Gateway Mall Master Plan

arch city · PostJun 08, 2007#1262007-06-08T18:12+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:I've always strongly supported new construction on the Gateway Mall, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I see more of the plans, hopefully on Monday at the open house.

A few thoughts:

A sculpture park might work better on the sections of the Mall west of Tucker.

Yeah, I would prefer new construction as well. I think the mall serves as an unintended barrier against south of Market St. More buildings might provide more psychological connectivity, but if the sculpture park is done well - well lit, well landscaped, water features, and great art - it might fill in the area well and give a more connected feeling. Right now, there's nothing but open parcels of land.

I also agree that west of Tucker Blvd. would be more fitting considering the Gateway One Tower punches a hole in the flow of the east portion of the mall.

doug · PostJun 08, 2007#1272007-06-08T18:13+00:00

St. Louis' Architecture is modern art! You don't even see people coming Downtown to look at our amazing buildings, which are some of the most significant of any Midwestern City! Why would people come down for a few art sculptures sitting within a wastefully underused green space! Do people associate Art with an urban plaza! For Art they will go to a museum. We need to destroy the mall and get mixed use construction built. The Mall is far too big. We do not have enough residents and we shouldn't focus on developing the fringes. That will take forever.

jmedwick · PostJun 08, 2007#1282007-06-08T18:14+00:00

I have always thought that with the right design, you could develop a hard-scape sculpture area surrounded by low walls that in the summer would be a plaza space and in the winter could be frozen over. Skating around the sculpture would be pretty dern cool. I always envisioned such a space between 14th and Tucker on the Gateway Mall, but I see no reason it couldn't go here instead.

debaliviere · PostJun 08, 2007#1292007-06-08T18:21+00:00

If done properly, would a sculpture garden be a nice addition to downtown? Certainly. But for anyone to expect it to be a magnet drawing people from the suburbs is probably a bit unrealistic.

I'd like to see people get away from the notion that every new project has to lure people downtown as we all know from experience that the "silver bullet" mindset only leads to disappointment. Most downtown developments taken on their own will most likely not be the answer to downtown's woes, but a downtown that incorporates and integrates everything from Busch Stadium and Union Station to a sculpture garden and national park to Espresso Mod and the Gelateria will be a pretty nice place to be!

doug · PostJun 08, 2007#1302007-06-08T18:28+00:00

Yes, but what is currently working is residential. Moreover, how long have we had Busch Stadium, Union Station, etc? Planning theory and practice proves that urban plazas don't work. Why do we think that by adding sculptures then people will suddenly relocate? Our current draws will be maximized by increasing our residential and removing green space which is only a pedestrian void. We only see people using it during a parade.

debaliviere · PostJun 08, 2007#1312007-06-08T18:30+00:00

Doug wrote:Yes, but what is currently working is residential. Moreover, how long have we had Busch Stadium, Union Station, etc? Planning theory and practice proves that urban plazas don't work. Why do we think that by adding sculptures then people will suddenly relocate? Our current draws will be maximized by increasing our residential and removing green space which is only a pedestrian void. We only see people using it during a parade.

What I'm saying is that every project is just one piece of the puzzle and shouldn't be taken as the savior of downtown. Some projects are more effective than others at helping revitalize downtown (and some are detrimental to downtown), but there's never going to be one project that single-handedly saves it.

ntbpo · PostJun 08, 2007#1322007-06-08T18:51+00:00

Why do we need new art on the mall. I think it will only take away from the existing beautiful sculptures.

Awesome!

xing · PostJun 08, 2007#1332007-06-08T19:35+00:00

Worst Case Scenario - A bunch of people who know nothing about art, choose artwork that creates the most cliché perception of what a sculpture park should look like. Apparently they selected a few artists already, and I'm worried that that is exactly what it is. This isn't the 1980's.

If they're doing this because they want a "Millennium Park" or a "Minneapolis Sculpture Park," then all we can expect is a lackluster "imitation."

doug · PostJun 08, 2007#1342007-06-08T19:40+00:00

One project that would save downtown is the elimination of the Mall. I think that if requests for proposals were put out for mixed use development the impact would be much bigger than art displays.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 08, 2007#1352007-06-08T19:48+00:00

Xing wrote:Worst Case Scenario - A bunch of people who know nothing about art, choose artwork that creates the most cliché perception of what a sculpture park should look like. Apparently they selected a few artists already, and I'm worried that that is exactly what it is. This isn't the 1980's.

If they're doing this because they want a "Millennium Park" or a "Minneapolis Sculpture Park," then all we can expect is a lackluster "imitation."

