Forest Park Hospital (STL Zoo)

dredger · PostMar 13, 2012#1262012-03-13T05:02+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:I think the rendering is really disappointing, but I think we'll see a lot more information in the next couple months as the zoo develops a better and more comprehensive development plan. I don't know why they would release something like that (or why developers seem to always release awful renderings), but the public will have some input into this. That said, don't expect any of the existing buildings to be saved - other than the office building and parking garage.

Not really disappointed in the rendering as it gives an upfront picture of what they can reallistically accomplish in the near future. In other words, I don't think much of the existing structures fit any particular re-use well and certainly don't see hospital structures being beneficial to a zoo at all. Much rather have what was presented then the zoo's version of ballpark village

What I would like to see is the zoo develop the parcel in pieces as the renderings suggest and be open to the idea that they might not need all the space. In that context, I like the idea that some grid, street structure is provided in the rendering and can easily picture the southwest corner sold back to a private developer for a mixed used and shared parking (Think Brentwood Metro station parking garage shared with the office/retail)

As far as wishful thinking, how about a tram loop that connects Forest Park Community College, Highland Development (old sport stadium size) this site on the south side of I-64 wiht the zoo, City forestry facility (also a great location for a ferriw wheel) and Science center entrance on the park side of I-64.

PostMar 13, 2012#1272012-03-13T05:05+00:00

framer wrote:This is great for the future of the Zoo. Obviously, they would never be allowed to expand in Forest Park, so this is the only direction they can go. This will ultimately free-up much needed space within the current boundaries for new exhibits.

I can't wait to see the current South Parking Lot torn up and replaced with, oh, I don't know, maybe an African Savanna or a Tropical Rainforest or something.

I don't see it happening for the amount money they put into the south lot and updated entrance.

However, I think the north entrance is a whole different story as it was a front door attempt to what most people would probably consider a back door entrance. The reality of an autocentric world

downtown2007 · PostMar 13, 2012#1282012-03-13T12:16+00:00

Is it me or does anyone else find these Zoo plans disappointing? I think the site could do much better and lets face it, this proposal is just a glorified parking lot. Every media outlet has pitched this as a huge benefit to the Zoo patrons that they will be able to park easier and walk less. The other element is that officials claim it will relieve traffic congestion, however isn't more parking going to increase the amount of cars using the Zoo, therefore increasing traffic. Let's also examine one of the ways the zoo makes money. By charging for parking.

Will it increase residential and office density? Maybe office a bit but nothing in terms of residential.

Underwhelmed and disappointed.

tbspqr · PostMar 13, 2012#1292012-03-13T14:57+00:00

downtown2007 wrote:Will it increase residential and office density? Maybe office a bit but nothing in terms of residential.

Neither the Saint Louis Zoological Park nor the St. Louis Zoo Foundation care about "residential or office density", nor should anyone reasonably expect A ZOO LOCATED WITHIN A PARK to measure success in those terms. Don't expect much.

ward24 · PostMar 13, 2012#1302012-03-13T15:03+00:00

Some info on the FP Hospital sale:

The Zoo has two immediate needs / wants:

- Additional research & office space. They'll be able to renovate / adapt the Medical Office Building and expand their conservation biology program and research related to human / animal disease vectors. This is a worthwhile endeavor. They will also have land available for future expansions of related activities or additional office space for staff. This is another step in making St. Louis a bio-tech hub. I'm happy to have those folks working in Dogtown.

- Parking and Forest Park circulation / visitor experience. The Zoo has 3 million visitors a year, and can top 30,000 on a busy day. The have about 1,300 parking spaces but accommodate more 7,500 cars on a busy day. 1/3rd of their visitors are coming from over an hour away from St. Louis. This amount of traffic is negatively affecting other users of the park during the summer, and its creating a bad visitor experience when it takes 45 minutes to go from the zoo exit to the highway 1,000 feet away. There are a lot of cars wandering aimlessly around Forest Park searching for a parking spot. Moving some of those cars south of the highway into structured parking will hopefully improve that situation for zoo visitors and for the 75% of people who are in the park but not at the zoo.

