I usually don't think this way, or say it out loud (or type it or whatever), but I can guarantee that if I had $5M to put down to run a design competition for the Arch, that the city wouldn't be closing streets, etc. The city is allowing a private organization led by some yet-to-be determined board dictate whether or not something as fundamental to a city as streets are removed. Why? Because they're paying for it and the city is broke.
- 3,235
Notes and Observations on Mayoral Race into todays Post. The Arch Tax and removal of I-70 has been inserted into the convo hopefully....
http://m.stltoday.com/STL/db_259737/con ... d=mVmcX61c
http://m.stltoday.com/STL/db_259737/con ... d=mVmcX61c
You can now apply for the Citizens Advisory Board online....
http://www.grgstl.org/projects/arch-com ... ation.aspx
http://www.grgstl.org/projects/arch-com ... ation.aspx
So is this 30 person community board contingent upon the passing of the City-County Arch tax?
Right now, Green Rivers Greenway is kicking in a fair amount to enhance/raise Wharf Street and is the lead agency for the Citizen Advisory Board. The Arch Tax (the funds of which Green Rivers Greenway is tagged to manage) would provide roughly $200 million more.
I'm just curious how much "say" this panel will have once the tax is defeated (and it very possibly could be) and really, how much say they'll actually have even if it isn't.
Right now, Green Rivers Greenway is kicking in a fair amount to enhance/raise Wharf Street and is the lead agency for the Citizen Advisory Board. The Arch Tax (the funds of which Green Rivers Greenway is tagged to manage) would provide roughly $200 million more.
I'm just curious how much "say" this panel will have once the tax is defeated (and it very possibly could be) and really, how much say they'll actually have even if it isn't.
- 11K
This board will only advise on the portion of the CAR project being completed by GRG - raising and redesigning the street at the river, and perhaps bike paths along Memorial and to-be-closed Washington Ave. GRG is not and will not be the project designer and cannot make any decision regarding closing streets, grading & ADA ramps, the museum, Old Courthouse, Keiner, etc.
I'm not too confident that this advisory board will really do all that much to be honest. I hope its not just a tactic to calm the masses.
I say that for two reasons.
One, if Alex is right, and the point of this committee is to advise the redesign of the street (Leonor K. Sullivan), then they really aren't involved in a good majority of the Arch project. And, I think the street redesign was an area that people had little problems with.
Two, I'm doing engineering on a certain portion of the GRG project (Redoing Leonor K. Sullivan Blvd.). We're expected to have construction drawings pretty much complete around the end of May. The GRG website says the first meeting of the advisory board wouldn't be until April or May (see "When will I know if I have been chosen?" http://www.grgstl.org/projects/arch-com ... ation.aspx). Their advice isn't going to do a whole lot when the project has been close to fully engineered.
I say that for two reasons.
One, if Alex is right, and the point of this committee is to advise the redesign of the street (Leonor K. Sullivan), then they really aren't involved in a good majority of the Arch project. And, I think the street redesign was an area that people had little problems with.
Two, I'm doing engineering on a certain portion of the GRG project (Redoing Leonor K. Sullivan Blvd.). We're expected to have construction drawings pretty much complete around the end of May. The GRG website says the first meeting of the advisory board wouldn't be until April or May (see "When will I know if I have been chosen?" http://www.grgstl.org/projects/arch-com ... ation.aspx). Their advice isn't going to do a whole lot when the project has been close to fully engineered.
- 516
I filled out an application, but was generally shocked at how little information was asked in the application. Are they just going to draw 30 names out of a hat? The application really didn't ask for enough information for CAR to make value judgments of who should be appointed. It kind of makes me think that (1) they already have their 30 people and are just pretending to have an application process and/or (2) the whole process is a sham to pretend that they had greater public involvement then they actually did.
Huh? How do they define "members of the media"? Does this disqualify Alex? And why, for example, would someone who, say, covers food be precluded from serving?Who is eligible?
All residents 18 years or older presently residing in St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Jefferson County, Lincoln County, St. Clair County (IL), Madison County (IL), and Jersey County (IL). Elected officials, members of the media, regional leaders and employees working on projects for CityArchRiver 2015 or Great Rivers Greenway and their families are not eligible.
And who's a "regional leader"? Would this preclude the appointment of, say, Kathleen Logan Smith? Conversely, would it allow appointment of, say, an associate at Bryan Cave?
