the east block
![]()
looking across both blocks
![]()
the grid of fountains on the west block
![]()
looking across both blocks
the grid of fountains on the west block
They are really moving on this. A few fairly large trees have made there way into place and the sculpture from the Truman/I-55/I-44/Lafayette intersection has moved into the east block.
Anyone heard anymore on the restaurant/cafe that is going on the NE corner?
Sculpture at its old location:
![]()
Anyone heard anymore on the restaurant/cafe that is going on the NE corner?
Sculpture at its old location:
Cool. I didn't know they were installing sculptures already. I'll have to swing by and check it out.
- 8,912
Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 4:45 PM CST | Modified: Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 5:07 PM
New Gateway Mall project director: It'll be a challenge but 'we can do it'
St. Louis Business Journal - by Kelsey Volkmann
As other local projects languish in the recession, backers of a $100 million plan to develop the Gateway Mall in downtown St. Louis have hired a leader to move the development forward after a year in limbo .
The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis hired Patricia Roland-Hamilton as the new director of the Gateway Mall project Monday, the partnership and the St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry said Thursday.
Roland-Hamilton knows her job won’t be easy.
The costs of the plan’s components are:
Kiener Plaza, $30 million
City Garden, $22 million
Stage and main event area, $16 million
Connection for entire Gateway, $16 million
Aloue Plaza $8 million
Dog run, playground, kiosks, $6 million
Overall lighting scheme, undisclosed cost
The city of St. Louis spends $54,000 a year to maintain the mall but will spend $1.2 million on maintenance after the development is completed.
“The mall is our region’s front yard and should be a key part of our downtown’s revitalization,” said Gary Bess, director of parks, recreation and forestry, in a statement.
One component of the mall, the $16 million City Garden, is scheduled to be completed this summer.
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... n&brthrs=1
New Gateway Mall project director: It'll be a challenge but 'we can do it'
St. Louis Business Journal - by Kelsey Volkmann
As other local projects languish in the recession, backers of a $100 million plan to develop the Gateway Mall in downtown St. Louis have hired a leader to move the development forward after a year in limbo .
The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis hired Patricia Roland-Hamilton as the new director of the Gateway Mall project Monday, the partnership and the St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry said Thursday.
Roland-Hamilton knows her job won’t be easy.
The costs of the plan’s components are:
Kiener Plaza, $30 million
City Garden, $22 million
Stage and main event area, $16 million
Connection for entire Gateway, $16 million
Aloue Plaza $8 million
Dog run, playground, kiosks, $6 million
Overall lighting scheme, undisclosed cost
The city of St. Louis spends $54,000 a year to maintain the mall but will spend $1.2 million on maintenance after the development is completed.
“The mall is our region’s front yard and should be a key part of our downtown’s revitalization,” said Gary Bess, director of parks, recreation and forestry, in a statement.
One component of the mall, the $16 million City Garden, is scheduled to be completed this summer.
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... n&brthrs=1
- 549
While I'm glad there is a plan to improve The Mall, any plan not connecting The Mall to the Arch grounds via a lid (or some comparable solution) is, in some regard, a waste of time and money. To ignore the most obvious way to improve the mall is vexing.
But... one step at a time I guess.
But... one step at a time I guess.
“The mall is our region’s front yard and should be a key part of our downtown’s revitalization,” said Gary Bess, director of parks, recreation and forestry, in a statement.
What does that make the Arch Grounds? The side yard?
^Back yard. I'm afraid that I'm gonna drive by some day soon, and the Arch is gonna be up on blocks...
- 5,433
UrbanPioneer wrote:To ignore the most obvious way to improve the mall is vexing. But... one step at a time I guess.
And when compared to progress in St. Louis, at least with civic endeavors like this, glaciers melt and boulders erode faster.
This Tom Otterness sculpture would be perfect for the Gateway Mall. It is currently installed in Brooklyn until Jan. '09.
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files20 ... dWagon.jpg
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files20 ... dWagon.jpg
Ha, that's cute. Gateway to the west. Perhaps too obvious?Wabash wrote:This Tom Otterness sculpture would be perfect for the Gateway Mall. It is currently installed in Brooklyn until Jan. '09.
