Share
118
Junior MemberJunior Member
118

PostJul 17, 2007#426

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.



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.


If the format is consistent with the last public open house, then no. However the question/answer portion of the hearing (while informal) was a great time to comment, question and make suggestions. Some decisions, like creating the mall versus new building development, have already been made. Either we accept these things and make suggestions to improve the route they’ve chosen, or we bitterly complain knowing that we won’t get anywhere.


bonwich wrote: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?


I believe their website, marketing materials and pamphlets are on the pathetic side. I’m also in marketing and advertisement so I have a good frame of reference (and can tell they’ve used 72dpi images in print – big no no). Unfortunately, I think that this is the best they can do right now.



I agree that they should have a forum (like this one) to discuss this project. However, I’m willing to wager that “The Gateway Mall Steering Committee” and “Planning and Urban Design Agency” read this one already and I’m sure it’s given them plenty of insight.



On the other side of things, they have made it quite evident that “the public is encouraged to send in their comments” as seen at the bottom of all flyers and the survery on their site. Of course, if you approach anyone with negative, unproductive commentary, they won’t listen long. It seems a lot of people have damned this project from the start. Agreed: failure occurred the last time. I’d like to see it succeed this time.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 17, 2007#427

CMD+H wrote:Some decisions, like creating the mall versus new building development, have already been made. Either we accept these things and make suggestions to improve the route they’ve chosen, or we bitterly complain knowing that we won’t get anywhere.


Bingo
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJul 17, 2007#428

Some decisions, like creating the mall versus new building development, have already been made. Either we accept these things and make suggestions to improve the route they’ve chosen, or we bitterly complain knowing that we won’t get anywhere.

It seems a lot of people have damned this project from the start. Agreed: failure occurred the last time. I’d like to see it succeed this time.


I submit to you that this project has already set on a course for failure because such decisions (building on the mall) were made without public input.
604
Senior MemberSenior Member
604

PostJul 17, 2007#429

Some interesting information on the city website including a draft master plan. It looks "ok" - I like the west side better than the east side. It's difficult to read the text in it. Site also includes an online questionnaire - we should all fill that out.



http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/pla ... tewaymall/
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJul 17, 2007#430

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
CMD+H wrote:Some decisions, like creating the mall versus new building development, have already been made. Either we accept these things and make suggestions to improve the route they’ve chosen, or we bitterly complain knowing that we won’t get anywhere.


Bingo


With progressives like these who needs conservatives!
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJul 17, 2007#431

Sorry CS, but decisions can always be revisited. At the very least, there should be dialogue, and that's not just repeating your stance ala Geisman's letter.



But hey, if the annointed leaders say no to building on the mall, or in another example, no to building MetroLink along 40, the public should just shut up, right? Perhaps, like the infamous MetroLink issue, there are good reasons behind the unpopular decision, but the public needs to be at least informed of those reasons. Why must we keep Serra? Why can't we build on the Mall? What are the reasons besides saying it's a done deal? Do you really think saying 40 is already under reconstruction, so it's a done deal, is honestly a satisfactory answer for an inquiring public?



Sometimes, the leaders deciding for us don't even agree among themselves behind those closed doors. And then they can't rush to a decision quietly, but instead look like stubborn kids, thinking a decision can't be revisited. Missouri said the location for the new bridge was a set decision, while Illinois said that no-tolls was already decided.



Compromises could build consensus or greater public acceptance. But if some are so stubborn to say absolutely no building on the mall, well then, it's a long road to building anything.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 17, 2007#432

Doug wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
CMD+H wrote:Some decisions, like creating the mall versus new building development, have already been made. Either we accept these things and make suggestions to improve the route they’ve chosen, or we bitterly complain knowing that we won’t get anywhere.


Bingo


With progressives like these who needs conservatives!


Feel free to continue beating your head against the wall. The rest of us will be over here trying to improve the city....

PostJul 17, 2007#433

southslider wrote:Sorry CS, but decisions can always be revisited. At the very least, there should be dialogue, and that's not just repeating your stance ala Geisman's letter.



But hey, if the annointed leaders say no to building on the mall, or in another example, no to building MetroLink along 40, the public should just shut up, right? Perhaps, like the infamous MetroLink issue, there are good reasons behind the unpopular decision, but the public needs to be at least informed of those reasons. Why must we keep Serra? Why can't we build on the Mall? What are the reasons besides saying it's a done deal? Do you really think saying 40 is already under reconstruction, so it's a done deal, is honestly a satisfactory answer for an inquiring public?



Sometimes, the leaders deciding for us don't even agree among themselves behind those closed doors. And then they can't rush to a decision quietly, but instead look like stubborn kids, thinking a decision can't be revisited. Missouri said the location for the new bridge was a set decision, while Illinois said that no-tolls was already decided.



Compromises could build consensus or greater public acceptance. But if some are so stubborn to say absolutely no building on the mall, well then, it's a long road to building anything.