After those first two items, we get to the rest of the possibilities that the site offers. The Zoo is already showing new commercial space at the corner of Oakland and Hampton, replacing the blank wall of the current parking structure. I think that's positive. The planning for that area is just starting, so we don't know what will ultimately be located there, but I know the zoo is considering all options.

There is potential for residential development, especially on the lot south of Clayton Ave., at the bottom of their rendering. The Zoo is also considering other options for the rest of the property - this kind of expansion is new territory for them.

Then we get to the interesting transportation stuff. How do we get fewer people to drive to the zoo in the first place? How do we get them from the DeBaliviere Metrolink to the Zoo? How do we get them from the FP Hospital Site to the Zoo? Those problems open up some interesting possibilities down the line, which I hope people will be involved in finding transit based solutions to.

My main message is that the Zoo is the type of institution that has the long view in mind. They will be an anchor here for the next century, and their own growth is going to drive maximization of the site, which will certainly evolve over time. They are also going to be soliciting ideas and input from zoo visitors and the neighborhood - so I know they want to hear your ideas.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Ald.

tge-atw · PostMar 13, 2012#1312012-03-13T15:16+00:00

The zoo is supposed to care about "sustainability." The amount of surface parking they have planned for this site, coupled with the amount of landfill space the demolitions will require make this proposal inconsistent with the zoo's purported stance on environmental matters. They could (and will) recycle every piece of paper and can and bottle used by the institution and its visitors for the next 100 years and not even come close to saving the amount of landfill space and embodied energy that they will squander with demolition of these buildings. That said, I don't think that most of the buildings are particularly well-suited to the zoo's needs, but I would have hoped that they would attempt to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance generated by mass demolition with a proposal that is better than surface parking. Like it or not, the realization of this plan will negate every recycling bin and "sustainability audit" the zoo has ever purchased. I know this is harsh criticism, but I am disappointed to see such a venerable institution preach and not practice.

hebeter · PostMar 13, 2012#1322012-03-13T15:51+00:00

I too agree that the renderings via the Post that I have seen are lack luster to say the least.
And regarding the comment above I am disappointed to see such a venerable institution preach and not practice I am also shocked! *rolls eyes*

urban_dilettante · PostMar 13, 2012#1332012-03-13T16:32+00:00

not happy with the site plan but hopefully it will evolve. the massive driveway and pond fronting Oakland are particularly alarming since this stretch could/should be filled-in with residential/commercial to help connect (pedestrian-wise) the Clayton-Tamm and Hi- Pointe neighborhoods to Hampton and the park/zoo entrance. The worst part though, in my opinion, is the massive amount of money that might be wasted on a piece-meal (in terms of overall transit for the area) monorail when all they need is a pedestrian bridge and a shuttle service for those who absolutely can't/refuse to walk a few hundred feet. ultimately i think the zoo should look into connecting with the loop streetcar, which could be expanded to the CWE and then hit the science center, zoo and art museum on its way back. it would also help to circulate out-of-towners to the CWE and loop where they could spend lots of money.

timeforguinness · PostMar 13, 2012#1342012-03-13T16:49+00:00

ward24 wrote:Some info on the FP Hospital sale:

The Zoo has two immediate needs / wants:

- Additional research & office space. They'll be able to renovate / adapt the Medical Office Building and expand their conservation biology program and research related to human / animal disease vectors. This is a worthwhile endeavor. They will also have land available for future expansions of related activities or additional office space for staff. This is another step in making St. Louis a bio-tech hub. I'm happy to have those folks working in Dogtown.