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files20 ... dWagon.jpg
City Garden will be yet another failure. What residential will this serve? None. Simply single use 80's office buildings. We should abandon the Gateway Mall concept. It never generated the tax revenue or activity that Cervantes said it would. It didn't make us look like Paris. It didn't make us more attractive than suburbia. The terra cotta and marble we sacrificed, and the cheap rent provided by Real Estate Row, did.
The justification for Real Estate Row was, at it's latest, 3 new shiny office buildings. We currently have one ugly monstrosity and now this new joke of a park. Give the land away and build mixed use when the economy gets better. But that didn't happen because our elected leaders have no spine. 100 million for this project? What could 100 million do in terms of residential rehab, affordable housing, or small business development? These we need not more green space. We have enough given our population density.
We should have returned the 20 million for City Garden just as we should have prevented the murder of the Buder Building and rape of Real Estate Row. But like Vince Schoemehl, Mayor Slay lacked the independence and leadership to decline the donated dollars. He failed to initiate a true pluralistic, deliberative planning process which would result in more than gardens, dog runs, and lights. But we, the people, are not his constituency. Those in power do not care what we think. They don't care if we circulate petitions. As Richard Mantia, co-chairman of Pride Redevelopment Corporation, said regarding Real Estate Row "We want everyone to know that the Gateway Mall is an inevitability" (Gateway Mall Scrapbook, 119).
A group of unelected corporate pirates raided Real Estate Row, while the Mayor stood by complacent in the crime.
The Gateway Mall is the continuation of failed policy while City Garden is an excellent symbol of St. Louis' acceptance of mediocrity.
The justification for Real Estate Row was, at it's latest, 3 new shiny office buildings. We currently have one ugly monstrosity and now this new joke of a park. Give the land away and build mixed use when the economy gets better. But that didn't happen because our elected leaders have no spine. 100 million for this project? What could 100 million do in terms of residential rehab, affordable housing, or small business development? These we need not more green space. We have enough given our population density.
We should have returned the 20 million for City Garden just as we should have prevented the murder of the Buder Building and rape of Real Estate Row. But like Vince Schoemehl, Mayor Slay lacked the independence and leadership to decline the donated dollars. He failed to initiate a true pluralistic, deliberative planning process which would result in more than gardens, dog runs, and lights. But we, the people, are not his constituency. Those in power do not care what we think. They don't care if we circulate petitions. As Richard Mantia, co-chairman of Pride Redevelopment Corporation, said regarding Real Estate Row "We want everyone to know that the Gateway Mall is an inevitability" (Gateway Mall Scrapbook, 119).
A group of unelected corporate pirates raided Real Estate Row, while the Mayor stood by complacent in the crime.
The Gateway Mall is the continuation of failed policy while City Garden is an excellent symbol of St. Louis' acceptance of mediocrity.
- 6,775
I look forward to the sculpture park!
- 8,912
The mall is here to stay, our city leaders should work with developers on improving the areas around the mall not lamenting the past.
It's not lamenting the past! It's a recognition of the mistakes and desire to not repeat them. As with the Mall's original incarnation, this entire process was top down. It was not community formulated.
The Mall does not have to stay. Perhaps if we get rid of the preconceived notion that it's a good idea then we can move on. The Beaux-Arts Mall never occurred and we should abandon the entire idea, fill in these gaps of useless space, and never forget the mistakes.
In Real Estate Row we had valuable small businesses that included anything from start up law firms to accountants. Brown and Crouppen, among other prominent firms, was in the International Life Building. The well maintained Buder building had some of the lowest rents in the Region at around 6-7 dollars a square foot. These were places where the "Young Turks" got their start and formulated an attachment to our City. And we demolished these buildings and evicted their tenants. How many small businesses do we have downtown and how much did we pay Thompson Couburn to stay? Perhaps with a more diversified economic base, the loss of a large firm wouldn't have been so detrimental. Yet we demolished affordable, architecturally renowned buildings which were on the National Register of Historic Place.