Solution: You hire your own design team to build on the Mall. Hold public hearings and ask for input. Rinse and repeat. Then we'll compare plans an pick a winner.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJul 17, 2007#434

^ Said like a complete fool.



If the Mall is public land and if the plan is to be implemented as public policy, then no matter who pays for the plan, the the public should have more than token input.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 17, 2007#435

JMedwick wrote:^ Said like a complete fool.



If the Mall is public land, then no matter who pays for the plan, if it is to be implemented as public policy, then the public should have more than token input.


^ Said like a complete fool.



Like I said: Form your own group. Hire some designers.



Of course you won't, because doing is far harder than whining.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJul 17, 2007#436

Stop ignoring our arguments.



This is public land not Slay's backyard. It doesn't matter who pays for the consultants. Or if the art is free. The land upon which most of the Mall resides is public land. We have the right to be included in the decision making process, not to be told by Jesus, the number one urban planner who also walks on water, how its going to be.



Your idea of creating our own plan is ridiculous. However, I do agree with you on one point: It is easier to complain than to do something. What I would like to see is a lobby which is involved with all forms of development in the City.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostJul 17, 2007#437

We have the right to be included in the decision making process


You do, but you don't have the right to have the final say. You elect your officials, you can attend public meetings, you are free to make proposals. What more do you want?
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJul 17, 2007#438

^^ This is a Republic, not a pure Democracy. Know the distinction.



Calling politicians criminals because an implementation doesn't fit your vision to a "T" is a bit immature. By all means be a part of the process. Just know there are more stakeholders than just you.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 17, 2007#439

Doug wrote:Stop ignoring our arguments.


What would they be again?


Doug wrote:This is public land not Slay's backyard. It doesn't matter who pays for the consultants. Or if the art is free. The land upon which most of the Mall resides is public land. We have the right to be included in the decision making process...


You already are included. Have you not heard of elections?


Doug wrote:...not to be told by Jesus, the number one urban planner who also walks on water, how its going to be.


You will never be 1/100 the urban planner that "Jesus" is.
118
Junior MemberJunior Member
118

PostJul 17, 2007#440

southslider wrote:...At the very least, there should be dialogue...


Absolutely agreed.


southslider wrote:But hey, if the annointed leaders say no to building on the mall, or in another example, no to building MetroLink along 40, the public should just shut up, right? Perhaps, like the infamous MetroLink issue, there are good reasons behind the unpopular decision, but the public needs to be at least informed of those reasons.


Point taken and I completely agree. I think my point is that, in general, it seems like people would rather complain than make constructive suggestions. Overwhelming negativity doesn't get us anywhere. We're all in this for the same reason -- improve downtown St Louis. We all have our own ideal vision for these blocks however, the only way to have any of these opinions heard (and listened to) is to form educated, logical and informed suggestions and communicate them to the right people; the ones who are making the final decisions. As of right now, our forums are these monthly meetings and the web/mail survey. Outside of that, our courses of action are much harder. If someone is willing to spearhead a second proposal, I'm behind them 100%. Until then, we need to make the best of the options in front of us.
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostJul 17, 2007#441

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Feel free to continue beating your head against the wall.


It feels more like weasels ripped my flesh. (Rzzzzz!)
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJul 17, 2007#442

We're all in this for the same reason -- improve downtown St Louis. We all have our own ideal vision for these blocks however, the only way to have any of these opinions heard (and listened to) is to form educated, logical and informed suggestions and communicate them to the right people; the ones who are making the final decisions. As of right now, our forums are these monthly meetings and the web/mail survey. Outside of that, our courses of action are much harder. If someone is willing to spearhead a second proposal, I'm behind them 100%. Until then, we need to make the best of the options in front of us.


See the problem is such an opinion ignores the profound negative impact of failing to have a decent public input process from the beginning. By failing to have a public input process they alienate many. I and many others care deeply about downtown. But if those with ideas and those who care are treated by the process like their ideas do not matter (exactly the impression given when there is only a token amount of public involvement) then people end up apathetic and fail to "make the best" of the few opportunities given for public input. The initial misstep is the flaw.



As for Central Scrutinizer, here is my suggestion. Since it does not matter to you who owns the Mall (the City) or that the plan will be implemented o behalf of the public, because the only thing that matters is who pays for the plan, lets try an experiment. I will use my time, money and energy to develop a plan to remodel your apartment. And then you can pay to implement it. I am sure you would be all for that too right?



Oh, BTW Central, I have not yet gotten your list of other developable City owned properties in downtown.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 17, 2007#443

bonwich wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Feel free to continue beating your head against the wall.


It feels more like weasels ripped my flesh. (Rzzzzz!)


LOL! Feel free to make a Jazz Noise Here.

PostJul 17, 2007#444

JMedwick wrote:As for Central Scrutinizer, here is my suggestion. Since it does not matter to you who owns the Mall (the City) or that the plan will be implemented o behalf of the public, because the only thing that matters is who pays for the plan, lets try an experiment. I will use my time, money and energy to develop a plan to remodel your apartment. And then you can pay to implement it. I am sure you would be all for that too right?