- Parking and Forest Park circulation / visitor experience. The Zoo has 3 million visitors a year, and can top 30,000 on a busy day. The have about 1,300 parking spaces but accommodate more 7,500 cars on a busy day. 1/3rd of their visitors are coming from over an hour away from St. Louis. This amount of traffic is negatively affecting other users of the park during the summer, and its creating a bad visitor experience when it takes 45 minutes to go from the zoo exit to the highway 1,000 feet away. There are a lot of cars wandering aimlessly around Forest Park searching for a parking spot. Moving some of those cars south of the highway into structured parking will hopefully improve that situation for zoo visitors and for the 75% of people who are in the park but not at the zoo.

After those first two items, we get to the rest of the possibilities that the site offers. The Zoo is already showing new commercial space at the corner of Oakland and Hampton, replacing the blank wall of the current parking structure. I think that's positive. The planning for that area is just starting, so we don't know what will ultimately be located there, but I know the zoo is considering all options.

There is potential for residential development, especially on the lot south of Clayton Ave., at the bottom of their rendering. The Zoo is also considering other options for the rest of the property - this kind of expansion is new territory for them.

Then we get to the interesting transportation stuff. How do we get fewer people to drive to the zoo in the first place? How do we get them from the DeBaliviere Metrolink to the Zoo? How do we get them from the FP Hospital Site to the Zoo? Those problems open up some interesting possibilities down the line, which I hope people will be involved in finding transit based solutions to.

My main message is that the Zoo is the type of institution that has the long view in mind. They will be an anchor here for the next century, and their own growth is going to drive maximization of the site, which will certainly evolve over time. They are also going to be soliciting ideas and input from zoo visitors and the neighborhood - so I know they want to hear your ideas.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Ald.

Thanks for your reply, are there any thoughts of reclaiming some of the parking areas/administration buildings inside of Forest Park/Zoo for future Zoo expansion? Are they planning to move most of their operations to the Dogtown site?

An even bigger thought...are there any thoughts of making the Dogtown site into a Forest Park administration area so that they could expand the exhibit spaces at the Art Museum, History Museum, and/or Science Center by reclaiming spaces in already existing buildings?

doug · PostMar 13, 2012#1352012-03-13T17:01+00:00

If visitors to the zoo are upset about congestion then they should consider moving closer to the city and possibly on a transit line. Like higher gas prices impact transit use, congestion happens to be one of the aspects that can compel people to move closer. St. Louis' historic obsession with lowering congestion has only facilitated further sprawl. We can add more parking and that will only promote further car use while lowering our density and making the city a less attractive place to visit. I don't expect a regional instutition like the Zoo to suggest not adding parking, because they recieve funding from suburban voters and probably want to expand the ZMD. But I think a little honesty is in order on this topic. The longer St. Louis ignores the truth the more it will continue implimenting solutions which don't address the root causes.

downtown2007 · PostMar 13, 2012#1362012-03-13T17:46+00:00

That's fine if the site is a work in progress. I just hope any new building is in the urban form.

My main concern is with the surface parking. How are more spaces going to reduce congestion? It doesn't happen that way. It will increase congestion requiring a further suburban expansion of Hampton Ave and the surrounding area. How will the retail spaces on the proposed site be sustained on such a congested suburban street?

bonwich · PostMar 13, 2012#1372012-03-13T18:28+00:00

It will absolutely reduce congestion. Right now, all the traffic trying to get to the south Zoo parking lot has to funnel in and out through Tamm Avenue and Wells Drive. Oakland and Hampton are nice, broad boulevards that are already designed for traffic, and in fact formerly accommodated 24-hour traffic into and out of a 450-bed hospital.

Residential? Can anyone demonstrate current excess demand for housing in Dogtown?

And as far as "urban form," I'd argue that it should be as un-urban as possible, because it's reclamation of land taken from Forest Park (which technically still extends to Oakland) over the past 75 years. This is one instance where knocking down archaic buildings and expanding green space makes a lot of sense.

