I am new to the forum. So, I apologize if this topic has already been discussed.

Is anyone aware of any discussion or movement to create a large multi-use park in the Downtown area? I am aware that there are some "parks" in the Downtown area. However, I don't feel that any of these parks are true, useable green spaces.

When I visit New York, I love the parks that have basketball courts, small soccer fields, playgrounds and then other open areas just for relaxing. These parks are never terribly large, but they are always used and occupied.

I imagine that this would be a great project for someone on the Board of Alderman. I am curious whether anyone knows of something like this in the works.

I'm not aware of any plans for new park creation downtown, but of course there is the redevelopment of the Arch grounds and the seperate Master Plan for the Gateway Mall. In some ways the Gateway Mall plan gets close to what you have in mind, with some of the blocks to be dedicated to more active use, but I am not aware of the specifics of what they have in mind. The Citygarden was a great first step for the Mall, and I was hoping for plans for their next undertaking to be announced by now, but they can't even affort a director, so things don't look too promising. But I guess if Keiner Plaza gets remade in a good way as part of the Arch redevelopment then that is progress.

We have an over abundance of park space downtown as is between gateway mall, the arch grounds, and lucas park. There are plans in motion to improve all of the above.

moorlander wrote:We have an over abundance of park space downtown as is between gateway mall, the arch grounds, and lucas park. There are plans in motion to improve all of the above.

I'm not so sure I would classify green space as an "over abundance" downtown, but we do have some. Unfortunately most of the space is populated with an over abundance of bums. Plans are great to have, but funding is much more important in this time. Park funding nationally is down a great deal, this isn't just in St Louis. Hopefully the plans involve the money to take action, clean the spaces up, and enforce existing laws.

Ok, Where would you put another park? And what void would it fill? The arch grouds are huge and so is Gateway Mall. There are also other blocks of green space. For example, the lot west of BOFA tower and the one east of Eagleton.

I think you're greatly exaggerating the bum issue. They concentrate on Lucas park and the mall between soldiers memorial and aloe plaza. Rarely will you ever find them on the mall east if Tucker or the arch grounds.

All, I appreciate everyone's insight and comments. I hope that St. Louis will eventually create viable, usable green spaces in the downtown area. I agree with the comments that there are a lot of parks in the downtown area. However, I do not find them inviting or usable beyond sitting on a bench. More specifically, you very rarely, if ever, see people using that green space/park space in an active capacity.

I would love to see a park with a basketball court, small soccer court (as seen in a lot of downtown areas in big cities), a playground, etc. That was really the genesis of my post. I have a lot of friends who also live downtown that would welcome such an addition to the area. Accordingly, if anyone knows of a movement or discussion to that end, we would love to be a part of it.

I'm not a downtown resident nor do I have kids, but is there a reason why the playground at Lucas Park doesn't count? Also, outside of New York or Chicago, what other cities have downtown central business district basketball courts and soccer courts? I think it would be interesting to see pictures of these downtown parks.

We have City Garden, OPO Square Plaza, and the Arch grounds. All of which are inviting and more usable than just siting on a bench.

I'm just trying to understand your case better.

StL317 wrote:I would love to see a park with a basketball court, small soccer court (as seen in a lot of downtown areas in big cities), a playground, etc. That was really the genesis of my post. I have a lot of friends who also live downtown that would welcome such an addition to the area. Accordingly, if anyone knows of a movement or discussion to that end, we would love to be a part of it.

I wouldn't mind seeing softball downtown, even on the Arch grounds. When I first went to Washington DC several years ago, I was kind of shocked to see people playing softball on the Capital Mall, as if it was a Washington city park. But now I see that as a something that made the area much more lively than just a sterile grass mall.

Also, I would love to see Chouteau Pond recreated downtown, with water taxis to bring more life to downtown, the way they have in other cities.

StL317 wrote:All, I appreciate everyone's insight and comments. I hope that St. Louis will eventually create viable, usable green spaces in the downtown area. I agree with the comments that there are a lot of parks in the downtown area. However, I do not find them inviting or usable beyond sitting on a bench. More specifically, you very rarely, if ever, see people using that green space/park space in an active capacity.

I would love to see a park with a basketball court, small soccer court (as seen in a lot of downtown areas in big cities), a playground, etc. That was really the genesis of my post. I have a lot of friends who also live downtown that would welcome such an addition to the area. Accordingly, if anyone knows of a movement or discussion to that end, we would love to be a part of it.

There are a lot of different functions supposed to be taking place as the Gateway Mall gets redeveloped. Take a look at that plan.

I have looked at the Gateway Mall plans. While there may be a clear set of plans, I was been unable to get a clear understanding of what the plans currently call for with respect to active spaces.

With respect to the question about which other cities besides NYC and Chicago have soccer and basketball courts, I would say that I have played on such soccer courts in LA. (Note: I do not have an example from any city comparable in density to St. Louis.) However, the best examples can be found in Europe. Specifically, when I lived in Germany and Holland, these types of uses were extremely common. It should also be noted that the soccer courts in Europe are more a street court (i.e. not grass fields).

Finally, someone pointed out that there are some useable spaces (i.e. City Gardens, OPO Square and the Arch Grounds) in the downtown area. I would fully agree with that point, and I love those spaces. However, while those spaces are very nice, I do not find them to be "active spaces". I find that those spaces are for sitting and enjoying, and I very much enjoy spending time in those spaces. I would just love to see the downtown area increase the types of public spaces available to its residents.

