This place is looking great. Much more elaborate than I expected. Should make for lots of great photos.
Now that the mall is here to stay, maybe it's time to ceremoniously blow up the Gateway One building and finally complete the concept after 40 years.
Can you imagine the unobstructed views? A tall new tower at the western end of the mall would be a nice bookend to the Arch.
Mall East
![]()
Mall West
![]()
Can you imagine the unobstructed views? A tall new tower at the western end of the mall would be a nice bookend to the Arch.
Mall East
Mall West
- 11K
^ Yes a tower at the western terminus would be nice, but I would also welcome the Gateway block being built out so that the mall is separated into distinct "rooms" with different feels.
^ Yes a tower at the western terminus would be nice, but I would also welcome the Gateway block being built out so that the mall is separated into distinct "rooms" with different feels.
Yes, we could do that. I say, we wanted a mall, let's make it a mall.
St. Louis, Gateway Mall
![]()
Paris, Champs Élysées
![]()
Let's tear that ugly failure of urban planning down and think big for a change.
St. Louis, Gateway Mall
Paris, Champs Élysées
Let's tear that ugly failure of urban planning down and think big for a change.
In order to have a close aesthetic like the Champs, I think it would definitely take more trees lining the sidewalks along Market St. and Chestnut St. to the north and south.
More trees could be planted on mall too. And Kiener Plaza - especially the cascading fountain - needs a major makeover.
The cascading fountain is dirty, has hard water stains and is an embarrassment. The fake columns around the armpittheatre are crumbling and are dirty.
Nonetheless, the Gateway Mall has a lot of potential.
More trees could be planted on mall too. And Kiener Plaza - especially the cascading fountain - needs a major makeover.
The cascading fountain is dirty, has hard water stains and is an embarrassment. The fake columns around the armpittheatre are crumbling and are dirty.
Nonetheless, the Gateway Mall has a lot of potential.
^^
Of course I am not wanting the traffic lanes. I just wanted to show the potential of the Mall, without a crappy building blocking the views.
But I think you knew that.
Champs 70 m wide, 1900 m long. Mall 70 m wide, 2100 m long.
^
Arch, you're right, the mall has great potential.
Once we make over Kiener Plaza, re-open the Kiel, Municipal Courts, Park Pacific, Ford and build a new tower on the western end (all attainable objectives, I think) the mall could really come alive. With wider sidewalks and more retail and restaurants this could become our Champs Élysées.
(Grover, I am being ambitious, I know.)
Of course I am not wanting the traffic lanes. I just wanted to show the potential of the Mall, without a crappy building blocking the views.
But I think you knew that.
Champs 70 m wide, 1900 m long. Mall 70 m wide, 2100 m long.
^
Arch, you're right, the mall has great potential.
Once we make over Kiener Plaza, re-open the Kiel, Municipal Courts, Park Pacific, Ford and build a new tower on the western end (all attainable objectives, I think) the mall could really come alive. With wider sidewalks and more retail and restaurants this could become our Champs Élysées.
(Grover, I am being ambitious, I know.)
- 11K
Actually traffic lanes in the middle and sidewalks/trees/etc. on the side would be much preferable to what we have. There's simply no reason for someone to visit the middle of the Gateway Mall unless there are gimmicky (even if cool) attractions that are destinations in themselves.
Not sure what you are measuring Count, but far as I can tell the Champs Élysées from building to building is approximately 230 feet wide where as from building to building (measured at 7th and Market) the Gateway Mall is more than 400 feet wide. If you wanted something of a similar width, it would be from the Market street wall to the southern face of the Gateway One building (hence where the half mall idea comes from).
Also notice, Grove rightly points out, the Champs Élysées' green space is not anchored in the middle of blocks barricaded from surrounding buildings and people by streets, but rather directly adjacent to surrounding buildings (which have a far more active street face).
While a nice idea, it wonder whether the Champs Élysée really forms a good model for the Gateway Mall?
Also notice, Grove rightly points out, the Champs Élysées' green space is not anchored in the middle of blocks barricaded from surrounding buildings and people by streets, but rather directly adjacent to surrounding buildings (which have a far more active street face).
While a nice idea, it wonder whether the Champs Élysée really forms a good model for the Gateway Mall?
- 549
JMedwick wrote:Also notice, Grove rightly points out, the Champs Élysées' green space is not anchored in the middle of blocks barricaded from surrounding buildings and people by streets, but rather directly adjacent to surrounding buildings (which have a far more active street face).
While a nice idea, it wonder whether the Champs Élysée really forms a good model for the Gateway Mall?
Perhaps a more appropriate precedent would be Barcelona's "La Rambla", which is incredibly vibrant and has many of the same characteristics as The Mall: essentially median as park.
