urbanSTL

This is a very valuable piece of Downtown property. I don't care if it's a gift, or if the money fell out of the sky. If they're going to build something there, it should be attractive, and original. St. Louis should now be past that point where we accept whatever is thrown at us. We're no longer desperate for just anything.

In no way have I said that I reject it. I want it to be good, and that's not rejecting the vision. I heard about the Botanical Gardens being involved (excellent!!), and I have read about the artists so far involved (one I dislike, while the rest I think are great). Read all the information in my posts, and please do not bundle me up with the cliché parade of negativity. Typically, I'm not a negative poster, but when it comes to art, I can get picky. Art was my college major.

migueltejada wrote:

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.

Sarcasm?



Bastiat - just because it's a private donation doesn't mean it's a good thing. You say never look a gift horse in the mouth, I say beware of the greeks bearing gifts.



Considering there's a consultant now trying to do a comprehensive mast plan for the Mall, accepting this proposal only hurt the overall plan that's being done as we speak. So much for trying to do something cohesive. That's what got us into trouble in the first place! Why don't we let the people the city is PAYING to figure out what's the best design for the mall do their jobs BEFORE we start plopping stuff all over the place, private donation or not.



Also, the group says they'll take most of the costs, save for water, electricity, and mowing. The thing's a damn sculpture park - not exactly high upkeep in the first place, but I digress. I guarantee you that this park will fall under full control of the city in a matter of time, as the group just sells it to them to write off the expense, and then the city is stuck with everything.



The homeless and graffiti issue is real. CS - grow up. Just because there's potential for graffiti doesn't mean it shouldn't be built, but consider the serra structure. People thought it'd be great, and now anyone thinks of it is piss filled graffiti wall for homeless bums. If we can't "protect" the image/reputation of one structure, how is the city going to protect an entire block of them?



It's funny - why doesn't the city ever do polling numbers to ask people what they would like to see in their city?

Maybe you should have read other people's posts and the article itself before resorting to the old St. Louis is always going to fail mindset. Addressing your comments in bold, from the article itself:



Stanley pointed out that the 1999 downtown plan, which was drawn up with public input, designated the 2.9 acres between Eighth and 10th streets as a sculpture garden.



When Mayor Francis Slay began to focus on redeveloping the mall, Stanley said he asked the Gateway Foundation for help and support. The $450,000 budget for creating a master plan by Thomas Baisley and Associates and Urban Strategies Inc. was funded by the foundation, as will be design of the sculpture garden, by Nelson Byrd Woltz of Charlottesville, Va.





Also like I said in my last post, I think these two blocks are the best to do it on. Almost all of the surrounding buildings are lowrise civic architecture (Kiel Opera House, Central Library, WWI Memorial, City Hall, Municipal Courts, Union Station, and that other court looking building). I think it is great to be able to see all of these older buildings in a 360 view, especially in a outdoor cafe in the midst of a modern art sculpture park. Seems pretty European to me. Makes a lot more sense than between the AT&T buildings and the Bank of America Tower.



I also fail to see why everyone assumes the design will be awful. I posted a link to the landscape architects' website and I was impressed with the work they have done (I'm sure it would impress others if they would take the time to look at the site). I have no doubt that their implementation of water features, night-time lighting, a media screen, and landscaping in general will impress everyone driving down Market and Chestnut.



This much different than putting up a bunch of metal slabs in the grass and calling it art.



This also has the advantage that there are those two parks on either side of the WWI Memorial that aren't part of the Mall and can be developed to take advantage of the sculpture parks (retail and sidewalk seating, etc). I would keep the park in front of the Central Library and the Park Pacific but make it a dog park though.



There are 6 blocks west of the sculpture park that would be great for mixed use development. The only open space needed on the Mall west of the sculpture park would be the fountains at Aloe Plaza.

Bastiat wrote:For those of you clamoring for more highrises, have you even looked at where this being proposed? Check it out. These two blocks are faced by City Hall and the Municipal Courts to the south; the Civil Courts to the east; the WWI memorial, the Central Library and Park Pacific to the north; Union Station to the west (in the distance). Caddy-corner to the south is the Kiel Opera house (and the Scott Trade center). So basically we have a sculpture garden being framed by grand classical architecture (most cities can't boast of such structures being so close). The only thing that would be more fitting is if the Municipal Courts or City Hall became a satellite for the Art Museum! Once the Kiel Opera house reopens, this is going to be even better.

Ummmmmmmmm.....no.

Grover wrote:And if we reject everyone who has a vision for the city we're idiots. Lots and lots of 'urban' initiatives fail. Has Millienium Park always been a hit? Central Park? H3ll no! Why is St. Louis so afraid to endorse a strong vision? I'm disappointed in much of the reaction I've read/heard about this and it makes me better understand some of the frustrations long-time residents have expressed to me. If this is the prevailing attitude here in the city, I'll begin looking ahead to wherever I land next and stop expecting more from StL.

I hear you and Bastiat. There is a difference between critical-thinking and negativity. The negativity is apparent. Stay strong.



If done well, and $20-million is nothing to sneeze at, the project could be pioneering. With the "green" push across America, this might give St. Louis some great headlines.



Although, I don't necessarily like the fractured feel of the mall (below Tucker), St. Louis, I think, could gain some more arts notoriety and momentum. It will have a botanical/sculpture garden in the heart of downtown and in the shadow of the Gateway Arch - the world's tallest sculpture.



