Citygarden - Downtown Sculpture Park

southslider · PostOct 23, 2007#762007-10-23T15:08+00:00

On an inverted sliding scale of 1 to 10 for sculpture, 1 being the best, since that's the Arch near 1st Street, and the worst being Serra's Twain on 10th, I'd rate this new sculpture park fittingly between 8 and 10.

Of course, if I were Christopher Guest, I'd give Twain an 11.

bonwich · PostOct 23, 2007#772007-10-23T15:41+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
bonwich wrote:Look at slide #6, which should put to rest any illusion that Serra had intended Twain not to be surrounded by trees (or buildings).

What is that flying saucer thing on the 60's plan?

1) The relocated Shakey's

2) Kiener Plaza as designed by Peter Max

3) Zardoz

the central scrutinizer · PostOct 23, 2007#782007-10-23T16:00+00:00

bonwich wrote:1) The relocated Shakey's

I remember the Shakey's ads on TV when I was a kid (with the guys playing banjo), but I don't remember ever going there. Was that a local chain? Or national?

bonwich · PostOct 23, 2007#792007-10-23T16:08+00:00

In 1986, the P-D wrote:Shakey's Pizza Restaurants, based in Irving, Tex., operates 11 company-owned and 259 franchised establishments in the United States. Its 1986 sales will be an estimated $141.9 million.

Best I can tell, all of the original local Shakey's had closed by the late '70s. There was one that opened in Florissant in the late '80s.

the central scrutinizer · PostOct 23, 2007#802007-10-23T16:33+00:00

bonwich wrote:
In 1986, the P-D wrote:Shakey's Pizza Restaurants, based in Irving, Tex., operates 11 company-owned and 259 franchised establishments in the United States. Its 1986 sales will be an estimated $141.9 million.

Best I can tell, all of the original local Shakey's had closed by the late '70s. There was one that opened in Florissant in the late '80s.

Looks like they are still around, although much bigger in Asia than here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakey's_Pizza

threeonefour · PostOct 23, 2007#812007-10-23T17:03+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:
ThreeOneFour wrote:Also, please tell me the city isn't going to get rid of on-street parking along Market and Chestnut streets! Parked cars along streets make them seem less deserted, and serve as an extra barrier between passing cars and pedestrians. Plus, the more on-street parking we have, the less of a need there is for parking garages.

Steve Patterson confirmed it in his blog - no on-street parking. Pretty ridiculous, IMO.

Since we've mentioned him before- where's Rollin Stanley on this? The relative dearth of on-street parking downtown flies in the face of the best practices of urban planning. Maybe they can create a loooooooooong valet lane for the cafe that's proposed for the sculpture park. It isn't like there's anything else around there that makes valet parking necessary.

rbb · PostOct 23, 2007#822007-10-23T17:10+00:00

bonwich wrote:
RBB wrote:
Framer wrote:Actually, I think any additional landscaping on the Serra block would face opposition from the artist and his patron, Emily Pulitzer. The esthetic concept for Twain (and most of Serra's work) is one of structural minimalism. The piece is supposed to exist on it's own merits; the purity of it's form must not be impeded by any external influence. The direct relationship of the sculpture to it's urban environment is critical.

In other words, they don't want it mucked up by trees or bushes or any of that kind of stuff.

Actually, Serra had originally intended for Twain to be landscaped:

http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scma ... erra.shtml

Context has been a problem in some of Serra's public art. Twain (1982) at an outdoor St. Louis site, was never lit and landscaped according to its original plan and is not well maintained.

I believe the P-D included an illustration of Serra's original vision for Twain with landscaping in the their coverage when this grant was first offered to the city. Let me see if I can find a version still on line...

-RBB

Look at slide #6, which should put to rest any illusion that Serra had intended Twain not to be surrounded by trees (or buildings).

Thanks Joe - I completely overlooked it on that presentatation.

For the left-click inhibited:

-RBB

jmedwick · PostOct 23, 2007#832007-10-23T17:18+00:00

I have been meaning to post this for some time.

