Share
512
Senior MemberSenior Member
512

PostDec 04, 2012#426

geoffksu wrote: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.
geoffksu wrote: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.
Sigh...

People driving in to see one thing will drive in and see one thing...regardless of whether they're parked directly within that one thing (see: The Arch) or a block away. All these garage designs do is further dismantle the best qualities of Laclede's Landing -- mainly its sense of history and architecture.

I am, however, very interested to see what Drury proposes for a residential tower on that southwest corner there. THAT'S the kind of development Laclede's Landing needs -- actual warm bodies that invest in the district and its businesses. Not a brick-faced concrete behemoth that throws a bone to so-called "street life" with shallow, cubbie-hole retail pods. A tower -- respectful of the look/approach to Laclede's Landing -- will do more for the district than a garage ever could. And hopefully it'd result in a re-connected Lucas Street too!

I'll say it again -- JNEM's parking concerns shouldn't be pushed off onto a nearby district. It's yet another instance of this supposed city enhancement project catering only to the expansion of the passive national park.

Also: Alex, wouldn't it be a nice bullet in City to River's chamber if you could get Drury Development on board, saying they'd be more inclined to build if it opened up to a street-level boulevard...!
1,064
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,064

PostDec 04, 2012#427

While this is peripheral in the grand scheme of things, one thing that can really bring life to a park like this is if there are options for dining establishments to open in the park itself. Imagine for instance if provision were made for eating/drinking establishments on the poolsides, one on the north side of the north pool and visible from the Landing, and the other on the west side of the south pool accessible from the old cathedral. Maybe I didn't see this in the grand plan, but it seems like an obvious way to encourage more people to use the arch grounds.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostDec 04, 2012#428

roger wyoming II wrote:seems like the new interstate infrastructure planned for the area adds difficulty to developing the Drury property... any thoughts on that? One of the benefits of the boulevard is that it would make it a lot easier to develop properties such as the vital NE corner of Washington & Memorial. If that property could be developed for a tower, I could live with a high-standard garage in LL (option 2). But I agree with Presby, even a step above average structure just isn't acceptable down there.
In a meeting with one of the top brass from Drury Development, they have no concern - boulevard or interstate - they are putting together a proposal to obtain financing. They are more excited about the improvements being made to the Third Street Streetscape and connections to the Arch ground for their proposed building than what happens to the elevated highway. Not that they don't want to have the conversion to a boulevard, that they understand the time and resources involved before that becomes a reality.
1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostDec 04, 2012#429

^^I believe JNEM was against adding anything like that on the grounds. It would mess with the "purity" of everything. Not positive if that was the case but pretty sure I remember seeing that.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostDec 04, 2012#430

Kevin B wrote:People driving in to see one thing will drive in and see one thing...regardless of whether they're parked directly within that one thing (see: The Arch) or a block away. All these garage designs do is further dismantle the best qualities of Laclede's Landing -- mainly its sense of history and architecture.

I am, however, very interested to see what Drury proposes for a residential tower on that southwest corner there. THAT'S the kind of development Laclede's Landing needs -- actual warm bodies that invest in the district and its businesses. Not a brick-faced concrete behemoth that throws a bone to so-called "street life" with shallow, cubbie-hole retail pods. A tower -- respectful of the look/approach to Laclede's Landing -- will do more for the district than a garage ever could. And hopefully it'd result in a re-connected Lucas Street too!

I'll say it again -- JNEM's parking concerns shouldn't be pushed off onto a nearby district. It's yet another instance of this supposed city enhancement project catering only to the expansion of the passive national park.

Also: Alex, wouldn't it be a nice bullet in City to River's chamber if you could get Drury Development on board, saying they'd be more inclined to build if it opened up to a street-level boulevard...!
You do understand that not all parking structures are utilitarian giant concrete boxes? Do you?

Kansas City Library Parking Garage:






Boston Saint Charles Parking Garage:'




Hell, our own City's Municipal Parking Garage (not the best in its current state but alittle work could really make this shine):




You see, a parking structure doesn't have to be a black hole in the urban fabric.

All you need to do is match the material character, details, and treatments of the Landing's buildings (hell, even disguise the structure with window treatments to give the impression of a true building), incorporate street level activity similar to Saint Charles garage and you have a structure worthy of its location on the Landing.

