Just a quick question - what's your perception of the effort by City to River to advocate for the removal of I-70 downtown?
http://www.citytoriver.org
http://www.citytoriver.org
I think the IDEA is excellent but the effort, as far as mobilizing a grassroots community, is lacking. It is time for advocacy. They have to be more about getting groups of volunteers to call specific lists of people, putting out press releases, getting stories on the news...constant pressure. They have done some of these things but, in my mind, nowhere near enough for this stage of the game.
I agree, removing a highway needs an organized army of about 100 volunteers.
- 5,433
I liked Rick Bonasch's most recent blog entry on STL Rising. Now that the old St. Louis Centre skybridge is coming down- it's time to focus on the next bridge which is a blight on our downtown and prevents an open vista between Washington Avenue and the stately Eads Bridge- the elevated section of Interstate 70.
An at-grade boulevard at Washington Avenue would make every bit as much of a difference as it would at the Gateway Arch grounds. The view of the Eads Bridge from downtown- and vice versa- would be unobstructed and much more attractive. Access to the northern end of the arch grounds- and Laclede's Landing- would be improved significantly. And a reconfigurated Memorial Drive- Memorial Boulevard- would open up so much more of an opportunity for new development and the enhancement of existing structures or complexes like the Mansion House. I'm sure some would like to see it go, but even the Mansion House complex could have a new lease on life with street level retail space oriented toward the river.
I don't know exactly what it will take to get City to River's priorities adopted by our civic leaders as their top priorities, but it most certainly needs to happen!
An at-grade boulevard at Washington Avenue would make every bit as much of a difference as it would at the Gateway Arch grounds. The view of the Eads Bridge from downtown- and vice versa- would be unobstructed and much more attractive. Access to the northern end of the arch grounds- and Laclede's Landing- would be improved significantly. And a reconfigurated Memorial Drive- Memorial Boulevard- would open up so much more of an opportunity for new development and the enhancement of existing structures or complexes like the Mansion House. I'm sure some would like to see it go, but even the Mansion House complex could have a new lease on life with street level retail space oriented toward the river.
I don't know exactly what it will take to get City to River's priorities adopted by our civic leaders as their top priorities, but it most certainly needs to happen!
I was an early skeptic on removing highway 70, but more and more, I'm starting to see the logic in the idea.
- 11K
City to River has a post up about what the group is doing and how everyone can help. Many of you here have expressed support of the vision put forth by City to River. Now is the time to act and let everyone know that you support removing I-70 and reconnecting our city to the Arch grounds and river!
What City to River is Doing and What YOU Can Do to Help: http://citytoriver.org/blog/?p=186
What City to River is Doing and What YOU Can Do to Help: http://citytoriver.org/blog/?p=186
City to River is:
Meeting with finalist design teams to advocate for the inclusion of I-70 removal as part of the Arch grounds design competition.
Earning endorsements of our vision from property owners, developers and other stakeholders.
Encouraging the public to contact both Mayor Francis Slay and Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Superintendent Tom Bradley to express their support for the removal of I-70.
Communicating with local elected officials to express support for the removal of I-70.
What YOU Can Do:
- 1,218
Here's the response I got from the National Park Service re: my email in support of removing I-70 lanes from DT:
Thank you for your interest in the City+Arch+River design contest. The
National Park Service position is that removal of Interstate 70 is
ultimately a desirable condition; however, consultation with transportation
organizations has indicated that such a removal would not be feasible
within the timeframe of the competition. The final competition designs
will undergo public review later this summer and we encourage you to make
your comments at that time. In the meantime, you may make your comments
directly to the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public
Comment website at www.nps.gov/jeff/parkmgmt/planning.htm or the
Arch+City+River website at www.cityarchrivercompetition.org.
I wonder if the alderpersons (Ford-Griffin and Starr-Triplet) or mayor's office will reply or acknowledge the emails.
