While Arch's concept is right, Olive west of Tucker does not have the right scale to become what Broad Street in Philly is (and does not have the great visual termination provided by City Hall either).
If downtown is going to go with a similar streetscaping project, either Broadway, Tucker, Chestnut or Market would be the my preferred locations.
I know landscaping cost money, but I think Downtown as a whole needs a beautification process done to it. I don't think our leaders realize that the way a city is perceived determines the amount of investment outsiders are willing to put in. Like Arch implied, who the hell wants to set up shop on a street that looks like crap. Just like the archgrounds/riverfront for example, who the hell wants to build a shiny new tower that looks down on that post-industrial feeling riverfront with little to no activity.
Thanks goat314. You've echoed my sentiments exactly. Not only that, beautification, I think, ought to be a city's greatest priority. I think if cities can help sports team owners build stadiums, cities should be able to invest in their public streets as well. Although there's been some average progress, major implementation to improve downtown streets hasn't materialized. Appearance does matter.
JMedwick wrote:While Arch's concept is right, Olive west of Tucker does not have the right scale to become what Broad Street in Philly is (and does not have the great visual termination provided by City Hall either).
True. Keep in mind though that I was only speaking of streetscaping - not scale. Unless Olive, west of Tucker Blvd., is narrowed with new towers and dense development developed along it, Olive St. would never have the same "scale" of Philly's Broad St.
I wrote,
"Perhaps a "boulevard" streetscaping might spur/spark new investments along the thoroughfare."
My concern is the barren or underutilized look and nature of Olive Blvd. between Tucker and North Grand. If it is spiffed up and altered perhaps it would attract more vehicular and pedestrian activity.
Imagine well-landscaped center medians - not cheesy ones - along this stretch of Olive/Lindell.
Arch City wrote:Not only that, beautification, I think, ought to be a city's greatest priority. I think if cities can help sports team owners build stadiums, cities should be able to invest in their public streets as well.
Beautification is one of the most unrealized concepts in St. Louis if you ask me. When suburbs like Maplewood can brag that they have better looking streets than the core city than spawned them, things just aren't right. Other than Washington Avenue there isn't one street Downtown that is even close to its potential.
Stepping outside of downtown, I think this is a city-wide problem. Look at the hideous landscaping and infrastructure around our highways and off-ramps. Take this trash can, which can be found on the 55 off-ramp getting onto Gravois/Tucker, for example:
How can anyone at the City think this is acceptable? Why are these things at all the highway entrance and exit ramps? I agree that we need something to put trash in, but this isn't the answer. When they can't even get something as prominent and simple to fix as this right, I have to wonder if the City is capable of making anything look beautiful. That being said, I think improving streets like Olive can do as much for a city as most single development projects. If we could just get our act together.
^Lazy people litter. While they aren't attractive, I'm guessing these cans are there to make it as easy as possible for them to (legally) dispose of their trash. They just pull alongside, roll down their window and toss. The cans are probably tilted to help those with poor shots.
^ Exactly appearance isn't everything, but part of being a world class city is appearance. For example, when I was in Los Angeles (despite it being one of the most naturally beautiful settings in the country), I noticed that the city had a theme for beautification throughout the city. If any of you have ever noticed all of Los Angeles street curbs are painted this purplish red color and the same kind of uniform trees and palms are found all over the city (even in the roughest neighborhoods). All street signs in LA are the same blue color too! Although these things may seem trivial and some of you may say "what do you expect its LA and this is St. Louis, no comparison right"? Wrong! those minor details give the appearance that somebody gives a damn. People cant expect greedy developers to give a damn about the appearance of their tacky looking projects, if the city blatantly doesn't give a damn about the appearance of the city. If St. Louis had higher standards for itself, you would notice that developers wouldn't dare build a product that doesn't compliment the "beautiful" environment, because there would be a fear that people wouldn't patronize their establishment because they look out of place and just plain ugly! I mean just look at the trashcan in the last pick, it just screams "We are a washed up, has been, ghetto, little town". We all know this is not true, but imagine if someone from a place like Seattle or Denver (that isn't used to that kind of grit) comes and sees that sh*t. They have already heard we are the most dangerous city in America and now we just look like the dirtiest. Just think about that and ask yourself do you want that kind of perception of the Lou.
I don't think the problem is lack of concern for the issue. It is just that things like beautification initiatives take so long to fund and implement here, that by the time the city it ready to proceed with one initiative, those that sponsored it are no longer around. Or, by the time an initiative is halfway complete, the first phases of that initiative are so damaged from vandalism and/or poor maintenance, or are so outdated because of changing tastes and technology, that a new initiative is necessary.
