urbanSTL

Everything done in forest park (or any major park for that matter) should be done to enhance the experience of EVERYONE.... that said ... it sickens me to think that there are surface lots in the middle of such a beautiful park (that’s for another posting). Also that a golf coarse consisting of 27 mediocre holes takes up a LARGE portion of the "jewel of the city"... lets put a 9 hole golf coarse in O'fallon park and/or fairgrounds park. Put another in the middle of tower grove park. Have the remaining 9 holes be here at forest park... I think 27 holes is a waste of 1/8th the parks area. And this would spread out the golf to much more of the city.

Expand the woods west of the zoo up to lagoon dr. it is called "Forest Park" and there aren't that many forests there.... at least central park is in the middle of mahnattan.

If done correctly - you shouldn't feel like you’re in a huge urban park. Just like the Zoo lets you escape the small dogs and squirrels of St. Louis to a world of safely seeing lions and tigers and bears (oh my) and the art museum lets you escape the world of today to see the world as seen by the impressionists... a well planned "urban park" can let you escape the city life and be in a deep mysterious forest (or whatever you put there)... The park should make you feel special -- (not short bus special) -- and a 27 hole golf coarse doesn't make you feel any more special than a 9 hole coarse does... and it takes up 3 times the space.

Back to highrises... if you put people near it - the park will get used more... but the main thing is that more people right next to forest park will not enhance the park that much - mainly because of the fact that the majority of people using now aren't from directly next to the park -- the majority come from out "there". Do locals use it - yes - but i think mainly because honestly we can't hope for anything close to what NYC has for a LONG time - and that kind of density is needed to get a central park urban usage. Lets put some 50 story towers downtown first, then think about more 30 story towers on the parks edge. Also there aren't that many great places to build too many more towers. Nice houses already line a lot of lindell to the north, I-64 is to the south, Barnes is to the East (not residential).. that leaves one suitable direction for highrises... and that’s hardly central park-ish.

^ here here! I, and the people of Rome have spoken!



The only place high rises are going are on the lot at Lindell and Kingshighway. I would think demand would dictate a TALL building (~50 stories) since there is nowhere to build. Of course there is room for three more buildings along Euclid with some floors having park views - that is at least until the Kingshighway behemoth is built! Lindell is all residential and the prospects of putting a tower of Skinker is well documented and we know the south won't work.

tbspqr wrote:Everything done in forest park (or any major park for that matter) should be done to enhance the experience of EVERYONE.... that said ... it sickens me to think that there are surface lots in the middle of such a beautiful park (that’s for another posting). Also that a golf coarse consisting of 27 mediocre holes takes up a LARGE portion of the "jewel of the city"... lets put a 9 hole golf coarse in O'fallon park and/or fairgrounds park. Put another in the middle of tower grove park. Have the remaining 9 holes be here at forest park... I think 27 holes is a waste of 1/8th the parks area. And this would spread out the golf to much more of the city.

Actually, it's a fairly nice course (as public courses go), not "mediocre".



Why do you want them to take out the tennis courts? And the jogging track? And the softball fields? I don't play tennis or jog or play softball. So those things do not enhance my experience. So you agree, we have to remove them? And what about the Jewel Box? I think you'll get a lot of resistence on that one. And Steinberg? That has to go too, since I don't ice skate (well, I do, but Steinberg has historically had such crappy ice, that I don't ice skate there). And the Boat House Lake? Drain it, because I don't use it.



What a great park this will be when there is nothing in it!

Forest Park is easily the most active park in town, and its role is vastly different from the other parks in the city. There's something for everyone - sports, art/culture, spots for quiet reflection, etc. That's what makes it so great.

Expat wrote:My comments were strictly about my experience with Forest Park and had nothing to do with Central Park. Leave me out of the Forest Park vs. Central Park argument .

Agreed!!!



I did not know there was an argument until this thread was seperated out!



I just thought your comparison was interesting.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Why do you want them to take out the tennis courts? And the jogging track? And the softball fields? I don't play tennis or jog or play softball. So those things do not enhance my experience. So you agree, we have to remove them? And what about the Jewel Box? I think you'll get a lot of resistence on that one. And Steinberg? That has to go too, since I don't ice skate (well, I do, but Steinberg has historically had such crappy ice, that I don't ice skate there). And the Boat House Lake? Drain it, because I don't use it.

If there were 3 huge lakes or 3 jewel houses or 3 of anything one might say that’s too many... but there are (3) three 9 hole courses. My real suggestion is to remove 1 (or 2) of those 3, to leave a full regulation 18 hole coarse.... I never said "I don’t golf - get rid of the golf coarse all together" I said 1/8th of the "most active park in town" (thanks DeBaliviere) dedicated to one activity is too much. The next largest thing (I believe from looking at google earth) is the zoo at 90 acres (size stated by their website)- and there is so much more to do for so many more people to do...

