Share
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostDec 31, 2008#676

olvidarte wrote:

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.


I would love inspiring modern buildings. But what makes me nervous is that instead of getting those, we may get something less. Just look at BPV to see how a project with much promise can get bogged down in economic needs. What you end up getting most of the time is commonplace modern buildings that are anything but inspiring.



And you're absolutely right about the need for basic services and amenities that facilitate everyday living. What I'm arguing for is a redevelopment plan that places those needs along the Mall, rather than within.



If Market and Chestnut were narrowed and slightly reconfigured (as has been proposed by many including Steve at Urban Review), land could be opened up and used for building restaurants and retail. Making such everyday activity directly adjacent to the Mall would undoubtedly help it become a more successful urban space.



Imagine eating at an outdoor cafe overlooking the Mall with a view of the Arch. Additionally, shopping at a string of stores across from the Mall would be a rather enjoyable experience. Both the experiences of being in the Mall and eating/shopping across from it would be exponentially better off by having the other present; they would enhance and reinforce each other. A sort of symbiosis of urbanity.



The Grand vision is already in place, but what it needs to succeed are these very everyday activities you yearn for. In my mind, they must go hand in hand.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostDec 31, 2008#677

I was just waiting for Doug to start posting in this thread after Christmas. :wink:
190
Junior MemberJunior Member
190

PostJan 01, 2009#678


Imagine eating at an outdoor cafe overlooking the Mall with a view of the Arch. Additionally, shopping at a string of stores across from the Mall would be a rather enjoyable experience. Both the experiences of being in the Mall and eating/shopping across from it would be exponentially better off by having the other present; they would enhance and reinforce each other. A sort of symbiosis of urbanity.


In Brussels they have a Mall-like area that is lined with restaurants. The indoor seating is in the buildings on both sides of the streets. Then, the bulk of the outdoor seating is in the middle of the mall. It really makes for a great atmosphere in the summer time, as people have a shady area to eat in a great environment, with lots of different dining options. The streets are much narrower than that outlining the mall. This would be a good use of our mall, if we could find the space to put in a critical mass of restaurants.



Even better would be beer gardens - one on each block of the mall. A Schlafly, Boulevard, Ofallon, other Micros that would be interested, and of course, an AB Beergarden would be a truly unique and amazing way to make the city stand out.



Can you imagine Oktoberfest downtown then?



I wish I had pictures to illustrate this better.



Ultimately, until the mall has a functional use that goes beyond merely being green space, it will actually be just dead space.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJan 02, 2009#679

What grand vision is already in place?
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostJan 02, 2009#680

I actually agree with Doug more than anyone else on this subject. while the new sculpture garden will be a vast improvement over what is currently there, i'd be in favor of new buildings on this site. there are numerous "green blocks" to the west that are hardly utilized by anyone. this whole "redevelopment" is kind of like the Serra Sculpture block Part II. Density is the key to a thriving city. yes, you can't always lament about the mistakes of the past, but you can bring them up (Real Estate Row) because it seems st louis learned NOTHING from this awful mistake. who were the people pushing for the destruction of RER? and the ambassador? names please.

PostJan 02, 2009#681

I actually agree with Doug more than anyone else on this subject. while the new sculpture garden will be a vast improvement over what is currently there, i'd be in favor of new buildings on this site. there are numerous "green blocks" to the west that are hardly utilized by anyone. this whole "redevelopment" is kind of like the Serra Sculpture block Part II. Density is the key to a thriving city. yes, you can't always lament about the mistakes of the past, but you can bring them up (Real Estate Row) because it seems st louis learned NOTHING from this awful mistake. who were the people pushing for the destruction of RER? and the ambassador? names please.
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostJan 02, 2009#682

john w. wrote:What grand vision is already in place?


Uh, really? :?



Something about the Arch and a Mall symbolizing the Gateway to the West. Whether the spaces function well or not (currently not), it's undoubtedly a bold, ambitious vision.

PostJan 02, 2009#683

JCity wrote: this whole "redevelopment" is kind of like the Serra Sculpture block Part II.


While it certainly won't solve the Mall's many problems, at least City Garden is geared towards pedestrians... you can walk through it, you can sit and enjoy the artwork, and the entire project is scaled to humans. Those distinctions will make it function much differently than Serra's block. The Serra sculpture, while I like it, is in the worst possible place. It would be much more at home in the sculpture park in Sunset Hills rather than eating up an entire block and creating unusable dead space.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJan 02, 2009#684

Yes, you're right... after pulling my macroscope down off the shelf and blowing of the dust I now see the grand vision you were alluding to. I prefer the micro scale details you had begun to lay out concerning the adjustments to a disappointingly underused urban open spaces, and those are certainly fine points to discuss. I don't much feel like I'm living in the gateway to the west, and if that's a major attraction of our city, how do we celebrate or honor this distinction from other cities? Did blowing away 30-ish square blocks of urban river front existence, accreted over so many decades and standing as testament to the true historical formation of St. Louis as a river city, represent a grand vision of St. Louis being a gateway? Just asking...
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJan 02, 2009#685

We don't necessarily need space for a wagon train to move from west to east through our city. They can take 55 to 64 once they pass the Arch.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJan 02, 2009#686

UrbanPioneer wrote:
john w. wrote:What grand vision is already in place?


