA has to be developing Construction Documents as we speak in order to get the project bid out and constructed.

I disagree so, so very much with this. Yes, the connection between the Landing and the Archgrounds could be better -- and a large reason for that is because of the garage standing directly in its way. But signage directs visitors to the elevators, there's a path nearby to the west and LKS to the east. C+A+R originally justified removing the garage by explicitly calling out the abundance of Pine Street parking in the Kiener garages. It's either a bait-and-switch or, more ominously, poor foresight, to now insist that the garage should be removed and rebuilt on Laclede's Landing!

You know, Laclede's Landing -- the historic Laclede's Landing, recognized by most as the original St. Louis settlement. The lone business district east of the Interstate. The one with the tight streets surfaced with delicate cobblestone. The one with sidewalk cafes and bar-hopping patrons criss-crossing the streets. Almost half of it already IS parking anyway (due to planning mistakes of the past and general dilapidation) and now you think it makes sense to transfer the Arch lot one block north and add to that?!

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the addition of a few cookie-cutter street level spaces makes up for a large, unsightly garage (and yes, St. Louis most definitely builds its garages large, unsightly and cookie-cutter) and the further scarring of Laclede's Landing's historic status.

The streets of Laclede's Landing can't (and shouldn't) bear the traffic burden of the Arch, nor should the district itself become a highway off-ramp to accomodate one-hour tourists. As Alex said, there were several more graceful solutions to the north edge parking issue which allowed for easy access to the Archgrounds AND attraction parking on the actual site of the actual attraction. All without severing the Grounds' one remaining east-west connection between the City and the River.

geoffksu wrote:In the proposed improvement plan (below), there is no connection from eastbound Wash Ave to the riverfront (the oddball connection becomes a Texas U-turn for people getting off the new off-ramp to turn to southbound Memorial Ave.

It doesn't seem like much of an "improvement plan" if formerly accessible connections are severed, does it?

roger wyoming II wrote:This actually isn't true. MODOT has been a leader in "Practical Design", which allows for flexibility from the traditional standards/guidelines. The problem is that Practical Design generally has been used to focus on cost-cutting as opposed to using design flexibility for better community-oriented solutions. In contrast, "Context Sensitive Solutions" is being adopted more and more elsewhere to harness greater public involvement and interdisciplinary professionals along with design flexibility to arrive at superior outcomes that have greater public support.

Practical Design leader or not - their original concept for Third Street downtown was to re-construct it as a Suburban outer road. MoDOT's Standards are designed for suburban context and they are using those same Standards for an urban context. MoDOT's mission is to move vehicular traffic as fast as possible with little regard to pedestrians (granted they are slowly improving - emphasis on slowly).

I still stand firm on my original statement.

gone corporate wrote:It should be multi-storied and able to handle as many cars as the current lot does, at minimum.

Why is this so important?

gone corporate wrote:Focus: If a new garage is to be built on the Landing, then I hope it's done right.

It should be built east of North Commercial Street, abutting the elevated railroad tracks.
It should stretch from just north of the Eads Bridge, northwards to Laclede's Landing Boulevard.
It should be multi-storied and able to handle as many cars as the current lot does, at minimum.
It should keep open the cross streets (Lucas and Morgan) underneath the structure's rising stories.
It should take down the current garage at North Commercial between Morgan & Lucas for one large structure (think: Galleria parking).
It should let traffic in and out from Leonor K. Sulluvan Boulevard and Laclede's Landing Boulevard.
It should leave room on First Street for future construction projects, such as where the old Switzer Building was.
It should not be built on First Street, or abutt First Street, save for pedestrian access behind other buildings.
It should have a red brick facade complementary to the rest of the Landing.
And most of all...
It absolutely should not have vehicular access to or from First Street.

As luck would have it, over the summer the firm Carl Walker, Inc. completed a study titled "Arch Parking Alternatives Study" and proposed three alternative sites for the new parking garage structure (one site is located next to the Missouri Athletic Club and I am leaving that one out of this discussion.) Each alternative considered does incorporate street level retail into the structure.

Option One (two bay, single helix ramp design with grade level and 4 additional levels, capacity of 730 cars @ cost of $12.8 million) - the large surface lot owned by Drury Development Corp. located northeast of the Wash Ave/Memorial Drive intersection:



(This site is also being proposed by Drury for a residential tower (they are working with Lawrence Group to put together a proposal to obtain financing.)


Option Two (two bay, single helix ramp design with grade level and 7 addition levels, capacity of 720 cars @cost of $13.5 million)- the large surface lot owned by Block 25 Associates located between North First Street, North Second Street, and Morgan Street, Laclede's Landing Boulevard (building in white):



So, as one can see the two proposed alternatives are located within Laclede's Landing proper BUT are accessed via wider streets built to accommodate greater volumes of traffic (not via the narrow, pedestrian-oriented, histroic cobblestones streets). Option One would be accessed via Third Street, and Option Two via Laclede's Landing Boulevard.

One additional site was reviewed (not in great detail) between North First Street and Leonor K. Sullivan Blvd adjacent to Eads Bridge. Conceptually it would accommodate 950+ cars and would be designed with ten levels (not in character with the Landing context). Being accessed via Sullivan Blvd would be subject to flooding risks and could be closed.

No preferred alternative was selected but rather the report stated that JNEM would have to work with private land owners in developing the parking structure and in the end the design would be a combination of each alternative.

Developing this garage within the Landing solves multiple goals:
1. Develops under-utilized surface lots within the Landing and provides new economic development within the district.
2. Patrons would be forced to become walkable! They would provide foot traffic within the Landing as they walk to the Arch grounds and as they walk back, more than likely providing an economic boost to the district.
3. Allows for development of additional green space, program elements and expansion of Arch grounds features by eliminating the current parking structure.

If nothing else, these alternatives (as well as visitors parking downtown) forces individuals to not be able to park on the Arch grounds, visit solely the Arch and leave - it makes people WALK, see Downtown, the Landing, etc. It makes people see more of what the area as to offer, entices them to spend money at local businesses.

The current structure gives people the suburban option to park right up to the front door and never see anything else. That is why the current structure is outmoded and needs to be demolished.

^Yeah it makes people walk, but it also takes out a huge swath of land that could otherwise be used for businesses, residences, retail etc.

720 spaces? Why does it have to be so gargantuan? That seems like an awful lot of parking when the current parking garage never really seems to be full.