Ignoring the history and ever recent egregious mistakes regarding the Gateway Mall, adopting the overly pragmatic attitude of "lets do what we can," wholly abandons the necessity of "lets do what we should." We have settled and compromised for half ass solutions long enough. They've only led to dead spaces in our urban fabric. We've decimated our historic city and we will never get that back. So should we settle for gardens and green space, which we all know do not bring residents or generate activity, or should we wait and plan for mixed use with residential? It's rather clear.
The Mall does not have to stay. Perhaps if we get rid of the preconceived notion that it's a good idea then we can move on. The Beaux-Arts Mall never occurred and we should abandon the entire idea, fill in these gaps of useless space, and never forget the mistakes.
In Real Estate Row we had valuable small businesses that included anything from start up law firms to accountants. Brown and Crouppen, among other prominent firms, was in the International Life Building. The well maintained Buder building had some of the lowest rents in the Region at around 6-7 dollars a square foot. These were places where the "Young Turks" got their start and formulated an attachment to our City. And we demolished these buildings and evicted their tenants. How many small businesses do we have downtown and how much did we pay Thompson Couburn to stay? Perhaps with a more diversified economic base, the loss of a large firm wouldn't have been so detrimental. Yet we demolished affordable, architecturally renowned buildings which were on the National Register of Historic Place.
Ignoring the history and ever recent egregious mistakes regarding the Gateway Mall, adopting the overly pragmatic attitude of "lets do what we can," wholly abandons the necessity of "lets do what we should." We have settled and compromised for half ass solutions long enough. They've only led to dead spaces in our urban fabric. We've decimated our historic city and we will never get that back. So should we settle for gardens and green space, which we all know do not bring residents or generate activity, or should we wait and plan for mixed use with residential? It's rather clear.
I think the sculpture park will be a fantastic addition to the Mall, and to Downtown in general. Most other cities would kill to receive a gift like this.
Like others have said, the Gateway Mall is here to stay. No amount of Internet whining is going to change that. The Mall planners have solicited the public for ideas to make the Mall the best that it can be. Perhaps you could direct your energy towards helping them in that regard.
Like others have said, the Gateway Mall is here to stay. No amount of Internet whining is going to change that. The Mall planners have solicited the public for ideas to make the Mall the best that it can be. Perhaps you could direct your energy towards helping them in that regard.
- 549
Moorlander wrote:The mall is here to stay, our city leaders should work with developers on improving the areas around the mall not lamenting the past.
Exactly. While the Mall is certainly not what it could/should be, it offers downtown the best opportunity to rise above mediocrity. Filling it in with development will only secure a mediocre CBD. Without it what does downtown offer that completely sets it apart from other cities? Only the Arch?
The Mall, coupled with the riverfront, Arch grounds, and the potential connection via a proposed lid, offer the city the best (only?) chance to create an unarguably unique downtown. While it's current incarnation is certainly not ideal and has many flaws, its potential for success makes it a worthwhile effort.
Instead of filling it in with development, why can't we focus on putting the redevelopment money into the surrounding area? Instead of filling in park space with residential units, why don't we demolish the parking garage across from Kiener and build residential? The same redevelopment formula could be applied all the way westward. This would ensure the residents needed to make the Mall a success.
While I think City Garden will be a good addition to the Mall, Moorlander is exactly right: fixing the area around the Mall is what will make the Mall successful. Redeveloping buildings, adding residents, restaurants and retail, connecting to the riverfront, the narrowing of Market and Chestnut. These are the things that will make much more of an impact than tossing more money into green space enhancement.
Whether the Mall should have ever been built is now irrelevant. We can't get back what was once there, or what was once surrounding it.
So, fixing how the city interacts with the Mall is what we "should do". Abandoning the Mall is a cop out. It's there and we should look to see how to make it the best possible sequence of spaces... but the only way to do that is to put focus and attention beyond just the Mall proper. It is crucial to think about the entire area in a holistic way, not the current piecemeal approach.
(Besides, there is plenty of empty space in downtown, taking green space away while surface lots are available just doesn't make sense).
- 6,775
UrbanPioneer wrote:(Besides, there is plenty of empty space in downtown, taking green space away while surface lots are available just doesn't make sense).
It does to those who are obsessed with building on the mall.