Go ahead and tell everyone reading this that KC's Library parking garage doesn't enhance that district. If our neighbors across the state can do that, why hell, so can we.
1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostDec 04, 2012#431

^But it is a black hole in the urban fabric because there is nothing urban about it (unless you actually add some street level retail to it). You can make it look less ghastly, but you've really just made a prettier looking black hole. People don't linger around parking garages. They drive in, accomplish what they need, then leave. You need something that brings people around 24/7, not a few hours of the day.
1,064
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,064

PostDec 04, 2012#432

It seems obvious that you'd include a bike kiosk, storage lockers, coffee shop, brewhouse, newsstand, other retail/dining spaces at the street level, with office space on a second floor, and parking on floors U1, U2, and 3, 4, 5, etc. But I understand much of the region's planning is predicated on the most ruthlessly efficient and inexpensive ways to move and store automobiles.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 04, 2012#433

geoffksu wrote: In a meeting with one of the top brass from Drury Development, they have no concern - boulevard or interstate - they are putting together a proposal to obtain financing. They are more excited about the improvements being made to the Third Street Streetscape and connections to the Arch ground for their proposed building than what happens to the elevated highway. Not that they don't want to have the conversion to a boulevard, that they understand the time and resources involved before that becomes a reality.
Thanks; glad to hear that the C+A+R plan doesn't seem to negate tower development of that key property.... (a garage there should be a non-starter). I think the boulevard will get its first real look from many once the new MRB opens and people can see for themselves the new traffic reality. Seeing is believing. Of course, that is not too much more than a year from now.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostDec 04, 2012#434

Kevin B wrote:Also: Alex, wouldn't it be a nice bullet in City to River's chamber if you could get Drury Development on board, saying they'd be more inclined to build if it opened up to a street-level boulevard...!
They are on board.
1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostDec 04, 2012#435

^So what businesses are not on board with the boulevard? Seems like it would be a no brainer for most. I assume Slay hasn't backed this yet. Any possible way to influence him using Norquist?
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostDec 04, 2012#436

^ CVC? Not a business but a very big part of what goes on in the immediate area. The CVC needs as many selling points as possible. I raised section of I-70 is not a selling point.
^ Pinnacle? to me this is a no brainer for them, Phase II proposed once upon a time with a Drury resident tower would be huge for LL. Anything that ties Wash Ave and LL, attracts more foot traffic and residents is a win win for them
^ Rams? Reallistically will see if Stan K is the man or not, Start by keeping Rams in town, pony up for some of the improvements (Heck, he just spent 131 million for a home for 5000 cattle for christ sake) and does right by supporting City to River. And then maybe he gets a nod from the real Stan the Man.
^ McKee? Why not fund part of the roadwork like via 22nd street interchange through TIF? a thought.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostDec 04, 2012#437

Thought I would throw everybody a bone and open the "Arch Parking Study Alternatives" report to ya'll.

Enjoy...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/77846879/ArchP ... sStudy.pdf


Hell, while I'm at it, how 'bout a MVVA study on enhancements to the Washington Ave/Third Street intersection (what they originally proposed but the design has evolved since this - see images from earlier on this thread)

Enjoy...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/77846879/Washi ... ection.pdf
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 05, 2012#438

geoffksu wrote:Thought I would throw everybody a bone and open the "Arch Parking Study Alternatives" report to ya'll.

Enjoy...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/77846879/ArchP ... sStudy.pdf

Thanks for posting this interesting study.

My summary: It appears pretty skeptical of a new 700+ garage as it likely would be a financial burden and excess capacity in existing garages and surface lots can pick up the loss if satisfactory agreements are executed. But if is found a new structure is warranted, it recommends the Drury property as the best location. But it notes that current Drury development plans call for "two parking structures with 1,100 parking spaces" with most allocated for other users, so only 350 spaces may be available for JNEM. Presently, about 450 spaces are used in the existing garage for NPS and Metro workers and other monthly pass users and typically 250 for arch and other visitors. Although it notes that the new west entrance will gain prominence, it doesn't attempt to predict how many fewer visitors will use a north end facility.