The Gateway Foundation's track record indicates that they know a lot about art. And the first 4 picks confirm it.

xing · PostJun 08, 2007#1362007-06-08T19:59+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Xing wrote:Worst Case Scenario - A bunch of people who know nothing about art, choose artwork that creates the most cliché perception of what a sculpture park should look like. Apparently they selected a few artists already, and I'm worried that that is exactly what it is. This isn't the 1980's.

If they're doing this because they want a "Millennium Park" or a "Minneapolis Sculpture Park," then all we can expect is a lackluster "imitation."

The Gateway Foundation's track record indicates that they know a lot about art. And the first 4 picks confirm it.

I'd like to see work from Jeff Koons. You think they'll put something of his in there? I doubt it.

PostJun 08, 2007#1372007-06-08T20:02+00:00

wheelscomp wrote:I think this can be cool only if we get something in similar proportions to this...

If we want to emulate chicago, then lets reallly emulate CHICAGO.

emulating anything, is not good art, unless emulation was argued to truely be a part of that art. If St. Louis is trying to grow as an art community, and prove itself, then this emulation sh*t needs to stop.

I want something most other cities don't have.

Expat · PostJun 08, 2007#1382007-06-08T20:08+00:00

Xing, you are right, but I think Wheelscomp means it should be something with as much impact, not a copy.

xing · PostJun 08, 2007#1392007-06-08T20:14+00:00

Expat wrote:Xing, you are right, but I think Wheelscomp means it should be something with as much impact, not a copy.

I would certainly agree with him on that.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 08, 2007#1402007-06-08T20:33+00:00

Xing wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Xing wrote:Worst Case Scenario - A bunch of people who know nothing about art, choose artwork that creates the most cliché perception of what a sculpture park should look like. Apparently they selected a few artists already, and I'm worried that that is exactly what it is. This isn't the 1980's.

If they're doing this because they want a "Millennium Park" or a "Minneapolis Sculpture Park," then all we can expect is a lackluster "imitation."

The Gateway Foundation's track record indicates that they know a lot about art. And the first 4 picks confirm it.

I'd like to see work from Jeff Koons. You think they'll put something of his in there? I doubt it.

I have no idea. Why do you doubt it?

wheelscomp · PostJun 08, 2007#1412007-06-08T20:36+00:00

^Exactly. We dont need a copied Giant Red Flamingo sculture, but there would be no impact at all if all the sculptures were "relatively" small. The Serra sculpture (as an example) is pretty big, but not vertically imposing. Chicago has many LARGE urban sculptures. I hope for something in the 30-foot range to dominate the rest of the smaller ones sparcely placed around it.

Obviously, we cant put a gigantic mirrored bean in the middle of a plaza and call it original, but I think anything less than something that size will be boring and forgetful.

Now we come back to the question of price, and, as was asked earlier, how much does $20 million buy these days?

tge-atw · PostJun 08, 2007#1422007-06-08T21:13+00:00

Maybe we could convince them to build an 80-story sculpture of an early 21st century skyscraper on the parcel?

publiceye · PostJun 08, 2007#1432007-06-08T21:21+00:00

how much does $20 million buy these days?

The cost of the park design and construction is at least $20 million. That does not include the value of the art that will be installed.

loftlover · PostJun 08, 2007#1442007-06-08T21:26+00:00

From MayorSlay.com:

"Planning director Rollin Stanley likes the plan and believes it will be the cornerstone of the wider development of the Gateway Mall."

I would have preferred a new office tower complete w/tenant, but hey, if its good enough for Rollin Stanley, its good enough for me.

doug · PostJun 08, 2007#1452007-06-08T21:29+00:00

A waste of 20 million.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 08, 2007#1462007-06-08T21:35+00:00

publiceye wrote:
how much does $20 million buy these days?

The cost of the park design and construction is at least $20 million. That does not include the value of the art that will be installed.

My guess is that they already own the art.

stlmike · PostJun 08, 2007#1472007-06-08T21:36+00:00

^ Am I the only one who read that this is a gift? St Louis City only pays for maintenance (electrical, landscaping) and security.

southslider · PostJun 08, 2007#1482007-06-08T22:19+00:00

$20 million?! That's what Metro asked the State this year in emergency funding. It's also just five-million shy of the low price Missouri would pay to have agreed to the MLK Couplert. But hey, let's build an open-air homeless shelter on Market Street.

publiceye · PostJun 08, 2007#1492007-06-08T23:38+00:00

So, it's probably a good thing that a private group, not MoDOT, is financing the project.

steve · PostJun 08, 2007#1502007-06-08T23:46+00:00

I don't get the whole "homeless" thing everybody's having with this. Yeah, there are a lot of homeless people hanging out at Lucas Park, and around Soldier's Memorial. But I never see any homeless people around the land where this is to be built. I don't think "they" will allow the homeless to congregate here (at least not at first).

Gateway Mall Master Plan

Choose Display Mode