urbanSTL

LArchitecture wrote:

KansasCitian wrote:I've had this conversation on here before, but it really is kind of strange how few public aquatic centers or pools there are in St. Louis City.

Carondolet Park has their rec center and pool, but none of the other major parks have something similar.

Forest Park should have the best in the whole city, for the whole city.

Indoor tracks, basketball courts, etc. -- that should all be included as well.

I liked the idea of building on a Muny lot somewhere near the Nathan Frank bandstand pagoda. I've attached an image that shows how I'd expand the trolley. The crude blue mark is where I'd consider putting the rec center, though I suppose you could also put it on the other side of the tracks, closer to Lindell, the Missouri History Museum, and Metrolink station.Screenshot_20220128-053039_Maps.jpg

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

I think these are all fairly logical choices. I’d maybe move the rec center just slightly east across cricket dr just due to more space being available. Regardless it should be placed in a way to share parking with the tennis courts.

I would prefer to build it on top of those parking lots across from the visitor center. If you really wanted the parking you could build an underground garage with a floor or two. doing that would preserve some of the fields that get regular use throughout the year. Better transit access than throwing it up above Muny or something too. Keeping it tight to the Tennis center also allows for those two orgs to work more closely.

The outdoor basketball courts are supposed to be favored for near where the handball courts are now. Really glad that’s happening. But there’s no reason our largest park shouldn’t have a state of the art rec center for the city.

A mod probably ought to move a handful of these comments over to a Forest Park thread where they belong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RuskiSTL wrote: ↑

Jan 28, 2022

Chamonix has a really good sports center / complex that leverages their olympics history. Would be great to see something similar in Forest Park.

During my time playing hockey in st louis 1998 - 2011, never played or heard of games at Steinberg. The ice is really soft (bad) and the conditions are unpredictable, and also too big. Unfortunate as I played in some of the winter classic games at Shaw Park and those were some of my best playing memories, truly special rivalry games.

Playing in a pickup game as a goalie at Shaw Park outdoors is one of my favorite hockey memories.  Just a great time on the ice.  Such a cool rink to be outdoors in the middle of Clayton.

I can confirm Steinberg is never regularly used for hockey.  It's public skating, and once a few years back the Blues hosted a mini 3v3 tournament with boxes for goals, but I don't think it was ever repeated, ice conditions are not ideal for hockey as you said.  And the rink shape / boards are incorrect for a full 5v5 game.

Does anyone know when they are going to start work on the eastern end streams and lakes in Forest Park?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forest Park should get rid of Cricket Drive. Its utility can't possibly justify its existence. Same for Carr Lane Drive.

Did Forest Park ever have a rec center?

Where did kids go swimming back in the day?

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Jan 28, 2022

Where did kids go swimming back in the day?

Fair Grounds Park or Marquette Park.

It's unacceptable and frankly a quality of life issue that the city doesn't have but one aquatic center that I can think of, and that one is literally as far from North City as it could possibly be.

Forest Park makes so much sense for something like this and I really hope we can build something like this by the end of the next generation. What I'm dreaming of wouldn't be cheap, and money doesn't grow on trees, but St. Louis and its children deserve it.

Wouldn't be upset at all if St. Louis put a little bit of their newly-found cash toward something like this.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

^There's a matching rec-center to Carondelet in O'Fallon Park. Built with the same tax funding, but delayed a couple years due to some political squabbling. Some of the older rec buildings also have indoor pools, but none of the slides and other features of the two big centers. Not that we don't need more public swimming pools.

As far as I know North City still has two public pools at Fairgrounds and Chambers Park, though I agree that the city should have more of them. The parking lots (and I'd argue, golf courses as well!) should be used for higher purposes. 

Edit: I barely count those rec centers as public pools, to swim at them (despite that they get taxpayer money) you have to pay $100+ for a membership. 

I'm down. God knows we have plenty of golf course we can rip up for the space

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:I'm down. God knows we have plenty of golf course we can rip up for the space

Insane to me that Forest Park has two courses


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was surprised to learn how many pools Toronto has, 58.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/06/28/ ... he-season/

And isn’t FPF flush with cash/funding?

This is such a beautiful view from the park St.Louis is truly blessed with this oasis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Philadelphia has over 70 public pools that are totally free to use. With that population to pool ratio the City would have 14. Looks like the City currently has 7, 3 outdoor and 4 indoor, though I know that Marquette is often closed due to lack of lifeguards (even prior to lifeguard shortages) and I imagine this is the case for the other pools as well. I know it is common in Southwest City to join pools in the county, particularly Shrewsbury and Maplewood, the latter of which my family joined for a period when I was a kid. The fact that City residents have to pay to access these services is outrageous but just accepted as a part of life here.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Jan 29, 2022

What parking lots do you want gone? 

Sorry, but a well attended show at the Muny can fill all the existing lots around it. Same with a heavy day at the zoo.

It'd be nice to see the western half of Summit Drive removed. Seems excessive given the amount of use.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Jan 29, 2022

What parking lots do you want gone? 

Ideally all of them. Or more accurately, I'd love to see them altered in a way to make them less obtrusive on the limited space in the park. It's such a grand spot we can do better. Build a green lid over them. You could put your pool or your hockey rink on top of them. You could put your basketball courts up there, like the tennis courts on Hudlin Park. It'll require money, but I'd say the demand is there to charge more for parking. The zoo's own plan was originally to move the parking south of the highway so they could expand their animal attractions into the lot. (For a little while in the 90s the Botanical Garden had a similar idea. I think they're really missing the boat by failing to put their parking either underground or off site.) This is our premiere neighborhood. People have long demonstrated that they will pay to park there. People are willing to ride Metrolink when it takes them somewhere they want to go. We need to make the transit access better and more obvious. And sure, let's eliminate a parking lot or two.

wabash wrote: ↑

Jan 29, 2022

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Jan 29, 2022

The fact that City residents have to pay to access these services is outrageous but just accepted as a part of life here.

I think the City's 7 pools are free. The two "affiliated" YMCA pools in Carondelet and O'Fallon park require a paid membership.

For comparison, in New York City outdoor pools are free, while indoor pools require a membership for adults.

I am aware that those 7 are free but as I stated the staffing is unreliable for the outdoor pools and there is only one each for North City, South City and the Central Corridor, leaving most of the City's residents without one even close to where they live. Thus, many have to travel to other municipalities and pay to use their pools. In theory the City is providing these services but in practice only a small share of City residents get them.