Touche.
But the $70M-$100M isn't about savings either. It's the estimated cost of the 1.4-mile boulevard.
But the $70M-$100M isn't about savings either. It's the estimated cost of the 1.4-mile boulevard.
- 2,929
My bad. Long day with no a/c in the office earlier, mixed up one set of numbers for the other. Fixed original post.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 $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).
I'll still contend that revenue generation in supplement to the $70-100M costs for the project helps. As well as capitalizing on the land itself to productive reuse, it would help in any discussion for how to pay for the bonds, going from a general municipal to a revenue bond.
With my original error fixed, what do you all think? Feasible? Good to move parking underground?
- 11K
Yes, underground parking has been on the NPS wishlist for some time. Added RV/bus parking is a big wish as well. I'd favor putting an underground garage with entry/exit off a new Memorial Boulevard similar to what they have with Boston Common or Millennium Park. The North Arch garage needs to go.
- 712
There are close to 10,000 parking spots under Grant Park in Chicago. Michigan Avenue seems to be the main comparison for Memorial Drive, and the park service does need parking to replace that horrible garage by the landing. So I think the idea is certainly floating around. It would raise the price significantly though and require all sorts of engineers to stick their noses into it. Personally, I'd like to see St. Louis take on a project without adding parking for once.
I'll get behind an underground garage after a full parking study of downtown is conducted as has been called for many times.
I'll get behind an underground garage after a full parking study of downtown is conducted as has been called for many times.
- 11K
The issue here is that the park service wants parking as part of the competition and redesign. They've told design teams to plan for twice as many visitors in the next decade or so. That means more parking. There are a lot of garages near the Old Courthouse. They should be designated as optional Park parking - sounds silly, but if they're included in park literature about where to park they'll be more likely to be used.
- 712
^makes a lot of sense. Kienar Plaza is part of the competition, and there are garages on both sides.
- 2,929
KMOV report on City to River. Nice interview, too; way to go, Alex.
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/New-prop ... 27269.html
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/New-prop ... 27269.html
- 10K
Underground parking could even help alleviate the need for the Stadium East garage, freeing up another site for future development.
I think this is a great idea and I have thought the same since the idea of this project came up. I remember watching the massive parking get constructed underneath Millenium Park - a great way to provide parking without messing up the urban landscape above.Gone Corporate wrote: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?
I think the biggest hurdle would be entry/exit access to this garage. Clearly there is a lot of concern about handling the traffic coming off of I-44/55 and going to/from I-70. If you added a parking element to this, that traffic could get even worse.
That being said, I think having a lot of traffic in this area is a good thing. Makes it safer for pedestrians by slowing cars down and makes it feel more like an urban environment. I also think parking next to the Arch grounds and the mall would be fantastic for families coming downtown to visit.
Hopefully one or more of the designs coming out of the competition will propose this very idea.
Nice op-ed piece in today's Post by Bradley Fratello, of City to River:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
- 11K
And the KWMU commentary...
http://kwmu.org/programs/commentaries/c ... p?cid=1237
The City to River group continues to work hard and there will be more news over the coming weeks. I think it's a big success to simply get more and more people talking about this idea and considering what we want for the Arch grounds and our city. Of course we have a long way to go before removing an Interstate actually happens in St. Louis. It does feel that we're closer to realizing this vision than we were three months ago.
http://kwmu.org/programs/commentaries/c ... p?cid=1237
The City to River group continues to work hard and there will be more news over the coming weeks. I think it's a big success to simply get more and more people talking about this idea and considering what we want for the Arch grounds and our city. Of course we have a long way to go before removing an Interstate actually happens in St. Louis. It does feel that we're closer to realizing this vision than we were three months ago.
- 8,908
I keep hearing comparisons to the car load on the proposed boulevard to that of Kingshighway in the CWE. Do you all consider Kinghhighway to be a barrier to Forest Park? I sure do.
What suggestions do you have for this new boulevard so we insure that we build a more pedestrian friendly area and doesn't create yet another barrier to Arch/Landing?
What suggestions do you have for this new boulevard so we insure that we build a more pedestrian friendly area and doesn't create yet another barrier to Arch/Landing?
