The problem with the new statue is that it is next the the 60-foot base of the Eads bridge, which make sit seem very small. It's also just kind of in the middle of nowhere. You'd think they could spruce up the are down there a little...
I complained at the time that the statue was too small. I'd also like to see more statues up and around the Dome, depicting great St. Louis Football moments....like, uh...well, ya know...
Kidding. I'd like one of 'The Catch' and 'The Tackle' from the Super Bowl year. And we need a statue of Marshall the second he says he's retired.
Kidding. I'd like one of 'The Catch' and 'The Tackle' from the Super Bowl year. And we need a statue of Marshall the second he says he's retired.
- 10K
trent wrote:I complained at the time that the statue was too small. I'd also like to see more statues up and around the Dome, depicting great St. Louis Football moments....like, uh...well, ya know...
Kidding. I'd like one of 'The Catch' and 'The Tackle' from the Super Bowl year. And we need a statue of Marshall the second he says he's retired.
Not to mention Isaac Bruce, as soon as he's inducted into the HOF. He's the last remaining original St. Louis Ram!
- 476
i dont think the statue is too small its got to be 25-30 feet tall. the location does suck. the proximity to the bridge makes it seem small, but when you get up close to it you realize its massive proportions. i think with a better location and a more substantial base it would be much more impressive.
Speaking of small statues, those statues at the NW corner of Busch Stadium kill me every time I drive by... I can't help but thinking of the 6" Stonge Henge model in This s Spinal Tap...
Fair enought, maybe then we already have a good statue, we just need to find a good place to put it!
When it comes to statues, Isaac Bruce will get one when he retires. As will Torry Holt.
- 1,493
Hopefully one with a football in one hand, and an Imo's Pizza box inthe other! And his jersey should read "Big Game".trent wrote:When it comes to statues, Isaac Bruce will get one when he retires. As will Torry Holt.
I am not sure what this has to do with the lid over the depressed section?!? Maybe when the lid is created... we can create a statue park... a uniform sized statue (like so that all the statues look good near each other) of dozens of people that were important to St. Louis, Sports and political, business and philanthropic. Every championship team we have had / have in the future should be represented. Tie it into the Arch grounds trail system and landscaping themes so that is it seemless. Invite people to come visit both the new attraction and the arch grounds of old. Then say "we got all this new downtown park... we can sell off the Mall land to create more density.
Urban Elitist wrote:Hopefully one with a football in one hand, and an Imo's Pizza box inthe other! And his jersey should read "Big Game".trent wrote:When it comes to statues, Isaac Bruce will get one when he retires. As will Torry Holt.
"I like my head shaved, my glasses fashionable, and my pizza....square."
The MRB thread has been generating a lot of ideas for the lid so I thought I'd try and continue it here.
Seeing as the feds control most of our riverfront property, I think we should just treat the Archgrounds as if they were the riverfront.
With this in mind I’d rather just see Memorial capped/reworked, and whatever space is leftover be used for a wide boardwalk on the eastern side lining the archgrounds and connecting Laclede’s and Chouteau’s landings. Something like the copacobana promenade in Brazil:
![]()
We would then need a vision for the western side of the new Memorial that would see it lined with wide sidewalks with ground floor retail, restaurants and residential facing out onto the archgrounds and boardwalk (much like Eero Saarinen’s original plan). I realize most of the buildings there now don’t conform to this, so when any building along this stretch was refurbished or new construction took place, it would have to adhere to this vision. People patronizing this area, as well as those enticed onto the wide boardwalk from the landings, would provide more users to the archgrounds.
Perhaps something like the vision outlined above could serve as a “safe” plan if some of the other options being discussed - building on top of the depressed section, building east of a reworked Memorial – prove too difficult. And it would still be better, imo, than the current proposal to simply cap the depressed section with greenspace.
Seeing as the feds control most of our riverfront property, I think we should just treat the Archgrounds as if they were the riverfront.
With this in mind I’d rather just see Memorial capped/reworked, and whatever space is leftover be used for a wide boardwalk on the eastern side lining the archgrounds and connecting Laclede’s and Chouteau’s landings. Something like the copacobana promenade in Brazil:
We would then need a vision for the western side of the new Memorial that would see it lined with wide sidewalks with ground floor retail, restaurants and residential facing out onto the archgrounds and boardwalk (much like Eero Saarinen’s original plan). I realize most of the buildings there now don’t conform to this, so when any building along this stretch was refurbished or new construction took place, it would have to adhere to this vision. People patronizing this area, as well as those enticed onto the wide boardwalk from the landings, would provide more users to the archgrounds.
Perhaps something like the vision outlined above could serve as a “safe” plan if some of the other options being discussed - building on top of the depressed section, building east of a reworked Memorial – prove too difficult. And it would still be better, imo, than the current proposal to simply cap the depressed section with greenspace.
- 1,610
I promised I'd play with photoshop within the MRB discussions under Transportation, but I did more of a quick and crude paintbrush change to an aerial and this lid discussion under Downtown seemed the better place to post my promised reworked aerial.
As mentioned in my earlier Transportation/MRB posts, I think this aerial shows how you could build both a more active lid over the depressed section than just green space and also demolish the elevated section of I-70 today separating Downtown from the Landing. Although crudely drawn in "paint" mode, the red represents areas for new development, including the Landing and active blocks of the lid. The green still shows how a new at-grade Memorial Drive would be a huge aesthetic improvement over the elevated I-70 now over Washington Avenue. Traffic circles, including a new elipse at Washington, are intended to minimize lights for through-traffic (some 50,000 daily vehicles) between I-55 and I-70, yet calm traffic down to 35 mph and have narrower pedestrian crossings than Chicago's Lakeshore Drive along Grant Park. The new MLK Coupler, I-70 connections to it and the converted MLK, as well as new PSB ramps to/from I-44/55 are also shown.
As mentioned in my earlier Transportation/MRB posts, I think this aerial shows how you could build both a more active lid over the depressed section than just green space and also demolish the elevated section of I-70 today separating Downtown from the Landing. Although crudely drawn in "paint" mode, the red represents areas for new development, including the Landing and active blocks of the lid. The green still shows how a new at-grade Memorial Drive would be a huge aesthetic improvement over the elevated I-70 now over Washington Avenue. Traffic circles, including a new elipse at Washington, are intended to minimize lights for through-traffic (some 50,000 daily vehicles) between I-55 and I-70, yet calm traffic down to 35 mph and have narrower pedestrian crossings than Chicago's Lakeshore Drive along Grant Park. The new MLK Coupler, I-70 connections to it and the converted MLK, as well as new PSB ramps to/from I-44/55 are also shown.
That looks like a really good way to deal with all of the issues down there. Still allows for easy through traffic, but also accomplishes the other goals of the lid, pedestrian connections, more developable space, etc. I'd like to see MoDOT/IDOT and the city consider a plan like this instead of separate projects.
I'm not sure if anybody here is familiar with the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle (wikipedia, google map): it's a double deck highway that separates downtown Seattle from it's waterfront and carries about 110,000 vehicles per day. Because of earthquake damage, the viaduct is in need of replacement. There was lots of bickering between alternatives to build a new bigger and better viaduct or bury the highway in a tunnel ala the Big Dig in Boston. A vote took place amongst the two options this past Tuesday, and Seattle voted "No and Hell No!"
Seattle Time article
Just thought this might be relevant to our discussions on removing the depressed and elevated sections of I-70.
Seattle Time article
Just thought this might be relevant to our discussions on removing the depressed and elevated sections of I-70.