St. Louis Development Corporation has contracted with H3 Studio, Inc., to develop Station Area Plans for three existing MetroLink station areas along the current alignment and two proposed station areas along the planned Northside-Southside MetroLink extension alignment. All Station Area Plans fall within the City of St. Louis and will generally incorporate a ½ mile radius around the station, although this may vary depending on each Station.

The current MetroLink alignments traverse 46 miles and have 37 stations, of which 12 are in the City. The three existing station areas to be studied are:

1. Arch-Laclede’s Landing Station
2. Stadium Station
3. Forest Park-DeBaliviere / Delmar Loop Stations (These two stations are incorporated in one study area.)

The two proposed station areas along the planned Northside-Southside MetroLink extension alignment to be studied are:

1. Kingshighway Station
2. Cherokee Station

This study will be funded through the $4.7M Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant (awarded to East-West Gateway) under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. For more information on this grant, visit http://www.onestl.org/.

If you have questions, please contact Amy Lampe, Major Project Specialist, 314-657-3737 or lampea@stlouis-mo.gov.

Laclede's Landing and Stadium Stations
http://stlouis-mo.gov/government/depart ... eid=360308

Delmar and Forest Park/Debaliviere Station
http://stlouis-mo.gov/government/depart ... eID=360326

Transit-oriented development at Laclede's Landing, huh? Are we sure that's what City+Arch+River actually wants since they're a) removing Washington Avenue; and b) passed on this beautiful, multi-modal design by SOM-Hargreaves:



To me, passive space is the opposite of transit-oriented development. And that's exactly what the Washington closure creates more of.

Kevin B wrote:Transit-oriented development at Laclede's Landing, huh? Are we sure that's what City+Arch+River actually wants since they're a) removing Washington Avenue; and b) passed on this beautiful, multi-modal design by SOM-Hargreaves:



To me, passive space is the opposite of transit-oriented development. And that's exactly what the Washington closure creates more of.

You make some good points, but the current plan is not bad at all. It's a solid plan with a lot of good strategies, like funding and urban design, for moving forward. I'm just a little disheartened that these plans are a 30 year vision. Even in slow growth St. Louis these plans should take no more than 10-15 years to accomplish in my opinion. Maybe 30 years is just a very conservative time frame. I know other TOD plans in the area will be completed way before then.

^ Don't mind me...just still bitter about SOM-Hargreaves not winning the competition, or really even having any of its elements included.

But it is hard not to think of missed opportunities for potentially exciting interplay between the TOD'd Landing/North Riverfront and an active, multi-modal North Archgrounds as shown in the SOM-Hargreaves design. With City+Arch+River removing Washington Avenue in favor of even more passive space, I think the Eads Bridge becomes more of a wall than a passage.

Which reminds me...if you go to the culture tab on the DUMBO page (Hands down, my favorite neighborhood/chamber website, by the way), they do a ton of cool art/music/activity events underneath the MBO archways. I hope some industrious or artistic person begins utilizing those archways under the Eads for similar projects.

Edit: Here's a picture of a recent digital projection series from down under the Manhattan Bridge overpass:

I don't get why the plan appears to call for the removal of a perfectly viable parking garage in an unobtrusive location along Leonor K. Sullivan in Laclede's Landing.

I love most of the renderings shown, especially the ones depicting new infill around Busch Stadium. A little added density throughout downtown would make a huge difference.

debaliviere wrote:I don't get why the plan appears to call for the removal of a perfectly viable parking garage in an unobtrusive location along Leonor K. Sullivan in Laclede's Landing.

Me neither. I don't get the removal of Washington Avenue or the clusterfarking of Memorial Drive underneath the lid, either. How much is going to be spent to fix what isn't broken?

I love most of the renderings shown, especially the ones depicting new infill around Busch Stadium. A little added density throughout downtown would make a huge difference.

Agreed; that is what's going to fix a lot that is presently wrong with downtown.

mill204 wrote:Am I alone in thinking SOM's idea for a transportation hub at the Arch was a terrible idea? Design wise, it looks awesome. Operationally, could not be in a much worse location.

Depends on its purpose, I guess. If the north Archgrounds were the terminus for specific eastward routes, a downtown circulator and dedicated Arch/Landing express routes, then I think it makes perfect sense. In my mind, I imagined expresses arriving via Broadway, Florissant, Delmar/MLK, Gravois, and Manchester/Chouteau. With active North Archgrounds planning -- education centers, children's areas, tour groups, etc. -- as included in the plan, it could serve as a perfect point-of-arrival for anyone with an interest in visiting JNEM and the best route for those who either don't/can't drive or don't live by Metrolink.

After all, the whole point of this project was to bring attendance levels back up (and connect the City/Arch?River and all that...).