StL317 wrote:I have looked at the Gateway Mall plans. While there may be a clear set of plans, I was been unable to get a clear understanding of what the plans currently call for with respect to active spaces.

With respect to the question about which other cities besides NYC and Chicago have soccer and basketball courts, I would say that I have played on such soccer courts in LA. (Note: I do not have an example from any city comparable in density to St. Louis.) However, the best examples can be found in Europe. Specifically, when I lived in Germany and Holland, these types of uses were extremely common. It should also be noted that the soccer courts in Europe are more a street court (i.e. not grass fields).

Finally, someone pointed out that there are some useable spaces (i.e. City Gardens, OPO Square and the Arch Grounds) in the downtown area. I would fully agree with that point, and I love those spaces. However, while those spaces are very nice, I do not find them to be "active spaces". I find that those spaces are for sitting and enjoying, and I very much enjoy spending time in those spaces. I would just love to see the downtown area increase the types of public spaces available to its residents.

Most of the active space is supposed to be in the "neighborhood room" spanning from 15th to 18th. It is supposed to include a playgrounds, beach volleyball and play-fields that range from soccer-football-softball. Also, this portion of the mall includes mounds for "viewing", but being as its close to the active areas, I would imagine the design would promote climbing...in a vague sense of the word.

Edit: See page 42 of the document posted by Alex below.

Would the city take good care of those spaces if they made more recreational ones? They don't seem to do a great job of it now. I don't have a lot of confidence in them considering they're dealing with deficit issues right now. There's trash, homeless people, and they're all poorly lit. They don't feel safe, especially at night. The area around Soldier's memorial is practically pitch black at night.

I think if the city put a heavy police presence in those areas and lit them up really well, that would makes a great difference.

^Doesn't the Grove have a 1% tax on all of the residents for stuff similar to this? I think I read that somewhere on the forum before.

I don't know if there's a Downtown Neighborhood association or anything. But if they had something like what I believe the Grove has, a small tax (maybe even fractions of a percent), that could help beautify the park areas, maybe hire some private security, etc. I think it could have some influence. Its definitely working in the Grove.

Downtown has more younger residents and ones that seem to take a lot of pride in living there. This could be an avenue for them to stick around longer. And eventually curb the mindset of older St. Louisans that downtown isn't safe.

great thread @STL317. I'm definitely surprised by the overwhelming positive response to a call for more basketball courts. I'd love to see more basketball courts dot downtown and the city. I think they'd be a great component in tackling infill.

gary kreie wrote:

StL317 wrote:I would love to see a park with a basketball court, small soccer court (as seen in a lot of downtown areas in big cities), a playground, etc. That was really the genesis of my post. I have a lot of friends who also live downtown that would welcome such an addition to the area. Accordingly, if anyone knows of a movement or discussion to that end, we would love to be a part of it.

Also, I would love to see Chouteau Pond recreated downtown, with water taxis to bring more life to downtown, the way they have in other cities.

I would rephrase the desires on this particular thread as a sports field/athletic complex which tend to favor and provide for local communities.

In that context, I think Gary hit on one great location - Chouteau Pond greenway, the property is already owned by the greenway district if not mistaken, their is plenty of parking that the surface lot won't be missed, its already set aside as park space and its a cheapest way to start working this space if you drop the idea of having ponds/water. Another way to look at it and to pharaphase as well as elaborate on Gone Corporate statement, Build BPV already and move that dam softball field over there!!

The other location for sports field, next to the proposed Laclede powerhouse development at the start of the riverfront bike trail. Make North trestle greenway a three phase project (anohther asset already owned). Phase 1 - North Trestle trail, Phase 2 - Downtown riverfront sports complex, Phase 3 - Linear elevated greenway.

@pat and others - the question of whether the city would tend to it properly is valid and raises an issue that I believe is long overdue for consideration. St. Louis City's Parks Division lays claim to 105 Parks (http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov//parks/ - btw, the City's web admin needs to fix their ReWrite rule). More than a few of these parks are nothing more than crudely-maintained lawns in areas that are only marginally accessible, even by locals. Other parks are redundant and woefully underutilized.

Some parks, quite simply, need to go so that the Parks Department can focus its effort on developing and maintaining those properties that deliver the greatest benefit and enjoyment to the public.

The City is always claiming financial dire straights. Sell off some of these parcels to developers for historically-appropriate in-fill (note to developers: historically appropriate does not mean slapping a faux-mansard on the front of the same plans you used out in the county).

Of course, people are going to scream bloody murder when you try to take away that empty lot three blocks down which they've never set foot in but someone has to take a stance somewhere.

It seems as though the Parks dept would need to take the lead on such an initiative. I can already hear their protestations, though, about lacking sufficient political leverage to overcome aldermanic pressure. If Parks would put together a coherent plan detailing the money savings (and recoupment through land sales), perhaps they could put it in the aldmermen's court (no pun intended) to find alternative ways to save a similar amount of money while realizing needed improvements at the more popular parks throughout the city.

Aieee. I missed that somehow. Thanks for the info. That's truly a shame and an undue burden on our parks dept. (please tell me that they weren't the ones driving the initiative).

Could the Parks Dept. invite Larry Rice in to set up his desired 'tent city' in one or more of the parks that need to go? Then we'll see just how fast special elections can scheduled.