urbanSTL

^I would be in favor of a 10 cent sales tax if it were going to something I felt was going to be a net positive for the city.

The larger parks bill is great, yeah, and should be funded.

I think $120MM of bonds specifically for this one arch grounds "magic bullet" project that will cost about $200MM PLUS to pay off that are going to result in at best (once again IMVHO) a net neutral outcome for the city is a waste of money that we could put to MUCH better use. This could fund a large portion of a North/South metro line.

Put another way, would you rather pay to keep the rams, or put a one block lid over 70, tear down some trees, and re-landscape the arch-grounds? $120MM is only a FIFTH of what the organizers stated the project will cost. About 75MM is funded already. Where exactly is the rest coming from? I don't want to build half of a sh*tty project.

The tax isn't the issue. The project is.

THERE IS A MASSIVE OPPORTUNITY COST HERE. If we fund this, we lose $200+MM funding for something else. Is this project really going to be the most impactfull? I don't think so.

I don't think our region has done enough to improve our image downtown. I too would prefer that the US govt fund the Arch grounds of course, and create a sales tax to implement Chouteau Lake. But I don't think the US government has any money. And if I live in OKC, I might ask -- why should I have to pay to fund St. Louis's downtown park? Shouldn't St. Louis pay for that, like OKC is? (OKC is using MAPS funds to create a new large downtown park, not unlike the Arch grounds.) So why don't we go bigger and make our downtown competitive and pay for the Arch, Chouteau Lake, and everything. I think it will pay for itself in the long run, as it appears to be doing for OKC.

The only thing the US Government is helping pay for in OKC, as far as I know, is the project that will move rusted elevated I-40 a few blocks to the South and put it at grade level. All the other improvements downtown were paid for by the city sales tax -- and in OKC, the city is the region, since it's boundaries extend into several counties.

Since they did these things that greatly improved the downtown, which used to be dead, they got an NBA team and an 800 ft. Devon Tower, along with a lot of new restaurants and bars downtown. It totally changed there image from the city with tornadoes and bombings -- especially in the minds of the people who actually live there.

^Yes, a key difference is that the city of St. Louis does not own the Arch grounds included in the proposal (except for Kiener plaza, I assume). It's federal land. Expecting the citizens of St. Louis to fund a proposal to improve land they don't own after a competition process that wasn't very interested in their opinions/desires for the land and under boundary and timeline restrictions that limit it's impact is a bit much.

I'd probably vote for the tax, and it's appropriate to expect a big chunk of the funding to come from the local community since much of the benefit will go towards the local community. If that's the case, though, the process should have been more responsive to voters and we should have more say about what parts we fund rather than the current model of paying for what the NPS sees fit to give us. I'd vote for demolition of the south garage to improve connection with Laclede's Landing, remodeling Kiener plaza, better signage for wayfinding from the city's parking garages to the Arch grounds and other downtown attractions, then spending the rest for a boulevard study. I think the lid isn't terrible but I don't think it's worth the money, I'd rather my dollars go elsewhere in the project.

Why is CityArchRiver not engaging in a conversation about the feasibility of the boulevard? (I understand the self imposed deadline of 2015 but why not acknowledge that life will go on after 2015 and we may need to prime the site for what could come later). A public debate would be healthy. who knows, maybe they would convince the likes of me that a lid is in fact better.

gary kreie wrote:If we can't pass a lousy 3/16th of a cent sales tax to improve downtown and metro parks, we should just stop trying to compete with cities like Oklahoma City.

Most people in St Charles don't care about competing with OK City. As long as they have an Applebee's and a Chili's to chose from, they're happy. They don't care about the city. After all, that's where the blacks are.

Thought PD had a pretty good editorial today on the State House amendment

Editorial: Arch project backers should be open about sales tax proposal

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... bb700.html

Personally, I don't think the current 10 cent sales tax for the Great Rivers Greenway District is sufficient nor do I think it is a bad idea that some local funds go into the Arch Grounds or at least making/improving the connections as it is iconic structure that defines the region on a global presence. Having both on par as far as local with the terrific park/museum district as well as transit would be a big plus in mind.

Unfortunately, perception can become reality if you go about things this way. Fortunately, an honest and open discussion can lead to things like a sales tax increase to support transit even in Missouri.

Its time the entire region has this discussion for both its regional trail system as well as the Arch Grounds.

Looks like City+Arch+River finally realizes (two years too late...) that it might actually need to utilize some public outreach efforts in order to build excitement/trust/donations for the project.

City+Arch+River 2015 Foundation Looking for Community Engagement Coordinator

Sadly, I'm up in Chicago doing basically this (Community Development Coordinator for a CoC) or I'd apply. Try to bend some ears from the inside, you know? Unfortunately, I suspect my name is connected to too many comments/articles critical of C+A+R to warrant consideration anyway...

But somebody should take a run at this and get City to River an insider!

Alex Ihnen wrote:You say the current (0.01%) GGR sales tax isn't sufficient. Why not? What do you think GGR's budget should be?