They're probably right about that. The Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Bridge is not scheduled for completion until 2014. That leaves only one year to remove the highway and construct a boulevard which, given the complexity of the surrounding urban environment, I highly doubt possible.Mark Groth wrote:Here's the response I got from the National Park Service re: my email in support of removing I-70 lanes from DT:Thank you for your interest in the City+Arch+River design contest. The National Park Service position is that removal of Interstate 70 is ultimately a desirable condition; however, consultation with transportation organizations has indicated that such a removal would not be feasible within the timeframe of the competition.
- 11K
You mean to say that we can demolish and rebuild 5 miles of I-64, including soundwalls, new interchanges, flyover ramps and a dozen bridges in less than 12 months (twice), but we can't do 1.4 miles of an at-grade boulevard? I disagree.Mill204 wrote:They're probably right about that. The Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Bridge is not scheduled for completion until 2014. That leaves only one year to remove the highway and construct a boulevard which, given the complexity of the surrounding urban environment, I highly doubt possible.Mark Groth wrote:Here's the response I got from the National Park Service re: my email in support of removing I-70 lanes from DT:Thank you for your interest in the City+Arch+River design contest. The National Park Service position is that removal of Interstate 70 is ultimately a desirable condition; however, consultation with transportation organizations has indicated that such a removal would not be feasible within the timeframe of the competition.
MoDOT also took 4 years to get the sidewalks on Lindbergh from Manchester to Schuetz done mostly right.Alex Ihnen wrote:You mean to say that we can demolish and rebuild 5 miles of I-64, including soundwalls, new interchanges, flyover ramps and a dozen bridges in less than 12 months (twice), but we can't do 1.4 miles of an at-grade boulevard? I disagree.Mill204 wrote: They're probably right about that. The Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Bridge is not scheduled for completion until 2014. That leaves only one year to remove the highway and construct a boulevard which, given the complexity of the surrounding urban environment, I highly doubt possible.
I guess I'm just not optimistic about the new Mississippi bridge getting done in time given that so many elements on the project schedule still have an ambiguous completion date of "year 4." I would absolutely love to be wrong, but it is a tight timeframe and plans will need to be set and put in motion well before 2014.
- 3,235
I sent the email over a week ago and have yet to receive a response from the alderpersons.Mark Groth wrote:I wonder if the alderpersons (Ford-Griffin and Starr-Triplet) or mayor's office will reply or acknowledge the emails.
Turn I-70 near Arch into tree-lined street, group says
By Tim Logan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
06/14/2010
ST. LOUIS — "City to River" began with a new twist on an old idea: that St. Louis should not just cover Interstate 70 downtown but dig up the road altogether.
Next, the volunteer group of architects and urbanists who hatched the plan came up with research and data and drawings of a tree-lined boulevard connecting downtown, the Gateway Arch and the riverfront.
![]()
link: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... mentAnchor
By Tim Logan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
06/14/2010
ST. LOUIS — "City to River" began with a new twist on an old idea: that St. Louis should not just cover Interstate 70 downtown but dig up the road altogether.
Next, the volunteer group of architects and urbanists who hatched the plan came up with research and data and drawings of a tree-lined boulevard connecting downtown, the Gateway Arch and the riverfront.
link: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... mentAnchor
stltoday commenters never disappoint.1.1 billion to make some city road bigger "green". Why does "green" cost so much "green"! If anything, the road to New Town St Charles should be widened from 2 to 4 lanes. It sees frequent use and needs a safty update.
There, that's putting MY HONEST, HARDE EARNED tax dollars to GOOD use, not some $1.1 BILLION thug superhighway in the city!
I came here to post that exact same quote. St. Louis' biggest hurdle is the plethora of people here who think exactly like that guy.
- 8,910
That guy obviously didn't even read the article. He skimmed down and saw 1.1billion and when straight to the comment section. I wouldn't put too much stock in someone who blatantly fails at reading comprehension.