- 10K
It's a barrier, but a manageable one, thanks in part to the medians and well-timed lights. I cross Kingshighway once a week with no issues; I have a harder time crossing Tucker on foot.Moorlander wrote:I keep hearing comparisons to the car load to that of Kingshighway in the CWE. Do you all consider KinghHighway to be a barrier to Forest Park? I sure do.
What suggestions do you have for this new boulevard to make sure it is more pedestrian friendly and doesn't create yet another barrier to Arch/Landing?
- 3,766
Alex, I heard your interview on KMOX the other day. Good job in getting the word out on City to River! Also good promo for urbanstl. Well done!
- 11K
Kingshighway could be/should be better designed, but no, it's not a barrier to Forest Park. The closed streets of the medical center is a barrier. I-64 is a barrier as well, but not Skinker or Lindell. Again, they should be more ped friendly, but great streets and boulevards serve as zippers, connecting districts, neighborhoods and places.Moorlander wrote:I keep hearing comparisons to the car load on the proposed boulevard to that of Kingshighway in the CWE. Do you all consider Kinghhighway to be a barrier to Forest Park? I sure do.
What suggestions do you have for this new boulevard so we insure that we build a more pedestrian friendly area and doesn't create yet another barrier to Arch/Landing?
- 3,429
Removing I-70 downtown was discussed on Donnybrook on KETC tonight. They didn't get it. They didn't seem to know that most of the normal I-70 through traffic would now be going across the new I-70 bridge, not across downtown for no apparent reason. The did not even mention the new I-70 bridge -- they seemed to think the new boulevard would have to carry all the current through traffic. Most of the traffic going down the new boulevard would be cars originating or terminating in the downtown area to begin with. Almost nobody would be using the boulevard to bypass the new I-70 bridge to get to the Poplar Street Bridge the way they do now. The only through traffic would be people swinging through downtown to go from North City to South City or vice versa. There are a lot of good alternate routes for that, such as Jefferson or Truman Parkway.
Then the panel got into a discussion about how we are not utilizing the Arch area, and riverfront, as much as we could be. So they got way off topic before coming back to the I-70 removal issue. Finally Bill McCellan said that the panel shouldn't dismiss the idea so quickly -- the city needs people thinking up innovative ideas like this. So it sort of ended on a good note, I suppose.
Then the panel got into a discussion about how we are not utilizing the Arch area, and riverfront, as much as we could be. So they got way off topic before coming back to the I-70 removal issue. Finally Bill McCellan said that the panel shouldn't dismiss the idea so quickly -- the city needs people thinking up innovative ideas like this. So it sort of ended on a good note, I suppose.
- 10K
Donnie, Donnie, Donnie...
Back the bridge
No go on the idea of turning downtown's Interstate 70 depressed lanes into a street ("City to River says lose 'The Lid,' back 'The Boulevard'," June 15). People still would have terrible traffic with which to contend at the main area of pedestrian connection between the Arch grounds and downtown St. Louis.
The solution for this key pedestrian approach between the two is to remove Memorial Drive altogether or bridge over the depressed Interstate 70 and Memorial Drive Boulevard.
Another disturbing point about this idea is the taking of the ground of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park for the move-over of Memorial Drive Boulevard to make way for I-70 Street.
Donald R. Smith — St. Louis County
- 2,929
Hmmm.....debaliviere wrote:Donnie, Donnie, Donnie...
Back the bridge
No go on the idea of turning downtown's Interstate 70 depressed lanes into a street ("City to River says lose 'The Lid,' back 'The Boulevard'," June 15). People still would have terrible traffic with which to contend at the main area of pedestrian connection between the Arch grounds and downtown St. Louis.
The solution for this key pedestrian approach between the two is to remove Memorial Drive altogether or bridge over the depressed Interstate 70 and Memorial Drive Boulevard.
Another disturbing point about this idea is the taking of the ground of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park for the move-over of Memorial Drive Boulevard to make way for I-70 Street.
Donald R. Smith — St. Louis County
In The Big Lebowski, what exactly was it that Walter Sobchak kept telling Donnie to do?
He never listened, did he.
And Donnybrook guys, seriously, we expect better from you. Consider all the elements, especially that new mega project involving a bridge and I-70 maybe a mile north when we're talking about the highways. Please revisit under full context.
- 5,433
Honestly, I never expect any better from the Donnybrook commentators. I'm not surprised that they didn't get it. I think the Donnybrook vision of downtown is permanently stuck in 1980.Gone Corporate wrote:And Donnybrook guys, seriously, we expect better from you. Consider all the elements, especially that new mega project involving a bridge and I-70 maybe a mile north when we're talking about the highways. Please revisit under full context.
