Share
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJun 18, 2007#376

^People don't magically appear anymore with benches than they do with sculpture.



We all seem to agree that the surroundings are the problem. Trouble is that the surroundings won't change with new landscaping, benches and lighting. The surrounding uses are foot-traffic killers for evenings and weekends, since the surroundings are largely 8-5 office and government buildings.



But wait, this time, the sculpture will be more appealing, so people won't mind walking through the surrounding dead blocks fixed in their uses to reach this beautiful, planned oasis. :roll:
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 18, 2007#377

^People don't magically appear anymore with benches than they do with sculpture.


I agree with your statement of agreement. However, benches, especially shaded ones do attract people more than sculpture. Of course they may simply attract people from Lucas Park! :lol: It seems that the city is h3llbent on making these blocks parks so I'd say that a few benches, trees, lighting and security are a good step.

PostJun 18, 2007#378

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Grover wrote: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.


I'm a huge fan of Serra, and yet, I don't care so much for Twain. However, I would be interested to see it in its intended environment to see if my thoughts change. That was the point of the article. You seem to be the only one besides me who got it.


^ WORD.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJun 18, 2007#379

Grover wrote:
It's good that there's a recognition that a sculpture doesn't exist in a vacuum.


Serra's Twain exists in a vacuum. And so will added pieces of public art. That's the problem. A park only being as good as its edges, the edges create a vacuum that no public improvements can overcome.



Even when edges are improved, like Lucas Park, a park can still struggle. But when the edges are fixed such to remain dead zones, as are all the uses about these blocks of Gateway Mall, a park is doomed to fail.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 18, 2007#380

We except free art, even though it will not improve the Gateway Mall, because we have low standards.



In the same manner we allow exurban developers free reign for large urban renewal style projects, while we allow historic buildings to be demolished for parking garages, annexes, or "urban plazas."



To be a great City we must have standards and a recognition that repeating the same mistakes is insanity.



"Twain" is a piece of ugly art. Even if you like it, we must agree that it has not helped the Mall. It should be relocated to an area with pedestrian traffic as it does not draw people. Perhaps somewhere in Forest Park, or Tower Grove? Right now it is simply a dead zone. The same goes for this donated art. The City shouldn't simply take the donation because it will be under viewed and fail to aid the Mall. By in large, we need to abandon the Mall and develop it into mixed use.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 18, 2007#381

^ I wouldn't be upset if this piece landed in FP. The sculpture to the left of the grand basin as you face the art museum is really cool. Twain is different, but would fit nicely in the same area.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJun 18, 2007#382

Doug wrote:By in large, we need to abandon the Mall and develop it into mixed use.


You can repeat this until you are blue in the face, but it ain't gonna happen. All you're doing is wasting bandwidth.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJun 18, 2007#383

^Oddly enough, supporters of the Gateway Foundation want to see Gateway One eventually down, and that ain't gonna happen either for many years. Seems like a potential impasse between the half-mall and full mall plans.



True leaders would work to incorporate the principles of opposing plans for a stronger, consensus-building plan. But just as Mayor Slay didn't show leadership in overcoming the Mississippi River Bridge impasse, Room 200 remains quiet on the Gateway Mall, except publicizing "free" gifts.



Debate forces new ideas. The Mall shouldn't look entirely like the block with the Serra sculpture (more street-dead art), but it shouldn't look entirely like the block with Gateway One (more street-dead office space) either.



Given that mixed use used to be on the Mall but was torn down for open space, it may seem that building a mix of new uses is an old idea, but clearing whole blocks for a linear park is an even older idea that has clearly not enlivened Downtown.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 18, 2007#384

Exactly. We really shouldn't have torn down the mixed use buildings, especially Real Estate Row. We can see that urban parks and plazas, in this environment, have the opposite effect: they scare people away. What did work is mixed use. Since re-urbanization is occurring, now is the time to admit that the Mall is a mistake. Even though the built environment will not reach what existed before, it surely would be better than what currently exists.