While the Mall is certainly not what it could/should be, it offers downtown the best opportunity to rise above mediocrity. Filling it in with development will only secure a mediocre CBD. Without it what does downtown offer that completely sets it apart from other cities? Only the Arch?
How is this plan the "best opportunity to rise above mediocrity"? Really, this is the best we can do? Sad. And how would developing the mall secure a mediocre central business district?
We've had the Arch for, what, 40 or so years and look what's happened to downtown since then. I really doubt a sculpture garden is going to do anything to revitalize DT.
Like someone said, the mistakes around the mall should be addressed...but I do believe the mall is very valuable real estate and is being underutilized by being kept as green space.
Other than being something pretty to look at while you're driving down Market or Chestnut, I can't see City Garden really doing anything for the City's image.
If a beautiful piece of architectural sculpture in our front yard can't do it, a garden certainly won't.
While I understand the money wasn't for this purpose, I would've loved to have seen the money used for street and sidewalk improvements downtown rather than to decorate some green space. I think that would make improve DT's image more than a garden would.
(Besides, there is plenty of empty space in downtown, taking green space away while surface lots are available just doesn't make sense).
Isn't that part of the problem DT? Too much green and empty space? Besides, empty lots are protected treasures in DT St. Louis...just ask the Century Building. Torn down for a garage when there was an empty lot right across the street.
- 8,912
UrbanPioneer wrote:Moorlander wrote:The mall is here to stay, our city leaders should work with developers on improving the areas around the mall not lamenting the past.
Exactly. While the Mall is certainly not what it could/should be, it offers downtown the best opportunity to rise above mediocrity. Filling it in with development will only secure a mediocre CBD. Without it what does downtown offer that completely sets it apart from other cities? Only the Arch?
The Mall, coupled with the riverfront, Arch grounds, and the potential connection via a proposed lid, offer the city the best (only?) chance to create an unarguably unique downtown. While it's current incarnation is certainly not ideal and has many flaws, its potential for success makes it a worthwhile effort.
Instead of filling it in with development, why can't we focus on putting the redevelopment money into the surrounding area? Instead of filling in park space with residential units, why don't we demolish the parking garage across from Kiener and build residential? The same redevelopment formula could be applied all the way westward. This would ensure the residents needed to make the Mall a success.
While I think City Garden will be a good addition to the Mall, Moorlander is exactly right: fixing the area around the Mall is what will make the Mall successful. Redeveloping buildings, adding residents, restaurants and retail, connecting to the riverfront, the narrowing of Market and Chestnut. These are the things that will make much more of an impact than tossing more money into green space enhancement.
Whether the Mall should have ever been built is now irrelevant. We can't get back what was once there, or what was once surrounding it.
So, fixing how the city interacts with the Mall is what we "should do". Abandoning the Mall is a cop out. It's there and we should look to see how to make it the best possible sequence of spaces... but the only way to do that is to put focus and attention beyond just the Mall proper. It is crucial to think about the entire area in a holistic way, not the current piecemeal approach.
(Besides, there is plenty of empty space in downtown, taking green space away while surface lots are available just doesn't make sense).
While I'm flattered that you agree with me, I'm completely befuddled by the rest of your post. I don't follow your logic at all and am utterly confused by the statements in bold above.
- 549
olvidarte wrote:
How is this plan the "best opportunity to rise above mediocrity"? Really, this is the best we can do? Sad. And how would developing the mall secure a mediocre central business district?
In order to to rise above mediocrity, a downtown needs to have something unique to offer. Nobody is saying the Mall under in it's current state is the best we can do. The Mall, if it ever realizes its potential, would be that unique aspect of our city. If done correctly, the Mall would connect directly to both the Arch and the riverfront, creating a unified experience. Having this sequence of spaces would give St. Louis something no other city has. It's nowhere near where it should be, but that doesn't mean the idea should be abandon.
City building takes time... people need to be less shortsighted and have more vision. The question shouldn't be what does the Mall look like now or in 5 years, but what can it look like in 200 years?
Filling it in with development would give St. Louis... a downtown with the Arch but no ambitious grand idea. How in the world would a couple blocks of buildings make St. Louis unique? The lack of a unique defining quality would make our downtown just like any other... mediocre.
olvidarte wrote:
We've had the Arch for, what, 40 or so years and look what's happened to downtown since then. I really doubt a sculpture garden is going to do anything to revitalize DT.