Sometimes this stuff is absolutely mind-boggling.
- 8,908
One Week Away! Join Us for the Report to the Community.
Friends,
We are just one week away from CityArchRiver 2015’s third annual Report to the Community. [Thursday, 02.21.13, 6:00 pm, Ferrara Theatre, America’s Center*]
So much progress was made in 2012. As we begin a new year and transition into the final stage of design, we invite you to join us and hear about the milestones reached thus far and the exciting year that lies ahead. Transformative changes are coming to the Arch grounds and surrounding areas, and we want you to share in the experience!
Project partners will provide updates about key elements of the project: from construction phasing and roadway improvements, to exciting new riverfront experiences. Haley Sharpe Design, the firm responsible for freshening and enlivening the Museum and the Old Courthouse through new and expanded exhibits and programming will present their approach to telling the powerful stories of what happened on the site where the visitor stands. This is your chance to hear from a design firm that has created memorable museum experiences all over the world (Jamestown, the Smithsonian and Stonehenge – just to name a few!).
We hope to see you there!
Maggie Hales
Executive Director
CityArchRiver 2015 Foundation
*For detailed event information and a complete list of speakers visit our website or Facebook page.
- 8,155
I wasn't sure if plans for re-doing Keiner Plaza were still part of the plan, but according to the Beacon quoting Maggie Hales it indeed remains. I also read somewhere that cost savings were found in the lid/park portion and that those funds would be applied to the GRG's riverfront work. Anyway, here is a link to the Beacon article that was meant to coincide with the planned but cancelled community update last week:
https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/29 ... ms_streets
https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/29 ... ms_streets
- 1,320
Correct this if you notice something wrong. Since I haven't seen anything resembling a budget, I thought it might be helpful to try to create one from what we know so far. My understanding of the financing so far:
INCOME SO FAR
CityArchRiver current cash on hand (from all sources): $98 million:
Projects CityArchRiver has already committed to fund:
What I find conspicuous by its absence is any funding from the National Park Service.
INCOME SO FAR
CityArchRiver current cash on hand (from all sources): $98 million:
- $69 million from USDOT, MODOT & other government sources
$10 million from Great Rivers Greenway
$19 million from private donations to CAR, I assume
Projects CityArchRiver has already committed to fund:
- Engineering & Landscape Design — $1.4 million (from CAR)
Lid over I-70 — $36 million (from USDOT & MODOT)
Leonor K. Sullivan / Riverfront — $33 million (from MODOT, GRG & CAR)
What I find conspicuous by its absence is any funding from the National Park Service.
- 2,929
^Yeah, but I'm not sure how much Fed funding is really secured, if any. After all, Friday signals the start of "sequestration", and I'm sure any Fed monies allocated already could be in line for cuts. Might be better to add-up what we can find locally, then consider any Fed monies almost as an afterthought. (Amazing, it's a US National Monument requiring local fundraising for necessary maintenance and adaptation --- nix that: Disgraceful. That's the word I was looking for...)
- 8,155
^^ Presby, that looks about right. Not sure if NPS will be able to commit anything at all, but I wouldn't expect anything major if it does.... they have no money. I have heard that there are some additional, significant private contributions essentially lined up, but don't know how much.
Of all the various elements, I do think the museum expansion and west entrance are the best of the bunch. Too bad this portion wasn't taken care of already funding-wise and the lid project was the one that was subject to the ballot.
Of all the various elements, I do think the museum expansion and west entrance are the best of the bunch. Too bad this portion wasn't taken care of already funding-wise and the lid project was the one that was subject to the ballot.
- 1,320
We will get this done somehow, some way... We will make this one of our highest priorities. I cannot find any place in the U.S. that has the frame for an urban park like you have here with the Arch and river."
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
At the Gateway Arch
August 20, 2010
By "We" (I take it), he meant...