While it is easy to blame Stanley and other municipal planners for the crap that goes up in a municipality, those planers only have so much say. When it comes down to it, most planers only serve on the Planning or Zoning Board as "Board Professionals," designed to give their professional opinion on the matters at hand, whether it be the variances required, logical conditions of approval, better design, and conformance with the Master Plan/ Land Use Plan. Because the Planner is not a voting member of the board, the planner can only act as either an advocate or and option presenter. You will find most planners, while they would like to be advocates, choose to be option presenters, laying out all the myriad of choices available to the Board and which one/ ones make the most sense from a planning perspective. And that is where a planners role ends. The Board can take that advice and do with it what it wishes, including roundly ignoring it. Stanley, like most other planners, is powerless if people will not listen to his advice.

migueltejada · PostOct 23, 2007#842007-10-23T21:29+00:00

JMedwick wrote:I have been meaning to post this for some time.

While it is easy to blame Stanley and other municipal planners for the crap that goes up in a municipality, those planers only have so much say. When it comes down to it, most planers only serve on the Planning or Zoning Board as "Board Professionals," designed to give their professional opinion on the matters at hand, whether it be the variances required, logical conditions of approval, better design, and conformance with the Master Plan/ Land Use Plan. Because the Planner is not a voting member of the board, the planner can only act as either an advocate or and option presenter. You will find most planners, while they would like to be advocates, choose to be option presenters, laying out all the myriad of choices available to the Board and which one/ ones make the most sense from a planning perspective. And that is where a planners role ends. The Board can take that advice and do with it what it wishes, including roundly ignoring it. Stanley, like most other planners, is powerless if people will not listen to his advice.

Obviously Jmed, you are unfamiliar with the origin story of batman

timeforguinness · PostOct 24, 2007#852007-10-24T00:28+00:00

I think I must be the only person that likes the Serra sculpture...

tiabstl · PostOct 24, 2007#862007-10-24T00:42+00:00

^Then perhaps you should offer to take it off the city's hands??

But seriously, something like "Twain" is something that would be better off at a place like Laumeier Park where it could be in a space which it was originally designed for. The "sculpture" looks very constrained in it's current site.

Alex Ihnen · PostOct 24, 2007#872007-10-24T02:20+00:00

^ If I remember correctly, Twain was specifically designed for exactly where it is - with views of buildings between the iron walls, etc. No one likes a sculpture that seems to just sit there and somehow not miraculously transform every block around it! The problem isn't the sculpture.

gary kreie · PostOct 24, 2007#882007-10-24T03:50+00:00

Check out the item on page 54. Look Familiar?

Bringing People to the Gateway Mall

Alex Ihnen · PostOct 24, 2007#892007-10-24T04:09+00:00

Looking through the presentation again, I really have to say that their premise sucks. The greatest public spaces aren't organic or impromtu, but they aren't contrived - they're made by the people who use it.

threeonefour · PostOct 24, 2007#902007-10-24T04:14+00:00

TimeForGuinness wrote:I think I must be the only person that likes the Serra sculpture...

No. You can count me in as well. I don't like how the city's ignored the block for the last quarter century, though, only to plan another sculpture park next to it. I like the new proposed sculpture park, but I think plans to improve Serra's Twain consistent with his original vision should be part of the plan.

And I don't blame Rollin Stanley for the misguided idea of no on-street parking surrounding this stretch of Gateway Mall, but I wish he'd speak out against this more forcefully. Why do we keep making the same basic urban planning mistakes when we supposedly have one of the best urban planners out there? How good would the Cardinals have been in the last five years if they kept Pujols on the bench all the time?

Our city has been drunk for decades, relying on big-ticket, magic bullet projects to bring people downtown, yet leaders continue to overlook the little commonsense things that make it easier for people to come downtown and stick around once there are reasons for them to come in the first place (synchronized traffic signals, better pedestrian safety, more on-street parking, etc. would go a long way toward making downtown more user-friendly).