Not to mention he called it a "superhighway".. the exact opposite of what the plan is all about 
In all seriousness, I find MoDot's reluctance to really look into the plan one of the biggest challenges. They seem a little dismissive of it, at least that's the sense I get from their responses to City to River.
50,000 cars a day doesn't really sound like all that much to me. Other cities have proven that this kind of project can be done successfully, so instead of being a barrier, why can't MoDot help out? Maybe do their own traffic study? Will they lose out on some kind of funding or something if the highway is demolished?
In all seriousness, I find MoDot's reluctance to really look into the plan one of the biggest challenges. They seem a little dismissive of it, at least that's the sense I get from their responses to City to River.
50,000 cars a day doesn't really sound like all that much to me. Other cities have proven that this kind of project can be done successfully, so instead of being a barrier, why can't MoDot help out? Maybe do their own traffic study? Will they lose out on some kind of funding or something if the highway is demolished?
I'd pay more attention to the skeptical Missouri & Federal DOT than the ill informed...
MoDOT spokesman Drew Gates said the agency is familiar with City to River's idea, and is open to it. Its main concern is not with $1.1 billion in real estate investment but with a different number: 50,000.
That is how many cars MoDOT projects will still use the depressed section each day after the new bridge opens. It is a key north-south artery for the St. Louis region, and they are not yet sure whether replacing it with a narrower boulevard, with stoplights and pedestrians, is workable.
"That's the long and the short of it," Gates said. "If their proposals can handle the traffic and we can see that it works, then it's a lot easier for us to say yes, that's a good idea."
I am a HUGE supporter of this idea, but the development figures being thrown around now are just absurd. I wish those behind this idea wouldn't even cite figures, i.e. $1.1 billion.
To me, this isn't even about future development so much as simply making the city LOOK better.
Ball Parkinglot Village (some of the primest downtown real estate) can't get ANY development, but we're supposed to believe that this will bring "new real estate development"? Sorry guys, not buying it....still, please please please remove I-70.
To me, this isn't even about future development so much as simply making the city LOOK better.
Ball Parkinglot Village (some of the primest downtown real estate) can't get ANY development, but we're supposed to believe that this will bring "new real estate development"? Sorry guys, not buying it....still, please please please remove I-70.
- 8,910
Would it be possible to post the report provided by Development Strategies explaining how they came to this estimate? Who is Development Strategies and how did they come to providing their survices to C2R at no charge?
- 11K
^^ There are a few ways to attack the issue of highway removal. One is to have it appeal to the business/development community. That's what the number does.
- 2,929
Here's an idea that I'm not sure is totally feasible but could be a great solution and revenue source:
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.
Generally speaking, the largest prohibitive factor to underground parking is initial construction costs, in that it’s so expensive to dig up the ground that building new mid-rise lots above ground has been preferred. If it wasn’t so expensive, I bet we’d have a whole lot more underground parking around Downtown. Heck, I’d be in favor of seeing the tall lots adjacent to Kiener Plaza put underneath the Plaza to make room for redevelopment of those blocks for new high-rise construction along some of the most prominent blocks in StL while removing the general eyesore of stacks upon stacks of vehicles, an unfortunate necessity in our modern world (Note: we’re not Chicago or NY, and I don’t see the cars being eliminated from urban design, so I disregard the ideas on total ban on carless transportation).
If this idea is feasible, then it would be possible to build multiple stories of parking across the entire stretch of already existent sub-surface land, with easy access to visitors in a very high-demand area. It is right next to the City’s infrastructure grids and would be relatively easy to build such parking with electric power and any necessary ventilation systems. Access for vehicles besides the highways could also be constructed on the North and South edges of the depressed areas, with pedestrian entrance and exit spots located intermittently along the new Memorial Boulevard.