We know that plazas don't work. Mix use did and still does. Why is this so unclear? We don't need flashy lights, dirt mounds, or skate parks.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 18, 2007#385

It was my understanding that "mixed use" buildings had failed on the mall - for whatever reason. I may be wrong - were succesful tenants evicted to create the Gateway Mall? The demolition certainly looks shortsighted now, but I think that this was a 'failing' area then as well.
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostJun 18, 2007#386

Grover wrote:It was my understanding that "mixed use" buildings had failed on the mall - for whatever reason. I may be wrong - were succesful tenants evicted to create the Gateway Mall?


Yes. At least one of the three demolished buildings was almost full until the City started making noises about tearing it down.


The demolition certainly looks shortsighted now, but I think that this was a 'failing' area then as well.


Only if your definition of "failing" is "well populated by unobtrusive small businesses whose owners don't have lunch every first Monday at the Bogey Club."

PostJun 18, 2007#387

P-D, 1983 wrote:Nearly all the tenants in the International Office Building, which is scheduled to be razed as part of the Gateway Mall redevelopment plan, have moved out to comply with an eviction deadline.



Donn H. Lipton, president of Lipton Realty, notified the tenants about 60 days ago that they should vacate the building at 722 Chestnut Street by Sunday. The notice was given because of a substantial decline in occupancy.



Lipton said Saturday that about 500 tenants had been occupying the building. He said only three remained, although 'we've spotted some available space (in other buildings) and notified the tenants.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 18, 2007#388

bonwich wrote:
Only if your definition of "failing" is "well populated by unobtrusive small businesses whose owners don't have lunch every first Monday at the Bogey Club."


Spot on ol' chap! I'll see you at hunt club Tuesday?
508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostJun 18, 2007#389

you know I've never really been a big fan of Twain either, but with some of the landscaping elements they mentioned in the article it looked pretty good as I was picturing it. I think one of the keys may be tying it somehow to the new sculpture park, and here is where closing some cross streets might come in handy. I believe the article also mentions the Gateway Foundation possibly taking over some landscaping on the Twain block as well, I hope they can restore it to the original vision.



Also, maybe these blocks don't necessarily need to be teeming with people at all hours to be a success. Just being more aesthetically pleasing would be a huge leap forward, and in a lot of ways fulfill the original "city beautiful" concept of the mall. We see that Kiener is used by the lunchtime crowd despite not having any "attractions". If you put some benches and shade trees in the sculpture park area (not to mention a cafe), it could be used in the same way. Couple that with an increase in the residential population so it sees some use after 5, and you have a nice urban space. In other words, people might be being a little too quick to dismiss the idea of a scultpure park on these blocks based on the single data point of Twain sitting by itself in the middle of an empty lawn.



I've no argument with people who want to see more mixed use, but I'm not convinced of the market for more office space downtown, and as has often been pointed out there is plenty of space to build on elsewhere (see blocks west of Tucker, as well as more office space coming on line within BPV). To say that plazas don't work is simply false. Businesses and developers do want to be next to parks and civic space. The reason no one uses these blocks right now is that there's not so much as a bench or tree there.
801
Super MemberSuper Member
801

PostJun 18, 2007#390

I think the best thing that can be said at this point is that the city is only offering the space for a 15 year period. The reason I say this is because there are more important areas to focus on currently.



I think we all agree that the Mall, whether we are talking about developing or landscaping it, is not what is going to make or break downtown. It is what is currently being built/rehabbed that is most important. Even if you are for mixed use on the mall, you have to agree that it is going to have to wait a couple of years to allow all of the units in the far more important Old Post Office Square, Washington Avenue, Downtown West, Chouteau's Landing, Cupples Station/Ball Park Village and Lumiere/Landing Areas to be built out and fill up. At that point the issue will be of more importance due to the increased population. More people will have a stake in it and it can be held to a higher standard.



Will sculptures sunk randomly in grass lure more people downtown? No, and if it did, I would be able to count the number on my hands...but will people be willing to venture downtown to eat a meal surrounded by exotic plants, fountains, and sculptures in view of the Arch and the Civil Courts? I think so, if it is done correctly.