So they'll build this great-looking place with nowhere nearby to park, no stores or restaurants nearby, and then they'll wonder why the people aren't coming? Other cities learn from their mistakes, while we keep repeating them. Ridiculous.

framer · PostOct 24, 2007#912007-10-24T04:31+00:00

Sounds like I was wrong about Serra's original intent on landscaping for Twain (thanks for the references, everyone). Which just begs the question: Why the hell hasn't this block ever been completed according to his original vision? Surely Pulitzer (or Gateway or someone) could afford to spring for a few more trees?

Oh well, better late than never, I guess.

sarge96 · PostOct 24, 2007#922007-10-24T13:03+00:00

Here's a site called Project for Public Spaces. It's in line with the debate about the Gateway Mall. This link shows several St. Louis sites and why they do/don't work. Their take on Kiener Plaza is especially interesting.

http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/ ... =st.+louis

cmd+h · PostOct 24, 2007#932007-10-24T18:22+00:00

Grover wrote:^ If I remember correctly, Twain was specifically designed for exactly where it is - with views of buildings between the iron walls, etc. No one likes a sculpture that seems to just sit there and somehow not miraculously transform every block around it! The problem isn't the sculpture.

You are correct -- this piece is site specific as I believe all Serra sculptures are. The goal of this piece is to walk inside it, around it and "interact" with it. The separations in the walls open to specific views of the area around it and were created on purpose.

Food for thought: Here's an article on a Serra sculpture that caused controversy in NY in the 80's. It might shed some light on the goal of Serra's work (not that it will change your opinion).

Back to the idea of sculpture gardens:

I think museums train us from a young age not to touch art which is unfortunate. A sculpture that just sits there is just that -- a sculpture waiting to be looked at. But a sculpture that can be transformed by its viewers unifies the world with the people inhabiting it. The most enticing public sculptures are those people can physically interact with. For example, Turtle Park which is essentially a small sculpture garden. Who doesn't love that place? Or the City Museum where you can play with the "art." Or Laumeier?

Interactivity makes art fun and less pretentious. I hope they take this into consideration with the sculpture garden downtown.

debaliviere · PostJan 28, 2008#942008-01-28T18:31+00:00

Gateway Mall plan to be unveiled today

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

01/28/2008

City leaders will unveil a master plan today on the transformation of the Gateway Mall downtown.

Mayor Francis Slay will be among the city officials joining members of the Gateway Mall Steering Committee in the 1:30 p.m. announcement. They will be at the Civil Courts building, 10 N. Tucker Boulevard.

The Gateway Mall is a 1.2-mile strip of land from the Arch to Union Station.

Architects, city leaders and city officials are trying to energize the mall, which many believe never reached its full potential.

Check back to STLtoday.com for more details.

southcitygent · PostFeb 20, 2009#952009-02-20T21:35+00:00

According to today's Business Journal Vincent Bommarito of Tony's fame will be partnering on the City Garden Cafe.

shinpickle · PostFeb 23, 2009#962009-02-23T16:30+00:00

bonwich wrote:
Look at slide #6, which should put to rest any illusion that Serra had intended Twain not to be surrounded by trees (or buildings).

I don't think Serra made that model... can anyone like to serra's original plans or drawings of twain?

dmmonty1 · PostMar 08, 2009#972009-03-08T23:16+00:00

There's a new sculpture up in the northwest corner of the garden. It's a horse with a three-dimensional star on its back. Not sure who the sculptor is.

stlouis270 · PostMar 09, 2009#982009-03-09T17:37+00:00

ntbpo · PostMar 10, 2009#992009-03-10T00:30+00:00

Love the new horse/star sculpture, also lookes like they moved and/or made a smaller version of the circle things that used to be at the Lafayette 44/55 ramps and placed them on the NE corner of the park.

southcitygent · PostMar 25, 2009#1002009-03-25T16:23+00:00

I am liking what I see, its almost like a taste of the Botanical Gardens in downtown. Hopefully they will be able to keep up the landscaping and the fountains.

Citygarden - Downtown Sculpture Park

Choose Display Mode