urbanSTL

Agreed, except those blocks traversed by tourists and sports fans are east of 7th Street. The Arch, Old Courthouse, Edward Jones Dome and Busch Stadium all fall east of 7th Street. Hence, the block to focus on improvements you mention for tourists and sports fans is Kiener Plaza/May Amphitheater, not these blocks off the beaten path.

Well, I agree that these blocks are more active, but there is still Union Station and Savviscottradekeil further to the west.

^Yep, but Kiel and Union Station are west of Tucker, just as Busch, the Dome and the Arch are east of 7th. So again, what is there between 7th and Tucker that is going to create a stream of tourists?



This section of the Mall proposed for the sculpture park is nothing but office and civic space, lacking any draw for tourists. As a result, after 5pm weekdays, it is dead, as the foot traffic will be east of 7th, even on game nights and weekends.



But while Millenium Park works as an attraction itself among office buildings, we already have a major attraction in the Arch. So then, add Missouri Botanical Garden landscaping and Gateway Foundation sculpture to the I-70 lid connecting the Arch to Downtown. Afterall, that's where the foot traffic is and needs to be improved.

Well if you read the report, it shows the demographics that most fit each section of the mall. I'm not supporting or condemning it, but that is the idea.

southslider wrote:But while Millenium Park works as an attraction itself among office buildings, we already have a major attraction in the Arch. So then, add Missouri Botanical Garden landscaping and Gateway Foundation sculpture to the I-70 lid connecting the Arch to Downtown. Afterall, that's where the foot traffic is and needs to be improved.

Hear hear! =D>

A new West End Word article lists some of the sculptures slated for the two-block sculpture park.



Looking at the picture of "Taichi Single Whip," it ain't "Cloud Gate" to say the least. Wow, thanks Gateway Foundation (in advance), for dumping more "Twain"-looking crap into our lifeless median.

The Gateway Foundation's mission statement: “The Gateway Foundation strives to enrich St. Louis life and culture by supporting efforts to acquire, create or improve tangible and durable art and urban design.”



Wouldn't the I-70 lid fall under "urban design? I would much rather they partner with someone such as the Danforth Foundation and throw their combined money behind a comprehensive plan, including the design of the lid itself, landscaping, and public art, to beautify and enliven Memorial Drive and the link between the Arch Grounds and downtown. Their $$$ could very well be the difference in the lid becoming a reality and that would have a much greater impact on the appearance and livability of downtown than a couple dozen or so sculptures plunked down in the middle of the mall.



Some math:



2 blocks of dead mall + 2 dozen sculptures = 2 blocks of dead mall with 2 dozen sculptures

^ Do they not own the parking lots adjacent to the court houses or the space that they are planning on turning into a park next to the Roberts Orpheum?

I once emailed a suggestion to the Gateway Foundation that maybe they could spend some of their seemingly infinite dollars on encouraging higher architectural standards in St. Louis. Such as what the Cummins Engine Foundation does in Columbus, Indiana. They basically pay the architect's fees for new public and institutional buildings, provided that they come from an "approved" list of high-profile architects. As a result, Columbus boasts an amazing collection of modern architecture, including works by Saarinen (both Eliel and Eero); Cesar Pelli; Richard Meier; Skidmore, Owens & Merrill; I.M. Pei; and many others.

Excellent idea, Framer. I've often wished we could replicate The Serpentine Gallery's "pavillion" competition in St. Louis. I originally thought it would be perfectly suited to Forest Park (the Serpentine's construction occurs in London's Hyde Park), but one of the empty "grass lots" in the Gateway Mall could work, too. Basically, The Serpentine invites proposals from world-class architects (Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Liebeskind, Toyo Ito, on and on...) to create a "temporary" pavillion in the park for the summer season. It is used for special events, happy-hours, cafe, exhibits, etc. throughout the summer. At the the end of the season it is dismantled (and hopefuly sold to a benevolent, arts-minded company). The process starts over the next year. A single corporate sponsor underwrites the cost, I think.



http://www.serpentinegallery.org/architecture/

^Lipstick on a pig.



Just like the added metal scaps planned for adjacent blocks.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

southslider wrote:^Lipstick on a pig.



Just like the added metal scaps planned for adjacent blocks.

Wow, such brilliant insight.

Actually it's a pretty good analogy. All those new trees will really draw people in to enjoy that fine work of art.

^About as brilliant as rehashing the same old plans for the same old problem spaces downtown.

Q. Why must Twain stay in its current location until the end of the world?



A. Because Rollin Stanley says so.

I like it. It's good that there's a recognition that a sculpture doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not the sculpture that's the problem, it's the rest of the block.

A rational observer would wonder why we haven't learned from the Serra sculpture. As shared in the P-D article, below are some telling quotes.



From our City's planning director:

St. Louis made the same mistake that many cities at the time did when they were offered free art. Officials accepted "Twain" without thinking long term.

^Yet we're ready to accept more free art from Gateway Foundation.



From the artist about "Twain:"

It needs traffic, the passage of people.

^Oh, but this time it will be different, for more "Twains" will surely increase the foot traffic, right?



From the local daily that sometimes gets it:

Things never really worked out that way.

^Nor will things magically work out this time.



Insanity truly is rehashing the same plans (more sculpture) but expecting different results (magically appearing foot traffic).

southslider wrote:A rational observer would wonder why we haven't learned from the Serra sculpture. As shared in the P-D article, below are some telling quotes.



From our City's planning director:

St. Louis made the same mistake that many cities at the time did when they were offered free art. Officials accepted "Twain" without thinking long term.

^Yet we're ready to accept more free art from Gateway Foundation.



From the artist about "Twain:"

It needs traffic, the passage of people.

^Oh, but this time it will be different, for more "Twains" will surely increase the foot traffic, right?



From the local daily that sometimes gets it:

Things never really worked out that way.

^Nor will things magically work out this time.



Insanity truly is rehashing the same plans (more sculpture) but expecting different results (magically appearing foot traffic).

I thought the article is addressing just your point - the Gateway Foundation gift is thinking long term with money to maintain and protect the new sculptures/landscaping. Concerns of foot traffic have been covered and are real, but I'm not against installing benches, lights and trees. This isn't a chicken or egg scenario, it's a chicken AND egg scenario. We need better planned spaces and more people. Again, it's good to see that some within the city understand that the spaces need to be better planned and funded.

Insanity truly is rehashing the same plans (more sculpture) but expecting different results (magically appearing foot traffic).

Yes because all sculptures are the same...



I think the Serra sculpture in particular would benefit from a better presentation and more foot traffic. More so than many other sculptures.

southslider wrote:^About as brilliant as rehashing the same old plans for the same old problem spaces downtown.

I know - let's suggest developing the blocks! That won't waste too much time.