Of course, La Rambla still isn't as wide, has fewer lanes of traffic, and has vendors; so it's obviously not a direct comparison. However, there are many characteristics that could (should?) serve as inspiration for The Mall. Namely how to create a vibrant, pedestrian friendly environment that effecting moves people through density and activity towards the water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rambla,_Barcelona
^ Likely, nothing is a one-for-one match to the Mall. All such urban promenades and plazas have small tid-bits to offer when thinking about what the Mall could/ should become.
JMedwick, you're correct. The Champs is about 230 ft or 70 m wide, building to building. I measured the Mall's width without the streets lining it. It's about 230 ft as well.
Grover, I agree. It would be preferable to have the traffic lanes in the middle, but I don't think that's an attainable goal.
The fact that we do have plenty of space means that we could widen the sidewalks and narrow the traffic lanes. Then we need to replace all the parking garages with retail and residential.
JM, I wasn't trying to point out the Champs as a model for the Mall. I just liked the aesthetic similarities. I would like to see the Gateway Mall become St. Louis' promenade, though. Similar to the Champs Élysées in Paris.
Grover, I agree. It would be preferable to have the traffic lanes in the middle, but I don't think that's an attainable goal.
The fact that we do have plenty of space means that we could widen the sidewalks and narrow the traffic lanes. Then we need to replace all the parking garages with retail and residential.
JM, I wasn't trying to point out the Champs as a model for the Mall. I just liked the aesthetic similarities. I would like to see the Gateway Mall become St. Louis' promenade, though. Similar to the Champs Élysées in Paris.
The physical aesthetic of the Champs Élysées is inherently tied to the overall building to building width and building height. The scale and feel of the Mall has been (and in the recently adopted Master Plan, will continue to be) very different. What you like is the concept of an lively active urban promenade. It is difficult to create such a promenade given the current handicaps (which include the afore mentioned Master Plan).
Let's first think about erecting new class "A" office buildings before we start tearing structures down again. Whether or not it's ugly or doesn't fit into the long term scheme for the city doesn't matter. There will be plenty of time to remove Gateway One once all the empty lots in the city have been filled.
A major distintion between both of teh examples above and our mall is the denisty that surrounds them. We simply cannot compete in that arena. That density gives life to those spaces.
My point was that even if we physically structure the mall like either of those, we don't have the density that they do to make them come alive.
Hopefully we will one day but we don't now.
If you can come up with examples that or more analagous, I would love to see them.
Hopefully we will one day but we don't now.
If you can come up with examples that or more analagous, I would love to see them.
But wouldn't it be nice if they offered the tenants of Gateway One new spaces in a new building downtown, paying the same lease rates? They could even get assistance with relocation fees or a short-term tax break.DeBaliviere wrote:Gateway One is not going anywhere.
I would love to see the Gateway more harmonious. I don't mind the OCH or the Civil Courts tower, but Gateway One is a distraction to the flow.
- 3,428
DeBaliviere wrote:Gateway One is not going anywhere.
So can we integrate Gateway one into the Gateway Mall a little more? How about a Bauernhof style Bier Garden out in front. Make the lowest level of the building open out into the mall, rather than another closed-in failed Dierdorf and Hart style restaurant that ignores the landscaping around it. Or a museum in the lower level.
^ If the owner chooses to, that would be great! However, I don't think they should be forced to do so.
Jeff707 wrote:
Jeff, I see you point. But we did have this density once. If we maintain the status quo with this failed concept we might never see it again.
Arch City wrote:
Exactly!
Let's face it. Gateway One is a failure of urban planning and to top it off, ugly as sh**. The Gateway Mall concept will never work with this monstrosity in place.
Right now, there is plenty of office space available in downtown. Let's fill this up. In the process we would finally get rid of GO, finish the Mall concept and create the need for a nice tower at the Western end. (Or anywhere else, for that matter. Plenty of parking lots available.)
Then replace the parking garages with 8-10 story residential/office with retail on the ground floor.
Mission accomplished.
My point was that even if we physically structure the mall like either of those, we don't have the density that they do to make them come alive.
Hopefully we will one day but we don't now.
Jeff, I see you point. But we did have this density once. If we maintain the status quo with this failed concept we might never see it again.
Arch City wrote:
But wouldn't it be nice if they offered the tenants of Gateway One new spaces in a new building downtown, paying the same lease rates? They could even get assistance with relocation fees or a short-term tax break.
Exactly!
Let's face it. Gateway One is a failure of urban planning and to top it off, ugly as sh**. The Gateway Mall concept will never work with this monstrosity in place.
Right now, there is plenty of office space available in downtown. Let's fill this up. In the process we would finally get rid of GO, finish the Mall concept and create the need for a nice tower at the Western end. (Or anywhere else, for that matter. Plenty of parking lots available.)
Then replace the parking garages with 8-10 story residential/office with retail on the ground floor.
Mission accomplished.
The Count wrote:^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^
Four times "nay" in a row. Is that a record?
^ His name is The Count 'cause, well...
-RBB