Lazy people litter.
True. However, there is a significant portion of the population that is not just lazy, but actually does not perceive or comprehend that littering is a bad thing, or is even a problem. At the very least, placing trashcans at off-ramps and intersections might serve as a reminder to these people that other members of society believe that trash is best removed and/or contained, rather than allowed to blow around and accumulate.
FWIW, those trashcans always seem to be full, whether it is from drivers, or neighborhood residents/volunteers cleaning up the area.
Let's throw it another way: Indifferent people litter. This includes people who don't care that trash is thrown on the ground, or that garbage is strewn about. This can be people who don't see the inherent value in not walking around in filth, to people who don't care for the simple aesthetics of cleanliness.
Whether it involves a bottle of New Amsterdam vodka left underneath the Sky Bridge, a business flyer strewn about underneath a newspaper rack, or dog crap on the sidewalk (hope that it's just a dog), it's an endemic problem to urban area. This involves socioeconomics and innate senses of what is for the public good. As some post up graffiti, others prefer to just drop their waste. While there is that crew of Downtown cleaners, those fellows in the purple uniforms cleaning up crap wherever it may lie, it's all our jobs to pick up random litter and throw it in the trash. Just watch what you pick up, as sometimes you grab a newspaper on the ground next to a trash can to throw it away, only to discover that someone already used it in lieu of a bathroom (ruined my lunch that day). Be glad for the proclivity of antibacterial soap.
Has there been any news on the WashAve streetscape repairs?
I read that the utility companies that tore up the road were basically exempted from the cost of restoring the high quality infrastructure after they tore it up. They are only responsible for the very basic of repairs (aka asphalt). Laclede claims these issues were never discussed.
The article also mentioned how the cost to maintain the streetscapes was a complete afterthought. It all just gets me down. What a great example of terrible planning and foresight from our city leaders.
I don't know anything about the Wash Ave streetscape in the Loft District, but iirc the lower WashAve work from M/X area down to Arch Memorial should begin soon.
All of downtown's streetscape is looking old and tired. Between the cobra lights, the choice of concrete for the sidewalks, and the need for lots of repairs on many of the sidewalks, it's pretty dang bad. Go to any major other city and you'll see STL's just don't compare.
I noticed the other night that the streetlights on Broadway across from the Federal Reserve now have green strips at the top, similar to the blue street lights over by SLU. It was only for 1-2 blocks.
debaliviere wrote:I noticed the other night that the streetlights on Broadway across from the Federal Reserve now have green strips at the top, similar to the blue street lights over by SLU. It was only for 1-2 blocks.
They look cheap, dumb and temporary.
And what is with Washington ave?! Aren't there any funds to improve these recent improvements?! Does city hall just take downtown for granted?!
Since the lights and get rid of unnecessary ones
Fix potholes or manholes that are too low
Repair the broken stones on Washington.
Power wash the street and sidewalks.
Is this really that expensive?
There is a federally funded project on wash ave around MX soon. Waiting for final plan approval.
Feds rarely enforce this but they could ask the city for the fed $ used for the original wash ave work. The agreement for the fed funds say city will maintain the improvements indefinitely. Clearly not being done and recourse is paying the Feds back
yep, because they spent a ton of money on the design, materials, and fancy lights with no long-term plan for maintenance. i've never liked the Wash. Ave makeover. rather than brightening the street it somehow managed to make it look darker and danker. and now that it's falling apart it looks even shittier. they should have just resurfaced the street, poured new sidewalks, and replaced the cobra heads with something more standard. if you wanna splurge, splurge on curbs. quality curbs (e.g. some nice granite slabs) can make a street look fantastic, IMO.
dbInSouthCity wrote:There is a federally funded project on wash ave around MX soon. Waiting for final plan approval.
Feds rarely enforce this but they could ask the city for the fed $ used for the original wash ave work. The agreement for the fed funds say city will maintain the improvements indefinitely. Clearly not being done and recourse is paying the Feds back
Is there a website that explains this? Could you post some literature around this?
its part of the program agreement that the city or grg or any entity signs when it gets fed $...see the section below.
some primer- Federal Gov delegates administration of fed $ to state DOT's. MoDOT-STL has 8 people that all they do is administer fed $ to City/Counties/GRG/Metro get at EWG for local projects (non modot projects) thats why the agreements say "commission" has in modot commission acting on behalf of the FHWA