Other than being something pretty to look at while you're driving down Market or Chestnut, I can't see City Garden really doing anything for the City's image.
...
If a beautiful piece of architectural sculpture in our front yard can't do it, a garden certainly won't.
I'm pretty sure nobody claimed the sculpture garden was going to revitalize the area. I was merely pointing out the Mall's potential, not suggesting one little sculpture garden was going to solve anything. Look back at my argument for what needs to happen for the Mall to realize this vast potential, nowhere is City Garden mentioned. The solutions lie outside the Mall, not within.
As for the Arch, it really falls into the same category as the Mall: a grand vision that has been poorly executed. The spaces, along with the riverfront, are disconnected from downtown and each other. This discontinuity is why downtown hasn't lived up to its potential; it's not the ambitious ideas themselves.
Like I said before, if done correctly, the Arch, Mall, and riverfront are what will make downtown St. Louis unique in the future.
Like someone said, the mistakes around the mall should be addressed...but I do believe the mall is very valuable real estate and is being underutilized by being kept as green space.
But it's OUR valuable real estate. Grand civic spaces (done correctly) are what make great cities. A couple blocks of market rate buildings never have, never will.
Moorlander, sorry my explanation was confusing. I understand my definition of the Mall's potential is somewhat abstract since nobody can see what's in my head. Diagrams, renderings, etc would certainly be helpful. Hopefully my other post cleared some of the confusion up.
I am working on a proposal for the rumored Arch grounds competition (which directly affects the Mall). At some point, hopefully I'll have some images that will better explain my logic.
I am working on a proposal for the rumored Arch grounds competition (which directly affects the Mall). At some point, hopefully I'll have some images that will better explain my logic.
- 8,912
no worries. Sometimes it's difficult to put to words what you see in your dome. We all look forward to seeing your proposal. Keep us posted.
But it's OUR valuable real estate. Grand civic spaces (done correctly) are what make great cities. A couple blocks of market rate buildings never have, never will.
I don't think City Garden qualifies.
I don't disagree that civic spaces are a valuable and necessary part of city life, but downtown needs businesses and residents, not more grand ideas with trees and tv screens and amphitheaters. I'd love to see all of those things, but right now, we don't have a population to support them.
In order to to rise above mediocrity, a downtown needs to have something unique to offer.
While I agree that DT STL should be unique, I'm more concerned about the services downtown offers the region and current residents of the city. Are you in it for the tourists, the residents, or both? Beautiful ideas can only happen if there are people around to enjoy and support them. Maybe this is a "chicken and the egg" situation? I don't know.
I don't disagree that the unified vision you put forth would be nice, but how am I going to shop there or spend time there? I work downtown and it's frustrating at the lack of basic amenities we have here, in the heart of a major city.
Instead of grand visions, I really just want nice sidewalks and uncluttered streets.
How in the world would a couple blocks of buildings make St. Louis unique?
It may not make DT "unique" but it might offer real services to the people who live and work here.
Look, I get the whole grand vision thing you're going for, and agree that things are in place to make the mall great and that it's an unrealized vision currently. I just feel that a strip of green space cutting through some of the most valuable commercial real estate in the city isn't the place for such visions.
I say pour that time and energy into the entire DT area, make the entire DT area someplace special & unique rather than just a few blocks of it.
A couple blocks of market rate buildings never have, never will.
Totally disagree. Who said anything about market rate buildings? What if we had gorgeous, inspiring buildings in the place of the mall? We have them all of downtown STL, new can be just as exciting as old.
You have all these grand ideas and vision for civic space...you can't have the same ideas and vision for the buildings that could possibly be built there?
I'm just over big ideas. I'm ready for small, everyday ideas that are going to put DT on the road to recovery and make DT an enjoyable experience for everyone.
- 10K
olvidarte wrote:I'm just over big ideas. I'm ready for small, everyday ideas that are going to put DT on the road to recovery and make DT an enjoyable experience for everyone.
Right on. That's exactly the way I feel.