As for the parking over there, I'd bet that it's intended to replace the Wells lot -- but they can't say that right now, because they'd get crucified for spending a mil or so redoing that lot only to announce that they plan to tear it out and add on to the Zoo proper.

timeforguinness · PostMar 13, 2012#1382012-03-13T18:54+00:00

bonwich wrote:It will absolutely reduce congestion. Right now, all the traffic trying to get to the south Zoo parking lot has to funnel in and out through Tamm Avenue and Wells Drive. Oakland and Hampton are nice, broad boulevards that are already designed for traffic, and in fact formerly accommodated 24-hour traffic into and out of a 450-bed hospital.

Residential? Can anyone demonstrate current excess demand for housing in Dogtown?

And as far as "urban form," I'd argue that it should be as un-urban as possible, because it's reclamation of land taken from Forest Park (which technically still extends to Oakland) over the past 75 years. This is one instance where knocking down archaic buildings and expanding green space makes a lot of sense.

As for the parking over there, I'd bet that it's intended to replace the Wells lot -- but they can't say that right now, because they'd get crucified for spending a mil or so redoing that lot only to announce that they plan to tear it out and add on to the Zoo proper.

That was my initial thought a page back. Seems like an excellent opportunity to reclaim some of the parking/admin buildings in Forest Park for better things.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 13, 2012#1392012-03-13T19:07+00:00

^ And residents/the city/Alderman should speak loudly against large surface lots. Adding another garage and filling in much of the site would be much better. I too think that there's room for some green space - ala Turtle Park here.

rbeedee · PostMar 13, 2012#1402012-03-13T19:43+00:00

The zoo obviously has a lot of goodwill, there's no doubt it's a boon for the city to have the zoo. Plus the penguins are adorable. Still, I agree with most posters that the early plans proposed are pretty terrible.

I'm not sure why this area needs more green space, whether it was originally part of Forest Park or not. Lack of green space and water features is not a problem for the city, including Dogtown. Demolishing existing buildings, even if they're vacant, for surface parking with the hope of future development (think Citywalk in the CWE, which was a building, then a hole, and now a vacant lot for who knows how long) is silly anywhere in the city unless the existing buildings are a danger to the surroundings. I understand the zoo needs more parking, so build another parking garage on some of the site. The plan so far is too vague and aspirational for so much demolition for low-value land use. Leave the buildings until you can replace them with something that's worth it. It would be great if this let them expand some exhibit space in Forest Park, though, and brought some commercial and residential activity to the parcel.

This quote from the P-D article sums it up for me:

Bonner said that the zoo could close on the deal in the next few months, and that it would move quickly to demolish buildings and spruce up the site.

"We really do have a 100-year perspective," Bonner said of the zoo, which considers its founding to be the 1910 formation of the Zoological Society of St. Louis. "We'd rather do this right than do it quickly."

Doing it right rather than quickly is a great goal. Demolishing buildings quickly to "spruce the site up" with surface lots and reflecting pools is not.

As far as transportation from this site goes, I've always wanted to see a streetcar going through the park to the major attractions. I have no idea how much this would cost so it's probably not practical, but I think it would be great to get off at the DeBaliviere stop and ride through the park to the Zoo, Art Museum, Science Center, MUNY, etc, and maybe it could cross over Hampton to make it to this site as well. Rather than a single-serving monorail that just serves the zoo or the current underutilized Forest Park "Trolley" bus, this could be an attraction for the park in and of itself. Finally a good use for a historic trolley car!

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 13, 2012#1412012-03-13T19:53+00:00

I think they should extend the zoo train across the highway to the "south campus".

the central scrutinizer · PostMar 13, 2012#1422012-03-13T20:07+00:00

timeforguinness wrote:
bonwich wrote:It will absolutely reduce congestion. Right now, all the traffic trying to get to the south Zoo parking lot has to funnel in and out through Tamm Avenue and Wells Drive. Oakland and Hampton are nice, broad boulevards that are already designed for traffic, and in fact formerly accommodated 24-hour traffic into and out of a 450-bed hospital.

Residential? Can anyone demonstrate current excess demand for housing in Dogtown?

And as far as "urban form," I'd argue that it should be as un-urban as possible, because it's reclamation of land taken from Forest Park (which technically still extends to Oakland) over the past 75 years. This is one instance where knocking down archaic buildings and expanding green space makes a lot of sense.