I agree. I've never been shocked by the cost associated with the enhancements. National Monuments are supposed to be, well, monumental. They're grandiose and impressive, even within the constraints of the mid-century modern ethos. One should not impressed with the frugality of the design (even as one marvels at the frugality nature of the Louisiana Purchase itself), but rather the scope should be appropriate to the scope of change introduced to the nation by westward expansion and for the president who brokered it. That improvements are necesary (even if the exact steps to enact such enhancements may be debatable) seems obvious to most and as such it's possible to justify the expense, considerable though it may be.Presbyterian wrote:Correct this if you notice something wrong. Since I haven't seen anything resembling a budget, I thought it might be helpful to try to create one from what we know so far. My understanding of the financing so far:
INCOME SO FAR
CityArchRiver current cash on hand (from all sources): $98 million:EXPENSES
- $69 million from USDOT, MODOT & other government sources
$10 million from Great Rivers Greenway
$19 million from private donations to CAR, I assume
Projects CityArchRiver has already committed to fund:Balance: $28 million. If (as CAR hopes), a sales tax succeeds, then they will float $101 million in bonds. They will still need to raise $180 million dollars in private donations to complete work on the Missouri side. The largest expense will be the expanded museum and museum entrance, which is projected to cost $160 million.
- Engineering & Landscape Design — $1.4 million (from CAR)
Lid over I-70 — $36 million (from USDOT & MODOT)
Leonor K. Sullivan / Riverfront — $33 million (from MODOT, GRG & CAR)
What I find conspicuous by its absence is any funding from the National Park Service.
That said, this is Federal property and maintainance and enhancements should come primarily through Federal funds. Now, it should be respectful of its context and play well with it's city neighbor; it hasn't always done that. And some local funds for connectors to the city and the river may be appropriate. But this is a national monument so by and large improvements should be funded from federal coffers.
Questions (and no I don't recall and yes I'm being lazy not looking back through the thread):
• How much influence does the NPS have over the process? I know they signed off on the design, but can they dictate funding and design changes or has that all in effect been ceded over to Danforth Foundatation/CityArchRiver board members? Is it the NPS or C+A+R that's calling for the local tax?
• Were the improvements the idea of NPS representatives, or of local government or private individuals?
• Has there been any been any success (or even any lobbying) in procuring support for federal funding aside from TARP?
I believe most are of the opinion that the project is currently being dictated by a few influential private citizens. I guess I'm asking if the Fed can step in and say 'nuh-unh, this is our baby. We have final say-so' or if there's even any interest in doing so?
-RBB
- 11K
^ I believe that NPS is set to handle any increase in maintenance costs. So for the lid, CAR has it built with MoDOT $ and then NPS pays to mow it, plant it, etc.
Interestingly, the improvements to the Mount Rushmore National Memorial were also paid for largely from state, local, and private funds:
-RBB
So there's apparently a precedent set for this type of fundraising, even if the scope of the improvements in dollars is far larger here (w/o adjusting for inflation, but I believe there's still a sigificant discrepency). Though it should be noted that some of the funds were to come fees collected from a parking garage constructed as a part of those improvements, opposite of what's being proposed at the arch.1998, the redevelopment design and construction of the current facilities at Mount Rushmore were completed with no federal tax dollars being used to fund the project. The Preservation Fund goal of $56 million was reached by combining $25 million in private and corporate contributions, $14 million from AmFac Concession investments and $17 million from parking facility investments.
-RBB
- 11K
^ It doesn't seem that local tax money was used for Mt. Rushmore, or am I misunderstanding?
About 20 more minutes to apply to be on the citizens advisory committee.
Money from local municipalities was provided, but this doesn't specify how that money was gathered. It says at the link:Alex Ihnen wrote:^ It doesn't seem that local tax money was used for Mt. Rushmore, or am I misunderstanding?
Don't know how the communities gathered their money - I would assume it wasn't via taxes. But it was locally-sourced money. I brought it up because I thought a federal project should come from federal money, but that wasn't the case here.South Dakota Governor George Mickelson issued a $2 million dollar challenge that would be matched by state funds. More than 54 South Dakota communities exceeded that challenge by providing $3.5 million to the Preservation Fund.
-RBB
My latest post is an attempt to explain why an "Arch tax" - look for it on the ballot on April 2nd - is the wrong way to fund the City Arch River project: The Arch Tax versus Economics 101
- 8,155
^ I know there are a lot of other things that might be better for the STL City and County voters to support than the Arch/parks, but to play Devil's Advocate about supporting the airport instead: why double down on a losing facility? We already lost a billion there.
I really don't have an opinion one way or another, just curious what concrete gains $100 million for the airport would result in.
I really don't have an opinion one way or another, just curious what concrete gains $100 million for the airport would result in.