The total size of the depressed area will already require it to be filled anyways with something, such as dirt or Styrofoam a la the North Tucker Bridge redevelopment, in order for the concept to be feasible. All those things to serve as filler increase the costs. Plus, it would have to be built with firmaments anyway to lead to any new building construction above it. A multi-level parking area could be constructed with such firmaments built in to allow for Mid-Rise new construction.
As a point of reference, I don’t see any new ancillary building along the new Memorial looking to build new high-rise construction there, as it would be against the interests of the major hotels along Fourth Street and Memorial which built there to bring tourists in for the views of the Arch (as well as damn near impossible to support). Mid-rise new construction would keep the hoteliers happy while housing amenities such as restaurants that increase their value to guests anyways. Who knows, the hotels could even look to invest in this project to help supplement their parking needs and amenities expansions.
My favorite part: Revenues would help offset costs. At $70-100 million, it’s a lot to ask for, and especially in this economic environment (that’s a whole lot of municipal bond to ask for). By meeting a demand in parking with total economic development and elimination of the depressed highways with systematic revenues, which helps pay for the bonds necessary for such a project, everyone wins.
In furtherance, mid-rise lots near the area could be eliminated for new economic redevelopment and potential high-rise new construction. Assuming the City Parking Authority owns and runs such parking lots, it could then fulfill their needs for parking now seen in their lots along Kiener Plaza and adjacent to the old Busch Stadium location (at least the eastern lot). By running this garage system, it could increase total parking available to Downtown and seek to close these mid-rise lots. Later, they could sell the properties where these current lots are at strong profits to developers for new construction in high-rise buildings, as the market demand for them would decrease in favor of the newer lots underground. With the location of these lots in the middle of Downtown, and with wonderful views of the Arch and incorporation into the heart of the StL Skyline, these properties would be in ready demand by real estate investors for when the economy for commercial real estate truly rebounds in a few years. Such locations would be a great encouragement for new construction especially for companies looking at StL as a potential site for corporate relocation, bringing new companies to the City and with them new jobs.
And can you imagine what the unions would think about all the new jobs this would make? Heck, I’d even imagine some of them investing in this project, much as how various local & national unions have invested in other redevelopment projects in Downtown, such as the Brown, the Laurel / 600 Washington, and the Parc Pacific.
In summation: Conversion of this area into underground parking would:
1. Further the constructive reuse for the depressed areas;
2. Encourage new visitors to Downtown with ease of parking services;
3. Generate revenues that would help offset costs for the total project;
4. Remove parked vehicles from view, and in doing so increase the quality of Downtown;
5. Assist in new construction of mid-rise structures atop the depressed area;
6. Increase the value of the Fourth Street hotels to its guests in lieu of blocking their sightlines;
7. Position the elder mid-rise buildings in Downtown for constructive new high-rise development; and
8. Creating opportunities for new jobs, both for project construction, old lot redevelopment construction, and employment in companies moving to any new buildings constructed on these old mid-rise lots.
Over the long-term, it would more than pay for the whole of the project.
(Edited from original. Why? Confused the numbers. Big time. See below)
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.
Generally speaking, the largest prohibitive factor to underground parking is initial construction costs, in that it’s so expensive to dig up the ground that building new mid-rise lots above ground has been preferred. If it wasn’t so expensive, I bet we’d have a whole lot more underground parking around Downtown. Heck, I’d be in favor of seeing the tall lots adjacent to Kiener Plaza put underneath the Plaza to make room for redevelopment of those blocks for new high-rise construction along some of the most prominent blocks in StL while removing the general eyesore of stacks upon stacks of vehicles, an unfortunate necessity in our modern world (Note: we’re not Chicago or NY, and I don’t see the cars being eliminated from urban design, so I disregard the ideas on total ban on carless transportation).
If this idea is feasible, then it would be possible to build multiple stories of parking across the entire stretch of already existent sub-surface land, with easy access to visitors in a very high-demand area. It is right next to the City’s infrastructure grids and would be relatively easy to build such parking with electric power and any necessary ventilation systems. Access for vehicles besides the highways could also be constructed on the North and South edges of the depressed areas, with pedestrian entrance and exit spots located intermittently along the new Memorial Boulevard.