Matthew/E36 wrote:As it stands today, there's plenty of space for everyone!

I’m not so worried about "today" (and my real intention wasn't the here and now) but the possible (and hopeful) future when there are 50 story high-rises next to the park (and 81 story towers downtown and … and … but I digress). I don’t plan on taking a bulldozer to their caddy shack tomorrow... but if you get numerous high rise residential towers -- an even more diverse spread of activities could/would be desirable... and the EASIEST thing to get rid of without taking away from the experience of the fabulous park in general (IMO) is to reduce the size of the golf coarse which takes up hundreds of "underutilized" acres.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the golf course by the Science Center a Private Club? The city has no business removing it if it is. If memory serves, it was there long before "Forest Park" came into being.

Triple A Golf and Tennis Club was established more than 100 years ago. They are open to the public, and everyone is welcome. Triple A is a great alternative to the more expensive private courses in the St. Louis region. In addition, Triple A Golf and Tennis Club formed the Triple A Youth Foundation in 1966. The club serves as the foundation's home facility for introducing tennis and golf to St. Louis area youth who might not have the opportunity to learn, practice, and play either game.

The other course was rebuilt as 27 holes (I guess that means there are 36 total in FP) in the last few years with contributions from private donors, Forest Park Forever and the city. Notably THE Mr. Danforth gave $2.4M to the course. I'll shut up now - just guessing that neither Mr. Danforth nor those who ostensibly introduce tennis and golf to underserved inner-city youth are likely to see it my way!!!!

tbspqr wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Why do you want them to take out the tennis courts? And the jogging track? And the softball fields? I don't play tennis or jog or play softball. So those things do not enhance my experience. So you agree, we have to remove them? And what about the Jewel Box? I think you'll get a lot of resistence on that one. And Steinberg? That has to go too, since I don't ice skate (well, I do, but Steinberg has historically had such crappy ice, that I don't ice skate there). And the Boat House Lake? Drain it, because I don't use it.

If there were 3 huge lakes or 3 jewel houses or 3 of anything one might say that’s too many... but there are (3) three 9 hole courses. My real suggestion is to remove 1 (or 2) of those 3, to leave a full regulation 18 hole coarse.... I never said "I don’t golf - get rid of the golf coarse all together" I said 1/8th of the "most active park in town" (thanks DeBaliviere) dedicated to one activity is too much. The next largest thing (I believe from looking at google earth) is the zoo at 90 acres (size stated by their website)- and there is so much more to do for so many more people to do...

So you would take out most of the softball fields too?



And remember, throwing a frisbee and lying in the grass reading a book are also "activities". So even if we take out half the golf course, we cannot turn it into open space, because that would be too much of the park dedicated to those activities.

[quote="tbspqr]I said 1/8th of the "most active park in town" (thanks DeBaliviere) dedicated to one activity is too much.[/quote]



YES TCS - If the soft ball fields took up as much space as a golf course -- YES I would say bulldoze some of them - but they don't - stop phising....



The open fields that are conducive to throwing a Frisbee and reading (general activities) --- those are multi use areas - people can enjoy them doing one activity today, and another one tomorrow... much more versatile... 27 holes of golf is conducive to one thing - GOLF.... Plus I am not really for more open traditional park space (as Tower grove and other parts of Forest Park are already set up for that)(and in any case - those are traditional park themes - golf isn't as "park-ish") but - as I said earlier - I push more for a FOREST for Forest park....

Expand the woods west of the zoo up to lagoon dr. it is called "Forest Park" and there aren't that many forests there....

Lets give the people some experience you can't get for miles around -- and last I checked there aren't that many deep forests within a few miles... Ruth Park Golf Club is less than 4 miles away from the forest park course. (not to mention the triple A one that was mentioned a few posts ago being within Forest Park.)

Where does the income (if any) go to from these golf courses (notice the spelling)?



My guess is that at least some of this income would go towards Forest Park directly, or at least the St. Louis Parks Department, which would inturn provide the money to keep Forest Park going.



Just my thought about keeping the golf courses intact.



Also, picture a typical golf course and the back drop it has. Now picture a hole from Forest Park, with the surrounding buildings. Not too many courses around can compare with that type of setting.

ricke002 wrote:My guess is that at least some of this income would go towards Forest Park directly, or at least the St. Louis Parks Department, which would inturn provide the money to keep Forest Park going.