As for the parking over there, I'd bet that it's intended to replace the Wells lot -- but they can't say that right now, because they'd get crucified for spending a mil or so redoing that lot only to announce that they plan to tear it out and add on to the Zoo proper.
That was my initial thought a page back. Seems like an excellent opportunity to reclaim some of the parking/admin buildings in Forest Park for better things.

Perhaps longer term, they could add on to the garage and move all parking over here - south and north lots, leaving those open for exhibit expansion. They could leave those 20 or so spots in front of the Living World as handicapped parking, if they aren't already. Then they could justify building the separate pedestrian/trolley bridge across 40.

pat · PostMar 13, 2012#1432012-03-13T20:24+00:00

Like Scott said, this is a first for the Zoo. They've never really dealt with large expansions especially into a city environment. I think if we all voice our concerns respectfully, they will listen to everyone's opinions.

When it comes down to it, they are going to do what's best for the Zoo and their customers. I'd say the majority of those customers drive to the Zoo. That equals parking and better connections.

They are using money from their Sunny Day fund (not tax payer money). So while it would be nice of them to get input from the locals, there is nothing forcing their hand to do so.

I think this will be good for restaurants in Dogtown. More foot traffic near Clayton and Tamm is a good thing.

timeforguinness · PostMar 13, 2012#1442012-03-13T20:56+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:I think they should extend the zoo train across the highway to the "south campus".

I think they should extend the zoo train through forest park...I love that train.

downtown2007 · PostMar 13, 2012#1452012-03-13T22:51+00:00

bonwich wrote:It will absolutely reduce congestion. Right now, all the traffic trying to get to the south Zoo parking lot has to funnel in and out through Tamm Avenue and Wells Drive. Oakland and Hampton are nice, broad boulevards that are already designed for traffic, and in fact formerly accommodated 24-hour traffic into and out of a 450-bed hospital.

Residential? Can anyone demonstrate current excess demand for housing in Dogtown?

And as far as "urban form," I'd argue that it should be as un-urban as possible, because it's reclamation of land taken from Forest Park (which technically still extends to Oakland) over the past 75 years. This is one instance where knocking down archaic buildings and expanding green space makes a lot of sense.

As for the parking over there, I'd bet that it's intended to replace the Wells lot -- but they can't say that right now, because they'd get crucified for spending a mil or so redoing that lot only to announce that they plan to tear it out and add on to the Zoo proper.

The increase in capacity will increase traffic. It will also shift traffic from the north side of the zoo to the south side. Increasing capacity increases congestion. Think I 64.

The Highlands have had success and are planning another building on that site so I don't think demand would be am issue a few hundred feet away.

Building a Suburban office park on this site would be fatal.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 14, 2012#1462012-03-14T00:17+00:00

Don't we want more people going to the zoo? And maybe just a little less traffic on Forest Park roads? The Highlands have taken 20yrs to get close to being built out - and that project too adds to congestion. A suburban office park will not be the final product here.

bonwich · PostMar 14, 2012#1472012-03-14T04:05+00:00

downtown2007 wrote:The increase in capacity will increase traffic. It will also shift traffic from the north side of the zoo to the south side. Increasing capacity increases congestion. Think I 64.

I'm not sure how frequently you drive 64, but I drive it in rush hour daily, and there certainly has been no increase in congestion. Before the rebuild, there was a massive tie-up daily starting at 270 and extending at least to McKnight, frequently further. Now the major slowdown is cars coming on from 170, which I can't object to since it's the price of reworking the deathtrap that was the former Brentwood interchange.

Outbound, there's a slowdown from Kingshighway or Boyle to McCausland, but that's nothing different than before. The stretch from McCausland to 170 is vastly improved.

The Highlands have had success and are planning another building on that site so I don't think demand would be am issue a few hundred feet away.

As Alex noted, the Highlands' "success" is relative. It has been much slower than first planned. Plus, I think a more germane comparison would be Tamm and Clayton.

