What is the timeframe for "long term" in St. Louis?
bonwich wrote:What is the timeframe for "long term" in St. Louis?
"Long-term" is one-point-five times the length of time between Pulitzer Prizes.
How 'bout James Beard Awards? I read in our online update that the Beard award is the "food world's equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize."
- 6,775
bonwich wrote:What is the timeframe for "long term" in St. Louis?
50-100 years!
- 6,775
I should be there.
Those who don't want to constructively discuss the plan (i.e., "Let's build on the Mall"), please stay home.
Those who don't want to constructively discuss the plan (i.e., "Let's build on the Mall"), please stay home.
Yes, I wouldn't want to ruin your dream of recreating big mistakes and expecting a different outcome.
- 6,775
Doug wrote:Yes, I wouldn't want to ruin your dream of recreating big mistakes and expecting a different outcome.
Start your own master plan for building on the mall. Invite the public to comment. Good luck!!!
Give me some block grants and I'll do it. I would need at least 150,000 by the way. I am really professional and I designed many parks in much better cities. St. Louis is provincial and you low tier people really need my innovation.
Or one could simply ask why a "master plan" was created without any public input and then presented to the public only for "viewing" and "comments."
Because St. Louis is ran by an old boy network of machine politicking criminals.
Calling them criminals is taking it a bit far. Bonwich, I'll play the devil's advocate. How do you know that public opinion wasn't taken into consideration during the initial stages of the Gateway Master Plan? Just because there wasn't a forum doesn't mean that the planners weren't aware of the spectrum of opinions on this topic.Doug wrote:Because St. Louis is ran by an old boy network of machine politicking criminals.
- 1,768
I was pretty sure there were 2 or 3 Charettes on this thing, that did invite the public. I recall Kevin McGowan and other big Dogs proctoring.
If there were "public" events, where were they publicized? I'm reasonably sure that the first time the public was ever invited to present input was at the first session in June, after the plan was already conceived.
The proof is in the pudding: http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8640.htmlbonwich wrote:If there were "public" events, where were they publicized? I'm reasonably sure that the first time the public was ever invited to present input was at the first session in June, after the plan was already conceived.
If we need a public event for every decision the city makes, I think we're in trouble. And whether or not a public event was held isn't the metric for whether public opinion was taken into account for the initial stages of the Gateway Mall plan. As a couple examples, people have been chatting about it on here for months and Steve Patterson has talked about it for a long time as well.
bonwich wrote:Or one could simply ask why a "master plan" was created without any public input and then presented to the public only for "viewing" and "comments."
ehrrr... The master plan has not been "created" yet, not until it is finalized and this is the public participation portion. Nothing set in stone, so if you have a comment show up.
Why is this an issue?
Honest question, there is no final plan they are seeking public input, why is this an issue?
Because the conspiracy theorists need to be heard and the Post Dispatch has been in a tiff with the Mayor for a while now.Beer City wrote:ehrrr... The master plan has not been "created" yet, not until it is finalized and this is the public participation portion. Nothing set in stone, so if you have a comment show up.
Why is this an issue?
Honest question, there is no final plan they are seeking public input, why is this an issue?
- 1,026
To Doug:
seriously - have you designed parks in other cities? Which ones - i'm not being sarcastic - I'm honestly curious.
and a follow up: how does one get into that?
seriously - have you designed parks in other cities? Which ones - i'm not being sarcastic - I'm honestly curious.
and a follow up: how does one get into that?
bonwich wrote:Or one could simply ask why a "master plan" was created without any public input and then presented to the public only for "viewing" and "comments."
When I lived in Cincinnati (early 90s) they made many decisions without the public's input. Unlike Downtown Now who discovered after years of public hearing that the sidewalks need redoing. That was 8 years ago and we just saw renderings of the new trees and benches a year ago.
Things moved a lot faster in Cincy than here.
Beer City wrote:ehrrr... The master plan has not been "created" yet, not until it is finalized and this is the public participation portion. Nothing set in stone, so if you have a comment show up.