I don't think that this is the best possible use of the blocks, but let's not pretend it is the worst thing either. There is a lot more pressure on this than when "Twain" was put in because the developers want to fill their buildings with residents (watch the homeless people disapeer in Lucas Park once Park Pacific and SkyHouse are built, I guarantee it). I think the work of the landscape architects, Nelson Byrd Woltz is pretty good from what I saw on their website. The fact that their botanists will be from the Botanical Garden can only help them. I think that a cafe and coffee shop, if run properly will be a hit with the tourists, residents and office workers. It WILL draw people to eat there.



It will offer a least a better connection between the growing halves of downtown. Or would you rather have exploring out-of-towners confronted by vast empty areas of grass?
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostJun 19, 2007#391

So, was Don Lipton a part of the loss of Real Estate Row? Isn't this the SAME Lipton that has sat on Schnucks in Clayton forever?

He sure is a piece of work!


Spot on ol' chap! I'll see you at hunt club Tuesday?


Umm, that sure isn't Don Lipton.....
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostJun 19, 2007#392

"Good guys" and "bad guys" are always murky in development stories, but in this case, Lipton was one of the good guys. He was the landlord for all the small businesses who got forced out.
1,044
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,044

PostJun 19, 2007#393

Lipton was also responsible for the failed Union Market revamp.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostJun 19, 2007#394

We except free art, even though it will not improve the Gateway Mall, because we have low standards.


Doug, no matter what your stance is on where the free art goes, you can't be serious. Free art isn't always bad art. If someone offered us a free Da Vinci would you still agree with your statement? SLAM "accepts" donations of high quality art, as does any major museum, do they have low standards too?
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJun 19, 2007#395

We might debate about the quality of the sculptures being considered or whether they will be placed, but I think the root intention of the Gateway Foundation is a good one. The City was right to accept the gift. The City is wrong to place it as proposed.
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostJun 20, 2007#396

Great post, Bastiat. I agree with almost everything you said.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostJun 20, 2007#397

^Agreed, Bastiat sums it well.
291
Full MemberFull Member
291

PostJun 21, 2007#398

I also think Bastiat made some very good points. I don't see why, though, parts of the mall can't remain open, but be used in ways that attract crowds. I know we already have a farmer's market in Soulard, but it's difficult to find parking and isn't convenient to Metrolink. A weekend farmer's market on Market Street would draw tons of people.



Madison Wisconsin has had a weekend farmer's market on the block around the state capitol building for years and they limit the produce and products sold to items that are grown or made in Wisconsin. The city gives out permits to qualified people and they set up their booths every weekend between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I'd love to see that kind of use of a portion of the mall and who knows, it could end up that the mall isn't as vast as some people claim.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostJun 21, 2007#399

This is pure genius:



'Turning the Place Over' by Richard Wilson



This is exactly the kind of thing on which I would like to see the Gateway Foundation spending their $$$, rather than a couple of dozen unrelated sculptures plunked down in the middle of the Mall. It is unique, dynamic, encourages people to stop and watch, and I am sure would appeal to locals and tourists alike.



Hey, here is an idea. How about a freakin' design competition for something like this to anchor the other end of the Mall (wherever we decide that is) and encourage people to walk from the Arch down the length of the Mall? I am sure that $20 mil would go a long way in that regard.



More on the sculpture:



Art in Liverpool



Background of 'Turning the Place Over'



Note the paragraph at the bottom of the last link - a half dozen public and private orgs are working together to create art throughout Liverpool. What a concept!
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJun 21, 2007#400

jlblues wrote:Hey, here is an idea. How about a freakin' design competition for something like this to anchor the other end of the Mall (wherever we decide that is) and encourage people to walk from the Arch down the length of the Mall? I am sure that $20 mil would go a long way in that regard.[/i]


The designers said that, long term, there should be a "signature" building at the Mall's terminus (west of the Aloe plaza/Milles fountain).
Read more posts (657 remaining)
Share