Building a Suburban office park on this site would be fatal.

"Fatal" is a bit hyperbolic; I also don't think what's planned is an "office park." So far one office, one mixed-use and a bunch of parking.

The elephant in the room is that the City of St. Louis is grossly overbuilt. There's no shortage of office or retail or residential or anything else. 800000 -> 320000 means we need to be very judicious in what we keep, what we tear down and what we build -- and nothing on the Deaconess lot appears to be worth saving.

framer · PostMar 14, 2012#1482012-03-14T04:10+00:00

the central scrutinizer wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
bonwich wrote:
As for the parking over there, I'd bet that it's intended to replace the Wells lot -- but they can't say that right now, because they'd get crucified for spending a mil or so redoing that lot only to announce that they plan to tear it out and add on to the Zoo proper.
That was my initial thought a page back. Seems like an excellent opportunity to reclaim some of the parking/admin buildings in Forest Park for better things.
Perhaps longer term, they could add on to the garage and move all parking over here - south and north lots, leaving those open for exhibit expansion. They could leave those 20 or so spots in front of the Living World as handicapped parking, if they aren't already. Then they could justify building the separate pedestrian/trolley bridge across 40.

Yes, all of this.

Remember, again, the Zoo is totally and permanently landlocked in the park. The only way they can expand is through this purchase. Call it land banking if you want, but this will ultimately lead to a much nicer, larger zoo in the future.

downtown2007 · PostMar 14, 2012#1492012-03-14T12:19+00:00

bonwich wrote:
downtown2007 wrote:The increase in capacity will increase traffic. It will also shift traffic from the north side of the zoo to the south side. Increasing capacity increases congestion. Think I 64.
I'm not sure how frequently you drive 64, but I drive it in rush hour daily, and there certainly has been no increase in congestion. Before the rebuild, there was a massive tie-up daily starting at 270 and extending at least to McKnight, frequently further. Now the major slowdown is cars coming on from 170, which I can't object to since it's the price of reworking the deathtrap that was the former Brentwood interchange.

Outbound, there's a slowdown from Kingshighway or Boyle to McCausland, but that's nothing different than before. The stretch from McCausland to 170 is vastly improved.

The Highlands have had success and are planning another building on that site so I don't think demand would be am issue a few hundred feet away.

As Alex noted, the Highlands' "success" is relative. It has been much slower than first planned. Plus, I think a more germane comparison would be Tamm and Clayton.

Building a Suburban office park on this site would be fatal.
"Fatal" is a bit hyperbolic; I also don't think what's planned is an "office park." So far one office, one mixed-use and a bunch of parking.

The elephant in the room is that the City of St. Louis is grossly overbuilt. There's no shortage of office or retail or residential or anything else. 800000 -> 320000 means we need to be very judicious in what we keep, what we tear down and what we build -- and nothing on the Deaconess lot appears to be worth saving.

Heard mixed reviews. May be safer but congestion hasn't changed much. At least not for the money that was spent. Any small decrease is likely related to people being unemployed.

So since its overbuilt we are creating an abundance of parking? Yeah makes sense, let's make STL a place to park and drive to and forget about making it a place to live. I am not saying we need to keep the hospital standing, however flattening the site for parking will cause irreversible damage. A mixed use site with office and residential with limited parking would contribute more to the immediate area.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostMar 14, 2012#1502012-03-14T15:08+00:00

downtown2007 wrote:
A mixed use site with office and residential with limited parking would contribute more to the immediate area.

They are proposing a mixed use site with office and residential with limited parking, just not immediately. As the buildings currently stand, it's not a great use of space. If they tear it all down and add parking in the interim, future construction has an essential clean slate, save the parking garage & office building which will be left standing. And it gives the zoo (one of the greatest attractions in the city) more room & better opportunities. If nothing else, getting rid of the garage directly at Hampton & Oakland will be nice.

Forest Park Hospital (STL Zoo)

Choose Display Mode