I'm going to have to agree with this. Final decisions have not been made. Sometimes it's better to present an idea to the public and see their reactions than just ask them what they want. It's easier for people to step forward and react (good or bad) if they have something to react to.
Maybe I'm naive (and I'm young so I have hope), but the last meeting seemed to go really well and Rollin Stanley (as well as the rest of the development group) is very interested in getting the publics opinion -- especially from those of us who live down there. If you have ideas and opinions, by all means, stand up and voice them to the people that matter! Especially with your experience, shadrach. We need your help!
It's unfortunate and upsetting that the media (papers and TV) put such a negative spin on the last meeting. There are a lot of great ideas -- there is also a lot of work to be done. Ultimately, if we want to see it succeed, we have to support the possibility.
I'll be at the meeting tonight -- hope this one gets better press coverage than the rest!
Uh huh. Sure. So if I show up and say that, based on demonstrated public antipathy and clear divergence from the original plan for the block, the Serra sculpture should be removed, they'll talk about that.
Or if others on this board who would like to talk about the tradeoffs between leaving it as a "mall" or putting new buildings onto a set of blocks that have been remarkably unproductive for, oh, 25 years now, I'm sure they'll get a fair hearing as well.
And if you truly believe that a design charrette for architecture students with virtually zero stake in the block is the equivalent of "public input," you are a perfect citizen of St. Louis. Why were no PUBLIC meetings called by the City of St. Louis inviting input from the people who live and work there (BEFORE decisions such as keeping the Serra sculpture and building a sculpture garden were made)?
All of y'all out here seem to spend a lot of time on the 'net. Do any of you think that the website for this "planning process" is a successful use of technology to inform or to engender public input and dialogue? Why, for example, hasn't Planning and Urban Design set up a forum just like this one for ongoing electronic discussion of the project?
On a more low-tech basis: Do you think that single meetings on weekday evenings every month or so is an adequate engagement process?
Lots of disingenuity on the board, as usual. I didn't ask for a public event for every decision the city makes -- just more transparency for decisions about one of the most visible sets of blocks in the city, a set of blocks that has been egregiously mismanaged for about four decades. And yeah, I'm feuding with the mayor. That's why he has a podcast with me on his website.
Or if others on this board who would like to talk about the tradeoffs between leaving it as a "mall" or putting new buildings onto a set of blocks that have been remarkably unproductive for, oh, 25 years now, I'm sure they'll get a fair hearing as well.
And if you truly believe that a design charrette for architecture students with virtually zero stake in the block is the equivalent of "public input," you are a perfect citizen of St. Louis. Why were no PUBLIC meetings called by the City of St. Louis inviting input from the people who live and work there (BEFORE decisions such as keeping the Serra sculpture and building a sculpture garden were made)?
All of y'all out here seem to spend a lot of time on the 'net. Do any of you think that the website for this "planning process" is a successful use of technology to inform or to engender public input and dialogue? Why, for example, hasn't Planning and Urban Design set up a forum just like this one for ongoing electronic discussion of the project?
On a more low-tech basis: Do you think that single meetings on weekday evenings every month or so is an adequate engagement process?
Lots of disingenuity on the board, as usual. I didn't ask for a public event for every decision the city makes -- just more transparency for decisions about one of the most visible sets of blocks in the city, a set of blocks that has been egregiously mismanaged for about four decades. And yeah, I'm feuding with the mayor. That's why he has a podcast with me on his website.
- 6,775
bonwich wrote:Uh huh. Sure. So if I show up and say that, based on demonstrated public antipathy and clear divergence from the original plan for the block, the Serra sculpture should be removed, they'll talk about that.
Sure. They'll say "No".
I emailed the mayor several years ago suggesting that the blocks between 14th street to 18th be sold off for development. They weren't too receptive to the idea. Geisman was the one who ended up emailing me back, and she said something about what a tremendous asset the mall is, and that it should be left as is.
- 1,044
There are many of us that don't feel the removal of the Serra is the most important issue facing the Mall. So in my opinion the "powers that be" have taken my feelings into account and acted accordingly, its all in ones perspective