0.020%

I don't have numbers at my finger to support what I'm saying but what is being proposed for the GGR is a pretty extensive as well as impressive in my opinion. Just as the Arch Grounds proposal started out as a very bold initiative. But looking at what has been accomplished to date with trail network, what still needs to be accomplished and how your ever going to get North Trestle and Chouteau Greenway built seems like decades out with the current 0.01 tax nor do I think it will ever get a separate museum district like property tax item/supporting foundations or an organization like the Foreveer Forest Park behind it.

At the same time, maybe I'm mistaken on my impresseion becuase I can't throw out numbers to support it and the GRR plan as a whole will come to frutition a lot sooner then what I think.

City+Arch+River 2015 Foundation is one of the nominees for Focus St. Louis' annual What's Right With the Region! Awards.

They're listed in the Fostering Regional Cooperation category. Thoughts? Is this justified? Have they really fostered regional cooperation?

MoDOT schedules public hearing for environmental assessment on Park over the Highway project

The Missouri Department of Transportation will hold an open-house style public hearing August 29 to allow the public to share potential environmental impacts that may result from MoDOT's portion of the CityArchRiver 2015 project.

The public hearing is scheduled August 29, 2012, between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. at 1520 Market Street, St. Louis Missouri, 63103.

http://www.modot.org/stlouis/news_and_i ... sId=174211

tbspqr wrote:MoDOT schedules public hearing for environmental assessment on Park over the Highway project

The Missouri Department of Transportation will hold an open-house style public hearing August 29 to allow the public to share potential environmental impacts that may result from MoDOT's portion of the CityArchRiver 2015 project.

The public hearing is scheduled August 29, 2012, between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. at 1520 Market Street, St. Louis Missouri, 63103.

http://www.modot.org/stlouis/news_and_i ... sId=174211

This is today from 4 to 7 at 1520 Market Street downtown.
This MODOT St. Louis site shows the plan, I believe. They chose Alternative 1. You can leave comments here also on the online form.

http://www.modot.org/stlouis/major_proj ... ighway.htm

Alternative 2 (flying walkways over the highway per Saarinen's plan) was rejected because the slope of the walkways would be to much to satisfy ADA requirements without switchbacks.

The site also explains why they are opposed to the Boulevard approach, but left the door open in case the city changes its mind.

I don't get it. They shut down I-64 for two years with little affect, and I-64 downtown every weekend. Traffic can't figure out how to go North/South for two blocks downtown without a tunnel? If you go from Fairgrounds Park to Bevo Mill on Google Maps, the depressed lanes route saves you 1 minute (20 minutes vs 21) compared to the other two alternatives Google suggests.

^^ Alternatives 2 and 3 were rejected before the public even had a chance to weigh in on them. They were also heavily biased to increase favor for the "preferred" alternative. Did you notice how there are no highway improvements - none - included in alternatives 2 and 3 north of Pine St? Why do you think that is?

Also, in their defense of not building the Boulevard, they make the statement that "There are only two north-south interstate corridors in St. Louis – I-55/I-70 and I-270." Go to Google Maps and get directions from Spanish Lake to Mehlville. It shows THREE North South interstate routes, not two. I-270, 40 minutes, I-70/55, 41 minutes, and I-255, 43 minutes. They forgot Illinois is in the St. Louis metro area, just like I-270.

I went over to the MODOT presentation this evening and talked to an engineer who works for the firm hired by MODOT to design the depressed lanes pedestrian cover. The first thing I noticed on their layout was that the Pine Street overpass was not removed. Instead they determined that it is sturdy enough to be modified into an attractive pedestrian-only walkway to the Arch grounds.

With regard to the wide bridge, he said it took quite a lot of engineering structure to design the bridge. It must not only support people, but also any vehicle that might drive across. Also it must support tons of dirt that weigh even more when water-soaked. He said MODOT plans to finish it and then turn it over to the Park Service to maintain.

Another visitor told me he thought he heard that people will be able to enter the Arch museum in the new West entrance, but will only be able to exit from the Arch leg doors. I told him that can't be correct, but then thinking later, I realized they probably only want to fund one place for metal detectors -- the West entrance.

With regard to the parking garage, MODOT left a single lane running down past the current Arch garage in case NPS changes its mind and needs a lane to the garage. The engineer said he expects the Arch-City-River team to propose something like the trackless train at Grant's Farm circling the Arch Grounds and Parking garages along Kiener Plaza to reduce the walking distances. Not sure who pays for that long term.

I discussed the advantages of the Boulevard, in my opinion, such as a restaurants facing the Arch Grounds with outdoor dining on wide sidewalks. They mentioned the limitation of only two North-South interstates across the region, so I pointed out the third one they forgot: I-255. Great Rivers Greenway was there requesting words on what would attract us to the Arch grounds, other than relatives from out-of-town. I wrote down attractive boulevard and maybe a beer/wine garden with a view of the river.