Im not an english major... sorry that that i had been putting "golf rough" before... and by that mindset - the zoo, history museum and the art museum all should be closed down only becuase they have no entry fee....



your point about a golf course surrounded bu towering buildings (as seen in pictures of central park and the dream of forest park) is an awesome idea -- IF its the type of club that can attract world class majors (the only two right now in the region that do that are Bellerive and Old Warson).... and thats a HUGE "IF" considering the park is decades away from that type of development in the best circumstances....

ricke002 wrote:Where does the income (if any) go to from these golf courses (notice the spelling)?



My guess is that at least some of this income would go towards Forest Park directly, or at least the St. Louis Parks Department, which would inturn provide the money to keep Forest Park going.



Just my thought about keeping the golf courses intact.



Also, picture a typical golf course and the back drop it has. Now picture a hole from Forest Park, with the surrounding buildings. Not too many courses around can compare with that type of setting.

Attacking someone's spelling is not a good way to debate your view. It only weakens your stance.

tbspqr wrote:YES TCS - If the soft ball fields took up as much space as a golf course -- YES I would say bulldoze some of them - but they don't - stop phising....

I'll stop "phising" (whatever that is) when you start thinking.

but the main thing is that more people right next to forest park will not enhance the park that much - mainly because of the fact that the majority of people using now aren't from directly next to the park -- the majority come from out "there".

This just does not make sense and is completely illogical. Because a lot of people come from out "there" to use the park, new, nearby residents won't use it? WHa?

tbspqr wrote:

ricke002 wrote:My guess is that at least some of this income would go towards Forest Park directly, or at least the St. Louis Parks Department, which would inturn provide the money to keep Forest Park going.

and by that mindset - the zoo, history museum and the art museum all should be closed down only becuase they have no entry fee....

Maybe the zoo and museums are able to be free because of the revenue generated by the golf courses, softball fields, soccer fields, etc. (yes, you can go throw or kick a ball around on the fields for free but all the leagues they have generate quite a bit of revenue.)

1. There are apparently 36 holes of golf (per Forest Park website)



2. The museum/zoo/science center are funded by a special taxing district, membership and donations



3. I thought "phishing" was pulling a single 'fact' from an argument/statement and drawing a conclusion to justify your own argument while ignoring the larger point



4. I completely understand the following point:

but the main thing is that more people right next to forest park will not enhance the park that much - mainly because of the fact that the majority of people using now aren't from directly next to the park -- the majority come from out "there".

NYC MSA population = ~19 million, land area = ~6,700 sq/mi (321/sq.mi.)

STL MSA population = ~3 million, land area = ~8,700 sq/mi (2,787/sq.mi.)

This plays out in the area sounding the two parks as well. So - I can certainly see how usage in Central Park is dictated more by those living close who may use it on a daily/weekly basis while Forest Park usage would be dictated more by those visiting amenities once a month, once a year, or just on vacation.



5. Telling someone else to start thinking is an unconventional (some would say, not good) method to use when discussing anything.

^ I think it does. If more than a million people come from outside StL to the park each year for the zoo you'd better bet that the zoo will be a priority for the park. If 5,000 people who live within 1/2 block of the park REALLY want a new bike trail what do you think is going to happen? I think the influence from "other" people trumps your interest. The point/theory is that is amenities for those within 1/2 block aren't as much of a priority as the much, much larger number of people who visit irregularly and often for a special event or specific attraction.



P.S. I plan to follow your posts all day!

The golf courses are huge asset in my opinion to the charm of FP. I always bring out of town clients to the FP golf course and they absolutely love it!!!! Not only are the courses well kept, but the surrounding environment makes it in my mind very unique and very interesting. In regards to downsizing, those courses are packed for the most part any day of the week, getting a tee time can be hard unless you are willing to play in the early evening (just before it gets dark). Not to mention the fact that prices there are very reasonable and has a non pretentious feel to it unlike other courses.

^ Good points. I think the gist of what I'm saying is that an Art Museum is not something that someone, either near or far, typically uses on a weekly basis. However, those living close are more likely to use the walking trails/etc quite often. I'm not quite making this as clear as it could be. The wrap up my thought - if residential density were much greater around the park we would more likely see the demand for more running trails/forests/etc (daily use items) increase in proportion to the 'attractions'.

Having lived in U City for 3 years I frequented the park almost on a dailey basis (at least in warm months). My personal observation was that most of the people jogging, biking, picnicing, frizbee throughing... whatever, were from the areas surrounding the park. Most of the people coming from afar usually went to the sites (zoo, golf, art museum, ... etc.) and went home afterward. I have seen this through observation and personal experience with friends and family. Either way it seems to me that there is plenty of space for all to enjoy the park before we go bulldozing areas that are used by the public. It's one of the largest urban parks in the country for *** sake, in a city that is far from being overcrowded!!!