- 11K
Link to KMOX discussion about City to River (starts at 10:40). They get it and they like it:
Friday 6/18
2:10 p.m. - Reardon Roundtable with Debbie Monterrey
Debbie is joined by:
- St. Louis Alderwoman Jennifer Florida
- Former St. Louis Police Board President Chris Goodson
- Local conservative blogger T.J. Birkenmeier
Friday 6/18
2:10 p.m. - Reardon Roundtable with Debbie Monterrey
Debbie is joined by:
- St. Louis Alderwoman Jennifer Florida
- Former St. Louis Police Board President Chris Goodson
- Local conservative blogger T.J. Birkenmeier
- 710
Removing I-70 and replacing it with a boulevard is the kind of opportunity that St. Louis has missed right and left for years and years! St. Louis has a real problem with seizing opportunity on this kind of level, we can't let this one slip by! There's a lot of people in this town (if you could even say that, i mean really...) with big mouths who don't understand that the world has passed them by, and they wouldn't care if they did. Somebody has to fight for this city, though, because they aren't willing to do it. It has nothing to do with the fact that many of them older, it's that they live in a bubble. It's hard for me to believe that they have traveled to a wide variety of other US cities within the past 5 years or so, and have cared to think about what they are seeing and how it might apply to St. Louis. Going to Chicago once a year and gawking at skyscrapers isn't what I'm talking about.
- 10K
Looks like the traffic concerns are a major item to be addressed
Crippling a major transportation route
Regarding "City to River says lose 'The Lid,' back 'The Boulevard'" (June 15): Anyone who travels past the Arch on Interstate 70 to Interstate 55 or Interstate 44 has to wonder whether City to River did a traffic study. Funneling traffic from major limited-access highways into a stop-and-go boulevard and then back to the highway seems like a recipe for huge traffic jams, especially during rush hours.
The artists' renderings were pretty, but they didn't include the 50,000 cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles that would use the boulevard daily. The new bridge is not going to remove the I-70 traffic that is headed to places in south St. Louis along I-55 or I-44 or the cross-country trucks that use that route. How pedestrian-friendly will it be to stand on a street corner next to the noise and fumes coming from 18-wheelers in stop-and-go traffic?
Leave the highway traffic on the highway. Get creative about dealing with the traffic on Memorial Drive, which is the issue for pedestrian access and safety in getting to the Arch grounds from downtown.
A pedestrian bridge or covered skyway from Luther Ely Smith Park over Memorial Drive to the Arch grounds would be architecturally interesting, would be cost effective and would not require a "lid" over the depressed lanes.
I hope the Park Service's design competition will come up with interesting ideas and allow for local participation in deciding how best to integrate the Arch and the downtown without crippling a major transportation route.
Gloria Bratkowski • St. Louis
I don't think people who make these types of comments live or work downtown...but they probably drive 70 and are super scared they'll be stuck in traffic. So Downtown accessibility is less of an issue to them and they're more concerned with the speed at which they can get to work.
Pedestrian access is an issue in more places than just in front of the Arch, I think that's a point that may need to be stressed if it hasn't been already.
Hopefully City To River can start addressing these concerns...and hopefully this project isn't derailed due to the predicted Armageddon of removing a highway.
Look at what a non-issue closing Highway 40 was.
Unfortunately, there's always going to be people who think highways are the onlyways.
There's also a lack of "bigger picture" in the comment made above. It's not just about getting people from point A to B easily, it's about removing a scar and reconnecting the city to the river. I still contend 50,000 cars per day isn't really all that much for a busy city, is it?
Pedestrian access is an issue in more places than just in front of the Arch, I think that's a point that may need to be stressed if it hasn't been already.
Hopefully City To River can start addressing these concerns...and hopefully this project isn't derailed due to the predicted Armageddon of removing a highway.
Look at what a non-issue closing Highway 40 was.
Unfortunately, there's always going to be people who think highways are the onlyways.
There's also a lack of "bigger picture" in the comment made above. It's not just about getting people from point A to B easily, it's about removing a scar and reconnecting the city to the river. I still contend 50,000 cars per day isn't really all that much for a busy city, is it?