I don't live in an apartment.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJul 17, 2007#445

^ Condo, house, doesn't really make a difference because I doubt you would agree to such a deal.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJul 17, 2007#446

JMedwick wrote:^ Condo, house, doesn't really make a difference because I doubt you would agree to such a deal.
Probably because he has sole ownership of his house. Whereas the city owns the Gateway Mall and the local government that we elect governs it. You or I don't govern it. This can't be too difficult a concept to understand, can it?
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 18, 2007#447

innov8ion wrote:
JMedwick wrote:^ Condo, house, doesn't really make a difference because I doubt you would agree to such a deal.
Probably because he has sole ownership of his house. Whereas the city owns the Gateway Mall and the local government that we elect governs it. You or I don't govern it. This can't be too difficult a concept to understand, can it?


Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Pick any prize you like from the top 2 shelves.
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostJul 18, 2007#448

So, did anyone go to City Hall this evening? I thought overall, it's OK/FINE, but nothing ground breaking or truly fascinating, but better than what's currently there, but St. Louis could strive for more.



-Closing off Chestnut, eh, either way, not a big fan of street closures, but not a huge deal either.



-I liked the mound in front of Union Station, nice play off the mounds that used to dot the city. could be cool, unique place.



-liked the playground, city museum area, but the dog park is NO WHERE near any residents, it should be closer to the library



-liked the idea of adding sports fields, sand volley ball etc.



-sort of liked the idea of the skating rink around Milles Fountain, but I'm not sure it's big/wide enough for it



-outdoor art is cool along with interactive fountains



-the more water features, the better. and I'm not just talking a number of fountains popping out of the street, as is currently in the plan.



-needs more permanent kiosks/vending/cafes



-lots of people in the renderings, but for what's proposed, I don't think there will be as big of a draw, unless there are events. This plan need smore to DRAW people to this area



-WHY get rid of Kiener Plaza? this is arguably the MOST popular thing in the ENTIRE mall. I always see kids climbing around in the fountain, etc. WHY get rid of it for some retro/"cool" stage that could be placed elsewhere? Sure, update it, but don't demolish the MOST popular attraction that the mall currently has going for it.



-AGAIN, needs more things for it to be a draw, random sculptures is a nice start, but it really isn't addressing the LACK OF ACTIVITY at this mall, outside of events.



Also, GenAmerica is not the Hilton, as the plan suggested.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJul 18, 2007#449

JCity wrote:So, did anyone go to City Hall this evening? I thought overall, it's OK/FINE, but nothing ground breaking or truly fascinating, but better than what's currently there, but St. Louis could strive for more.



-Closing off Chestnut, eh, either way, not a big fan of street closures, but not a huge deal either.



-I liked the mound in front of Union Station, nice play off the mounds that used to dot the city. could be cool, unique place.



-liked the playground, city museum area, but the dog park is NO WHERE near any residents, it should be closer to the library



-liked the idea of adding sports fields, sand volley ball etc.



-sort of liked the idea of the skating rink around Milles Fountain, but I'm not sure it's big/wide enough for it



-outdoor art is cool along with interactive fountains



-the more water features, the better. and I'm not just talking a number of fountains popping out of the street, as is currently in the plan.



-needs more permanent kiosks/vending/cafes



-lots of people in the renderings, but for what's proposed, I don't think there will be as big of a draw, unless there are events. This plan need smore to DRAW people to this area



-WHY get rid of Kiener Plaza? this is arguably the MOST popular thing in the ENTIRE mall. I always see kids climbing around in the fountain, etc. WHY get rid of it for some retro/"cool" stage that could be placed elsewhere? Sure, update it, but don't demolish the MOST popular attraction that the mall currently has going for it.



-AGAIN, needs more things for it to be a draw, random sculptures is a nice start, but it really isn't addressing the LACK OF ACTIVITY at this mall, outside of events.



Also, GenAmerica is not the Hilton, as the plan suggested.


I went and pretty much agree with everything you said.



Two points:


-sort of liked the idea of the skating rink around Milles Fountain, but I'm not sure it's big/wide enough for it.


You may be right. However, I suppose it's possible to make it bigger?


-WHY get rid of Kiener Plaza? this is arguably the MOST popular thing in the ENTIRE mall. I always see kids climbing around in the fountain, etc. WHY get rid of it for some retro/"cool" stage that could be placed elsewhere? Sure, update it, but don't demolish the MOST popular attraction that the mall currently has going for it.


I think it's the most popular thing on the mall because it's the only thing on the mall.
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostJul 18, 2007#450

probably. I just don't understand the reason for getting rid of the fountain. I think it's attractive and is pretty unique. Sure, improve it, but don't remove the whole fountain

Read more posts (607 remaining)
Share