Good or bad? I want to know if I should check back in or just avoid it for a while...Alex Ihnen wrote:This could be an active thread here in a bit...
- 1,864
- 11K
Eh...don't cancel that dinner appointment or put off mowing the yard, or leave that laundry in the washer...
- 641
Is the news that Google will only come with its 500 jobs if the the Boulevard is put in place? 
- 8,155
Now that's just silly.chaifetz10 wrote:Ikea to build first store as lid over insterstate!
The real announcement is that to demonstrate her true love of Saint Louis, Curtis Sittenfeld is joining the Board of Directors of City to River and plans to write an upcoming novel set in an auto-centric town that didn't know how to quit the depressed lanes and tells the story of a lurid intersection of lust, murder, TIF and a radioactive landfill on fire, wherein an ant-TIF suburban mayor commits suicide - or is it murder at the hands of Mega Development Corporation? -- in the Park Over Lid.
And the shoe drops (Building Blocks):
Dispute over I-70 teardown shelves downtown study
June 24, 2013 • By Tim Logan
City development officials last year kicked off a study that was to take a look at tearing down the elevated section of Interstate 70 that divides the northern half of downtown St. Louis from the riverfront.
The study was scheduled to be done in December, but instead was quietly shelved.
Now it is finally coming off the shelf, apparently absent any look at the elevated highway.
- 1,864
Just saw the article on the Post Dispatch.
Who is so rediculously pro-interstate that they're pulling strings to avoid even the study?! This seems very sketchy. I understand some people think that more highways are the answer, but this seems almost like a conspiracy to avoid the issue at all costs.
Who is so rediculously pro-interstate that they're pulling strings to avoid even the study?! This seems very sketchy. I understand some people think that more highways are the answer, but this seems almost like a conspiracy to avoid the issue at all costs.
Do the initials GWF mean anything to you?chaifetz10 wrote:Just saw the article on the Post Dispatch.
Who is so rediculously pro-interstate that they're pulling strings to avoid even the study?! This seems very sketchy. I understand some people think that more highways are the answer, but this seems almost like a conspiracy to avoid the issue at all costs.
So they "discussed" the fact that the study was going to emphatically recommend removing the elevated section and then the city "decided" they didn't want that to be studied?"Content issues," said SLDC deputy executive director Otis Williams, who said most of the "issues" involved the I-70 elevated lanes. “That was the primary reason. We had to stop and have a discussion about that.”
That discussion resulted in a decision not to move forward with studying the teardown of the elevated lanes, Williams said.
- 1,864
Easiest way to avoid the outcome you don't want is to make sure people don't know that outcome is an option.
Something about this seems extremely corrupt. The fact this is not being studied screams special interest instead of public health.
- 641
Are they (GWF) so hell bent on development on Tucker that they don't want new developable land to take way from their beloved new Tucker? Is that's going on?
^ That's what I dont get it's not like the I-70 removal and vibrant Tucker are mutually exclusive.
This is just my guess...
Think about what happens if they see that removing the highway is a great idea (which it is). It renders the whole CAR 2015, Lid utterly stupid. People would start asking "Well if its a good idea to remove the elevated lanes, why not make the whole thing the same level?"
My hunch is that those involved with the Arch ground project got this study scrapped. It obviates everything we've talked about regarding the boulevard.
Think about what happens if they see that removing the highway is a great idea (which it is). It renders the whole CAR 2015, Lid utterly stupid. People would start asking "Well if its a good idea to remove the elevated lanes, why not make the whole thing the same level?"
My hunch is that those involved with the Arch ground project got this study scrapped. It obviates everything we've talked about regarding the boulevard.
- 1,868
No.bonwich wrote:Do the initials GWF mean anything to you?
- 641
pat wrote:This is just my guess...
Think about what happens if they see that removing the highway is a great idea (which it is). It renders the whole CAR 2015, Lid utterly stupid. People would start asking "Well if its a good idea to remove the elevated lanes, why not make the whole thing the same level?"
My hunch is that those involved with the Arch ground project got this study scrapped. It obviates everything we've talked about regarding the boulevard.
So Metcalfe got it scrapped?
This city is more pervasively corrupt than I even thought. I mean don't get me wrong, I've always considered replacing the depressed lanes with a boulevard to be a pipe-dream in the short term, but I at least thought we were at the point where we'd go through the study and at least pay it lip-service before shooting the whole idea down.
This is just really disappointing.
This is just really disappointing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Wre ... Federationbonwich wrote:Do the initials GWF mean anything to you?chaifetz10 wrote:Just saw the article on the Post Dispatch.
Who is so rediculously pro-interstate that they're pulling strings to avoid even the study?! This seems very sketchy. I understand some people think that more highways are the answer, but this seems almost like a conspiracy to avoid the issue at all costs.
It'd be nice to have an investigative journalist in the area answer this question. We all have our theories, of course. After a quick search, I can't find any mention of the study on SLDC's website or in any of the meeting minutes (although they're over a year behind posting them). As the decision to scrap this part of the study is directly counter to the SLDC's mission statement, it would be nice for the Board of Alderman to investigate this decision, but I don't see that happening in a million years since I imagine they are in collusion. Wow I sound like a conspiracy theorist...It's unclear exactly why SLDC chose to shift away from looking at I-70; Williams wouldn't say who was opposed to the idea of studying it.
Who knows. There's just a lot of entities involved with the Arch grounds project. Local leaders, companies, designers, money, etc. I'm sure there's someone who wouldn't want this to be seen in a bad light when its all finished.So Metcalfe got it scrapped?
- 3,429