urbanSTL

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ The final use of the FP Hospital site will not be "suburban-style". The issue with SLU and others is often the demolition of buildings on the National Register of Historic places - buildings eligible for historic tax credits and very much able to be repurposed. An additional issue is the availability of adjacent land. Regarding Pevely and SLU, the university is sitting on 10s of acres of vacant land and demanded to demo an imminently reusable building. While I would never support the zoo expanding parking (or roads) within Forest Park, I do support this acquisition. There's nothing hypocritical in that.

The zoo's proposal has low density, it's filled with surface parking, pretty fitness trails, fountains. You gotta give me more than just declaring it NOT suburban-style. Please, elaborate on how this proposal is 'urban' and not 'suburban.'

Why do you support this acquisition? If you do not support the zoo taking more Forest Park land, then why do you support the zoo taking up more city land outside of the Park? City land that is unique in that its location makes it highly amenable to the productive mix of uses that many of the avid followers of this site consistently espouse all over the city? Why do you support such a low intensity of uses as presented in their proposal? If you want one institution to be good stewards of its own land and the land of its neighbors (SLU), then, specifically, how does this zoo proposal square with that principle?

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ The rendering is suburban-style, the final product will not be. I don't support low-density use of this site. If the zoo were to ever expand its boundaries, this is the site it needed. SLU has repeatedly not been good stewards of its land in the city. The zoo has no such negative track record. The zoo will be more responsive to public input (we'll have to wait to see just how responsive).

Do you have additional info about the zoo's plans for the site and public engagement, or is this speculation on what the zoo will do in the future? Not being sarcastic, it's a genuine question. It seems like they're moving very quickly on the demo at least, having already submitted a preliminary request to the Preservation Board

As far as the zoo's track record goes, I love the zoo's layout and exhibits but I don't really see how it's informative to this site. They don't have a negative development track record, but they don't really have a development track record at all that I know of. I could get on board with zun106's plan.

doug wrote:FPH is less than a handful of blocks from the Zoo. How many thousands of feet do people walk around the Zoo itself during a visit? Building a monorail over the highway to the entrance is the same as building an escalator to the front door of a gym.

Downtown St. Louis is less than a block from the Arch. How many thousands of feet do people walk around the Archgrounds itself during a visit? Building a lid over the highway to the entrance is the same as building an escalator to the front door of a gym.

Many people walk further to the North entrance now when they park on Government Drive than they would parking on the FPH site. The difference is psychological - the highway is a huge perceived barrier.

If there's a bridge, it would need to be sufficiently enclosed to shield visitors from high-speed traffic. I'm sure that's why they're also considering a people mover.

-RBB

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ The rendering is suburban-style, the final product will not be. I don't support low-density use of this site. If the zoo were to ever expand its boundaries, this is the site it needed. SLU has repeatedly not been good stewards of its land in the city. The zoo has no such negative track record. The zoo will be more responsive to public input (we'll have to wait to see just how responsive).

This doesn't make any sense. What else do we have to go on other than the rendering? So you know more than we do. We're just supposed to have faith you know the final product will be better than the rendering?

As for expansion, you're still ignoring the possibilities the Art Museum has laid as an example for the Zoo. The Zoo has a surface parking lot that may have structured parking above or underground parking below. The zoo has no track record. Basically, what you're communicating is, "Everybody calm down, the Zoo talked to me. Everything is ok." Sorry, but that's just not enough.

^ Fair enough. It's my opinion that the final design will not be what is shown the rendering. And yes, we should all be skeptical...skeptical and engaged. I've laid out why I think the zoo will be a good steward of the site and why I believe that the zoo is different than SLU (and other instances). Everyone's free to disagree.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Here you go: http://nextstl.com/what-should-be/what- ... -louis-zoo

Time to submit/develop ideas ahead of the Zoo's master planning process. It's not foolproof and the outcome can't be predicted, but this is the opportunity to have your ideas heard (and seen). Perhaps some with ideas can partner with someone with SketchUp or design skills to get ideas online?

I am really glad to see this opportunity.

I would be willing to partner with someone or some people with similar ideas for the site. I have always believed in group thinking/design as a more powerful process than individual work.

It might be cool to have teams like we saw in the GOOD ideas for STL event.

Put an aquarium south of the highway!

What if instead of a typical aquarium they made an ecosystem "collage"? Animals could be separate, but the whole place read like pieces of an ecosystem. Since they were talking about smaller animals, they could have a river ecosystem representing what the ecosystem was on the Mississippi River before development. It could include reptiles, bugs, birds...etc.

Or they could keep their lake/pond and have an open air tunnel traversing the water with glass panes that let people observe a reconstructed wetland at a submerged vantage. Thus exploring and witnessing how we can make attempts to restore habitats and see how the different species adapt.

I'd like to see the Zoo move their infrastructure to the FP Hospital site (parking, office space, etc.),and then develop an aquarium-type exhibit on the current South Lot.

something organic. different shades of blue/aqua glass. Reflecting infinity pool. Aquatic images projecting through the glass . One can dream, right?

This would have to be a legitimate world class aquarium, but I have always thought putting a whale tank next to the highway would be amazing. A large glass window fronting the highway where a whale swimming in the tank would greet people entering the city proper via the highway would be pretty awesome.

I bet the whale would love being parked next to a highway

I don't think the whale would know the difference from being parked in any other aquarium in the world.

imran wrote:

something organic. different shades of blue/aqua glass. Reflecting infinity pool. Aquatic images projecting through the glass . One can dream, right?

That is a gorgeous idea. And really, its the only idea that I can think of that would warrant putting in an automated pedway/monorail. With attractions at both ends, the pedway is suddenly a part of the zoo/aquarium, rather than another way to cowtow to drivers/non-pedestrians.

Please develop this idea further...or someone else make it all pretty and realistic!

imran wrote:Put an aquarium south of the highway!

Don't be silly. It will compete with the one in Ballpark Village.

the central scrutinizer wrote:

zun1026 wrote:What if instead of a typical aquarium they made an ecosystem "collage"? Animals could be separate, but the whole place read like pieces of an ecosystem. Since they were talking about smaller animals, they could have a river ecosystem representing what the ecosystem was on the Mississippi River before development. It could include reptiles, bugs, birds...etc.

Isn't this sort of what they did when the rehabbed the bird cage a few years ago?

Not sure. I haven't been in the bird cage in ages.