The total size of the depressed area will already require it to be filled anyways with something, such as dirt or Styrofoam a la the North Tucker Bridge redevelopment, in order for the concept to be feasible. All those things to serve as filler increase the costs. Plus, it would have to be built with firmaments anyway to lead to any new building construction above it. A multi-level parking area could be constructed with such firmaments built in to allow for Mid-Rise new construction.
As a point of reference, I don’t see any new ancillary building along the new Memorial looking to build new high-rise construction there, as it would be against the interests of the major hotels along Fourth Street and Memorial which built there to bring tourists in for the views of the Arch (as well as damn near impossible to support). Mid-rise new construction would keep the hoteliers happy while housing amenities such as restaurants that increase their value to guests anyways. Who knows, the hotels could even look to invest in this project to help supplement their parking needs and amenities expansions.
My favorite part: Revenues would help offset costs. At $70-100 million, it’s a lot to ask for, and especially in this economic environment (that’s a whole lot of municipal bond to ask for). By meeting a demand in parking with total economic development and elimination of the depressed highways with systematic revenues, which helps pay for the bonds necessary for such a project, everyone wins.
In furtherance, mid-rise lots near the area could be eliminated for new economic redevelopment and potential high-rise new construction. Assuming the City Parking Authority owns and runs such parking lots, it could then fulfill their needs for parking now seen in their lots along Kiener Plaza and adjacent to the old Busch Stadium location (at least the eastern lot). By running this garage system, it could increase total parking available to Downtown and seek to close these mid-rise lots. Later, they could sell the properties where these current lots are at strong profits to developers for new construction in high-rise buildings, as the market demand for them would decrease in favor of the newer lots underground. With the location of these lots in the middle of Downtown, and with wonderful views of the Arch and incorporation into the heart of the StL Skyline, these properties would be in ready demand by real estate investors for when the economy for commercial real estate truly rebounds in a few years. Such locations would be a great encouragement for new construction especially for companies looking at StL as a potential site for corporate relocation, bringing new companies to the City and with them new jobs.
And can you imagine what the unions would think about all the new jobs this would make? Heck, I’d even imagine some of them investing in this project, much as how various local & national unions have invested in other redevelopment projects in Downtown, such as the Brown, the Laurel / 600 Washington, and the Parc Pacific.
In summation: Conversion of this area into underground parking would:
1. Further the constructive reuse for the depressed areas;
2. Encourage new visitors to Downtown with ease of parking services;
3. Generate revenues that would help offset costs for the total project;
4. Remove parked vehicles from view, and in doing so increase the quality of Downtown;
5. Assist in new construction of mid-rise structures atop the depressed area;
6. Increase the value of the Fourth Street hotels to its guests in lieu of blocking their sightlines;
7. Position the elder mid-rise buildings in Downtown for constructive new high-rise development; and
8. Creating opportunities for new jobs, both for project construction, old lot redevelopment construction, and employment in companies moving to any new buildings constructed on these old mid-rise lots.
Over the long-term, it would more than pay for the whole of the project.
(Edited from original. Why? Confused the numbers. Big time. See below)
- 11K
Reading comprehension has hit an all-time low around here. Please read the story again. $1.1B has nothing to due with the cost of a boulevard which is $70M-$100M and less than any alternative.Gone Corporate wrote:My favorite part: Revenues would help offset costs. At $1.1 billion, it’s a lot to ask for, and especially in this economic environment (that’s a whole lot of municipal bond to ask for).
- 466
i figured the savings would be more then just seventy to one hundred bucks.Alex Ihnen wrote: Reading comprehension has hit an all-time low around here. Please read the story again. $1.1B has nothing to due with the cost of a boulevard which is $70-$100 and less than any alternative.
or was that a test to see if we were paying attention?