Uh, really? :?



Something about the Arch and a Mall symbolizing the Gateway to the West. Whether the spaces function well or not (currently not), it's undoubtedly a bold, ambitious vision.


The "ambitions vision" began around 1907. The idea of the Mall was a Beaux-Arts City Beautiful of something like the Champs Elysee in Paris. The ideas at the time presupposed cities were dirty and that grand civic designs like these would promote civic uprightedness and morality. So they cleared all the dirty buildings. But we don't have the density of Paris. You can't really forgive them by saying "well they couldn't predict sprawl and depopulation." At the first signs of depopulation they continued this ridiculous notion with a few modifications.



With the Arch, Urban Renwal, and Sprawl, the ideas changed, though original city beautiful hints remained. Now we were to fornicate below the Arch and demolish every building within sight in order to entice sexual thoughts of its shimmering architectural glory. And thus we thought of grand views and how they would attract suburbanites and businesses because it's so wonderful. Downtown entirely was blighted in the 70's and Cervantes really believed we would make a ton of cash due to the number of businesses that the Mall brought. But instead we evicted lawyers and hard working people. We demolished Real Estate Row even though Don Lipton was purchasing these buildings with the intent of rehabilitation. A HUD official suggested rehabbing these buildings, and similar ones, for residential since the 1970's.



Fast forward to the 80's. Screw the Arch! Now we reiterate that old buildings are ugly, as George Hellmuth said of Real Estate Row, so we must have new office space. But the three buildings never occurred and now we have City Garden. We also don't have our unobstructed view of the Arch. I've lost my stiffy. Perhaps Bob Dole could recommend a solution?



The mall is too large. There isn't residential. We committed egregious mistakes pursuing this concept and the vision has become so blurred it no longer exists. We should abandon the idea, give away the land, and promote new construction. We can't bring back Real Estate Row, but City Garden could possibly be an even greater affront to those buildings than Gateway One. In the aggregate, the Gateway Mall really is the biggest mistake made downtown.
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostJan 02, 2009#687

john w. wrote:Yes, you're right... after pulling my macroscope down off the shelf and blowing of the dust I now see the grand vision you were alluding to. I prefer the micro scale details you had begun to lay out concerning the adjustments to a disappointingly underused urban open spaces, and those are certainly fine points to discuss. I don't much feel like I'm living in the gateway to the west, and if that's a major attraction of our city, how do we celebrate or honor this distinction from other cities? Did blowing away 30-ish square blocks of urban river front existence, accreted over so many decades and standing as testament to the true historical formation of St. Louis as a river city, represent a grand vision of St. Louis being a gateway? Just asking...


You bring up some good points. Demolishing blocks upon blocks of historical buildings to make a modern symbol of the historical importance of the city does seem rather paradoxical. But it is what it is.



It's not the first time such a project has been undertaken; after all, the building of the Mall in D.C. also involved the demolition of entire neighborhoods. Whether it was right to blow up historical structures or not doesn't matter too much in 2009; the buildings are gone and aren't coming back. So at this point we should try to make the best of the vision left at our doorstep, rather than spit on it... and try to save what historical buildings remain in the city.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJan 02, 2009#688

no spit... just wondering if there is a consensus among interested urbanists regarding a vision for DT St. Louis revitalization, and how that is interpreted and them moved forward as a buildable agenda. Though I may seem like a real a-hole, I'm not trying to be. I tend to insert myself into ongoing conversations with more aggressiveness than is probably warranted, but I thoroughly agree that the water passed under the bridge is water now long gone. Doug's point about the disconnect to a grand vision captured on some fine Haussman-esque plan, and the need for a moving past with a new vision is appropos of that very point, however some salvation of a few of the blocks along the disjunct axial mall is considerable if we can in fact capture the street for pedestrian-scale activity. Urban Review STL had a post about 9 or 10 months ago (maybe longer) about this very topic, and there were some excellent arguments. I love arguing.
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostJan 02, 2009#689

john w. wrote:no spit... just wondering if there is a consensus among interested urbanists regarding a vision for DT St. Louis revitalization, and how that is interpreted and them moved forward as a buildable agenda. Though I may seem like a real a-hole, I'm not trying to be. I tend to insert myself into ongoing conversations with more aggressiveness than is probably warranted, but I thoroughly agree that the water passed under the bridge is water now long gone. Doug's point about the disconnect to a grand vision captured on some fine Haussman-esque plan, and the need for a moving past with a new vision is appropos of that very point, however some salvation of a few of the blocks along the disjunct axial mall is considerable if we can in fact capture the street for pedestrian-scale activity. Urban Review STL had a post about 9 or 10 months ago (maybe longer) about this very topic, and there were some excellent arguments. I love arguing.