My commentary: I assume the Drury plans call for its parking to service whatever it plans to build, but 1,100 spots seems massive. I'd love to know what it has its eye on. But back to the parking for the Arch issue, I am a bit torn as to the efficacy of tearing down the existing garage. It seems a waste to lose a profit center for metro, especially as the bonds are going to be paid off this month; however, I suspect it will be less used as more people will use west parking options under the CAR changes and a well-executed plan may make more green space worthwhile. (Maybe the answer is to have C+A+R backers pay Metro for the lost revenue.... ha!) If it is torn down, I buy into the study's implied conclusion that it may make sense to not have NPS or Metro build a replacement garage but rather lease any needed spots for north end use from a current facility or from a future Drury facility if it comes to pass.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostDec 05, 2012#439

^ The only business along the corridor that wasn't receptive to the idea was the Hyatt. Why? The lid is outside their front door and they want everyone to be forced to pass their hotel to get to the Arch.
1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostDec 05, 2012#440

Thanks for posting that info Geoff
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostDec 05, 2012#441

FYI - here's the City to River support page from nearly 2 1/2 years ago: http://citytoriver.org/blog/?p=328
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 05, 2012#442

Geoff,
do you know if CAR has the funding to definitely do the streetscaping along Wash Ave and 3d St. intersection? Is that part of the federal funding received?
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostDec 05, 2012#443

^ That intersection is under MoDOT's purview. They have the funding to make it happen assuming the CAR project moves forward.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 05, 2012#444

^ thanks. I'm just trying to get a sense of what exactly the $57 million or whatever announced will buy.... if it pays for the "park over lid," new on-off highway ramps, Wash Ave street-scaping east of Third, the Third St. intersection changes, enhancements under the elevated lanes and removal of Wash Ave south of Third that seems to be going a long way for the $$.

I believe GRG separately has the funds for raising LSullivan and the Riverfront Trail, but I am not sure if there is any funding in hand for Keiner Plaza work, which I think at one time was announced as an early target for work.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostDec 05, 2012#445

roger wyoming II wrote:Geoff,
do you know if CAR has the funding to definitely do the streetscaping along Wash Ave and 3d St. intersection? Is that part of the federal funding received?
The streetscape improvements on Third Street between Wash Ave and Laclede's Landing Boulevard will be mostly paid for by MoDOT when they complete the roadway improvements - the 'extras' will be paid for by the Landing.

The streetscape improvements on Wash Ave (to my best knowledge) is also paid for by MoDOT (atleast between Broadway and Third Street where the roadway improvements are happening) - the rest I assume would be paid for separately (but fairly certain not CAR, though I know that MVVA has expanded their scope to include some streetscape improvements like tearing out the Market Street boulevard for a road diet).

In essence, wherever MoDOT is tearing up a roadway they are paying for the basics to make it functional - the extra aesthetics, landscape material, etc. would be paid for separately.

For these streetscape projects there is still a meeting to be had where everyone gathers around a table and figures out who is paying for what exactly.

Though, the folks in town with LOTS of cash is GRG...
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 05, 2012#446

^ much appreciated.
geoffksu wrote:
For these streetscape projects there is still a meeting to be had where everyone gathers around a table and figures out who is paying for what exactly.
I envision the gathering not as a friendly game of poker but a deadly game of Russian Roulette!
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostDec 05, 2012#447

^ more like a shouting match among children, but you have the idea
678
Senior MemberSenior Member
678

PostDec 09, 2012#448

I like that they profile the interstate turned Boulevard in San Francisco on Up to Speed: http://www.hulu.com/watch/388607
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostDec 09, 2012#449

One thing to consider is the implications of the upcoming technology of car-to-stoplight (and car-to-car) communication. The US DOT is doing a pilot in Ann Arbor Michigan right now with 3000 cars. Volvo just signed on with the Car-2-Car consortium in Europe to have widespread car-to-car and car-to-stoplights technolgy in Europe within 5 years. The equipment is relatively cheap and ready. Here is a piece from TrafficTechnology saying we could see it here as early as 2015.

http://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/f ... BlogID=464

With car-to-stoplight messages, the light can show you what speed to drive to guarantee the light will be green when you reach it. Later, smart cruise control could do that for you. The implications are that boulevards will become much more prevelant in the future, because traffic will be able to move though two-dimensions efficiently and at lower cost than hoisting 10 lanes of cars up and over each other.



1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostDec 19, 2012#450

Hope you guys are voting for City2river in Mayorslay.com's mini poll. Personally I think it is more important than Stan Musial (Blasphemy! I know)
Read more posts (324 remaining)
Share