In regards to the arts, Minneapolis is increasingly respected as an arts destination because it invests in the arts and is not afraid of stepping outside of the box. Its arts community is probably the most respected in the Midwest.

^ Don't know. There are upsides and down sides to both locations. Clearly, I have the same concerns that southslider mentioned. The blocks between 8th and 11th on the Mall, while surrounded by buildings have little to no street level retail. Maybe adding this sculpture will help, but the sculpture by itself will not generate the traffic. The restaurants and retail kiosks will. If there are no kiosks this is a certain failure. Art will not generate traffic.



On a side note, anyone wonder whether this would be better proposed for say along Washington or along Locust? I happen to think that say the lot bounded by 11th, Locust, St. Charles and Tucker would be a much better location for a sculpture park. There, it would be closer to the existing residential and near street level retail. Or how about small installations up and down Locust (call it the St. Louis Avenue of art) starting with the Fed plaza, then up to maybe up to the former Ambassador site or the parking lot opposite it, and then to the proposed OPO Plaza space, and finally to the lot at Locust and Tucker. Along Locust you already have some good urban form and rehabbed buildings. People could stroll from shop to restaurant, to apartment to sculpture in a convenient fashion, uniting the sculpture with the environment. I don't think such a marriage is proposed (or will occur) with the current proposal. It would be great. Locust (the arts street) strategically located between the shopping street (Olive) and the convention/ residential street (Washington).



I don't think anyone on here this this is a bad gift or a bad idea (putting up a sculpture garden). I just question the location and to some degree the mix of uses (more emphasis on retail and restaurants, not on art).



Thinking critically about the positives and negatives about what is proposed is not negativity.



BTW, for all those citing the Walker in MPLS, it is pretty disconnected from the downtown, as it is on the wrong side of 94, Lyndale, 394, and Hennepin (ie. not the most pedestrian friendly area).

DeBaliviere wrote:

Bastiat wrote:Also like I said in my last post, I think these two blocks are the best to do it on. Almost all of the surrounding buildings are lowrise civic architecture (Kiel Opera House, Central Library, WWI Memorial, City Hall, Municipal Courts, Union Station, and that other court looking building). I think it is great to be able to see all of these older buildings in a 360 view, especially in a outdoor cafe in the midst of a modern art sculpture park. Seems pretty European to me. Makes a lot more sense than between the AT&T buildings and the Bank of America Tower.

I think installing the sculpture park west of Tucker - across from City Hall, The Kiel, etc. would be preferable to the proposed site, which is 8th and Market.

Oops, I guess I glanced at the map to quickly on the front page of the Post Dispatch. Now I understand the negativity. I would rather have these blocks built upon instead.



I really would like the idea if it were on the two blocks west of the Civil Courts though...

I think the discussions around homelessness and graffiti have been distractions and sort of disingenuous - particularly considering that we don't know how garden/sculptures are going to be secured. Even with the best security, who is to say there won't be vandalism? There is graffiti high on the Emporium Theatre and other buildings downtown and they are buildings - not sculptures. The graffiti likely wasn't done by homeless people.



A lot of the vandalism of the Serra has come from Cardinals fans, parade goers and festival attendees taking leaks inside of the structure. I've seen it with my own eyes while on parade routes. I have seen people with homes pee in alleys and on buildings in Soulard during Mardi Gras. Vandals will be vandals - unfortunately.



People will, unfortunately, "use it" wherever they can if they have to go bad enough. Sad, but true. Some people, homeless or not, have no boundaries or respect. And there are people who will "tag" places they shouldn't, but I don't think it is right to vilify homeless people in order to question the need for this park/garden.



Overall, I personally don't have an issue with people discussing the park's location, its vision, its appeal, its costs, or its necessity etc.



And who mentioned anything about the Walker in Minneapolis? My comparison to Minneapolis was to demonstrate the project would be pioneering for an urban downtown considering the type of project, its size and investment.



It's an artsy and green project that I think will help to catapult St. Louis into the arts spotlight if it is done well.

jefferson wrote:My, and I think others, concern is that it will just be 10-20 pieces that you're supposed to stand 20 feet away from and "appreciate" with a few "please don't walk on the grass" signs around them. While such pieces are fine for livening up the odd scrap of unused land downtown, it's not really what this important site needs.

Your post just made me think - they are almost certainly going to need some sort of security. Otherwise every hoosier in the world is going to drag their hoosier brats down there to climb all over the art. It will have to be made clear to hoosiers that this is a sculpture garden and not a playground.

^ See, I think you couldn't be more wrong. Call me crazy, but I see St. Louis as a very family oriented tourist destination. Interactive sculpture that kids can climb on is exactly what is needed. At least if the kids can interact with the sculpture, then the families visiting the City will give the space a stop.

I think people , toward the end of the thread, have the right idea, about having interactive art. I've been to other cities with sculpture parks that are like old fashion art museums: stand back and have a look -- boring. But let’s also be real, and understand that interactive art is more than just a sculpture kids can climb. That’s the most obvious, and least creative it can all get. Fountains are also a bit obvious, but with the right artists, all that can change.

JMedwick wrote:^ See, I think you couldn't be more wrong. Call me crazy, but I see St. Louis as a very family oriented tourist destination. Interactive sculpture that kids can climb on is exactly what is needed. At least if the kids can interact with the sculpture, then the families visiting the City will give the space a stop.

Everything doesn't have to revolve around families. We want a real sculpture park, which means no hoosier kids climbing on the art.