Yeah that Urban Review discussion was excellent, I remember it well. And I definitely agree that pedestrian scaled activity is what the Mall is currently lacking. They may have had a grand vision, but they failed to think about how a human would use the space in their everyday lives; they were unfortunately only focusing on the grand scale.



Whether people disagree on what should be done with existing green space, I think there is a general consensus that the solution to the Mall lies in finding a way to make residential, retail and restaurants directly adjacent. There is certainly no consensus on how to do that, (some want to use the green space for such building such amenities, some want them in adjacent blocks, etc.) but I think we pretty much all agree that an emphasis on everyday living is needed.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJan 02, 2009#690

john w. wrote:just wondering if there is a consensus among interested urbanists regarding a vision for DT St. Louis revitalization...


No
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJan 02, 2009#691

I'll tell you how NOT to do that. Stop building gardens, sculptures, and don't install better lighting. People won't move downtown for these things. There are gardens and sculptures in suburbia and other parts of our actual city. Take that 100 million and use it as an incentive to spur residential mixed use. Density and street like makes a city attractive to those who want that environment, not some misguided Walden fetish.
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJan 02, 2009#692

How are we going to spend 100 million on gateway mall. Is this on top of the $20 million donation for the sculpture garden? I forget.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJan 02, 2009#693

If the City really needed a sculpture garden, I'd rather see a land swap for the NW corner of Washington and 11th for this block of the Mall (even if it ended up surface parking). Pocket parks or true squares framed by vibrant street walls make for more interesting places, which a location like 11tth/Washington is, but 8th/Market is not.



Jane Jacobs best explained how parks function with a comparison of Center City Philadelphia's four equally sized squares laid out by its master plan. Only Rittenhouse Square is a vibrant 24/7 space. And surprise, surprise, it's the edges of street life that make it the most vibrant of the four comparable spaces.
264
Full MemberFull Member
264

PostJan 02, 2009#694

leaders seems always disengaged with the actual existing occupants of the downtown neighborhood, spiting us for downtown's problems, pushing their latest silver bullet.



even now, the designers clearly spent no time just watching the existing pedestrian flows on a typical day. thousands of people enter the at&t buildings from the south, an easy opportunity to funnel people into and through the garden. instead they will be greeted with walls & the backsides of whatever shops are going in there & rather uninviting views into the park.
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJan 02, 2009#695

Moorlander wrote:How are we going to spend 100 million on gateway mall. Is this on top of the $20 million donation for the sculpture garden? I forget.


Ahah, I found the answer on page 44, from my own post :oops: .
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJan 02, 2009#696

William Whyte's small book covers this topic as well, and the illustration of the importance of activating open, civic spaces is very clear. Without the livegiving visible activity that one would hope is the intended design purpose of such an amenity, it become another of the many meaningless, lifesucking black holes. Large, open spaces must be traversed to be effective parts of an urban assemblage, and if no reason is given to cross a street to enter such a space then the space will suffer the same abandonment that the others already do. I honestly fail to see the immediate potential of cross socialization at this location, especially if the Cafe DeJuerner (sp?) in the deplorable Gateway One building, now shuttered, is the only retail activity at the street level along the edge of this space.
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostJan 02, 2009#697

john w. wrote:William Whyte's small book covers this topic as well, and the illustration of the importance of activating open, civic spaces is very clear.


Whyte's book, titled The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, should be mandatory reading for any public official/ decision maker, or even anyone living in a city, or even anyone in general. Amazing book.
216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJan 02, 2009#698

Indeed. Edmund Bacon's book on city form is an excellent read as well. While on study exchange in Europe, I was asked by a professor (to students in a class setting) if architects needed planning skills, and being older as I was (and still am), I instantaneously blurted out "Yes! Without them we are never architects". A great question to ponder to be sure, and I still live by my loudly blurted maxim, because it's true.
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostJan 02, 2009#699

john w. wrote:Indeed. Edmund Bacon's book on city form is an excellent read as well. While on study exchange in Europe, I was asked by a professor (to students in a class setting) if architects needed planning skills, and being older as I was (and still am), I instantaneously blurted out "Yes! Without them we are never architects". A great question to ponder to be sure, and I still live by my loudly blurted maxim, because it's true.


Quoted for enthusiastic agreement. =D>
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJan 02, 2009#700

^ Heh, of course! An architect creates plans. For the plans to truly succeed, they must fit within the bigger picture.
Read more posts (357 remaining)
Share