I would also recommend Jan Gehl's Life Between Buildings.
On this topic if you do not read Larry Giles' Gateway Mall Scrapbook then you miss a lot of critical information. There is an non-circulating copy available at Missouri Historical Society's library on Skinker.
One would think this simple concept would be clear to all architects, but you'd be shocked (assuming you're not an architect) to learn of the number of them that couldn't give much of a crap about anything other than the singularity that is their own project and insular world. They're just as much or more of the problem by being the enablers of insipid trash in a world struggling mightlily for more substance, meaning, and lasting quality. It's both funny and sad.
The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces is required reading at ksu's architecture program. there is also a video to go with the book too. after being in the profession for a while now, i agree that we are only concerned with the building at hand. but the school that i went to, ksu, does a very good job at making students aware of the larger picture. now it's up to the student to decide how much he or she wants to care about the bigger picture. i liked building gigantic scale models of entire city neighborhoods. something we did routinely before beginning any design work.
but i would recommend Bill Hillier's Space Syntax: A Different Urban Perspective. it's all about the connectivity of the city and the importance of the gird.
Since I am not trained in urban planning or architecture I defer to the experts/journeymen on this board.
This thread got me thinking.
Considering the following rules:
1) the mall cannot be built upon
2) the changes to the surrounding streetscape must be realistic and cost effective (no blowing out the lower level of city hall to make street level retail)
Is it even possible for the mall to be a treasured asset? If we had to keep the mall, what would be the absolute, best case scenario?
There's a hell of a blog conversation that took place in an Urban Review STL post dated 1/30/08 regarding the Gateway mall. I threw more than my 2 cent into it, but in one lenghthy comment summed up which blocks that are currently open and landscaped (either on the mall axis or immediately adjacent), and how they really should resolved.
I see the progress of this area on a daily basis. And from what I can see this space is going to be spectacular. If it had to be a park, this is definitely the park you would want it to be.
Looks interesting from above, but it really matters what the experience will be at street level while walking along and through the park - that's the way the park will be experienced by most.
Nice progress, but I will feel really complete if they ever decide to demolish gateway one. My point is if your going to have a mall for the purpose of having vistas to the arch, why have a tacky building blocking the view? There is always a bunch of senseless demos of buildings that are where they are supposed to be, but why is is so hard to move one that is obviously out of place?
^Um, maybe because Gateway One is some of the newest and most leased office buildings Downtown. Granted, I think the buildings (Buder et al) there previously were better, but you don't just tear down buildings for views. Ironically, that was part of the argument that resulted in Gateway One, since it provided "better vistas" along Market Street than its predecessors.
If we were to demolish for views, just think of the absurd possibilities:
Tear down the Arcade and Brown for the better angle of the Old Post Office. Or at least stop the construction of Roberts Tower to have more symmetry in that plaza.
Tear down the high-rise opposite Lindell from the New Cathedral. San Luis is on the wrong side for the vista, but I guess you need somewhere to park before you walk over to get the perfect postcard-worthy pic.
Don't build Ballpark Village so that cool view of the Old Courthouse from the Ballpark isn't lost.
And level much of East St. Louis, so that you have something "green" to look at from the Arch grounds.
Gateway one needs a buddy. Rather than tear it down, build another building on that block. There's plenty of room.
As for the sculpture garden. I think it will be a nice addition downtown. I do think people will make the walk to check it out. The layout looks nice, I like all the "curves" and "snakes". If only there were more hotels that face the sculpture garden. If this were Sim City, the property values around the garden would be "astronomical." The true test will be, just like grover stated, the experience on the ground level.
southslider wrote:^Um, maybe because Gateway One is some of the newest and most leased office buildings Downtown. Granted, I think the buildings (Buder et al) there previously were better, but you don't just tear down buildings for views. Ironically, that was part of the argument that resulted in Gateway One, since it provided "better vistas" along Market Street than its predecessors.
If we were to demolish for views, just think of the absurd possibilities:
Tear down the Arcade and Brown for the better angle of the Old Post Office. Or at least stop the construction of Roberts Tower to have more symmetry in that plaza.
Tear down the high-rise opposite Lindell from the New Cathedral. San Luis is on the wrong side for the vista, but I guess you need somewhere to park before you walk over to get the perfect postcard-worthy pic.
Don't build Ballpark Village so that cool view of the Old Courthouse from the Ballpark isn't lost.
And level much of East St. Louis, so that you have something "green" to look at from the Arch grounds.
I completely understand your logic, but what is the point of the mall if there are not direct vistas to the arch? It looks rather tacky and where did advocate tearing down other random buildings in the city? I just was commenting on this one.
^Obviously, you didn't advocate tearing down the other examples. I just wanted to demonstrate how absurd it can be to tear down buildings for views. We can agree that Gateway One should have never been built, but now that is, I disagree that it should be demolished, at least anytime soon.
Gateway One is testament to how stupid the powers-that-be in this city have been in the past. Tearing down buildings for views is not the answer, however I wouldn't even be comparing the buildings you state that would be torn down for afforded views to the other edifices, even if your actual point was that tearing down buildings for views is stupid. I would laugh if that building burned the ground. I would miss its high occupancy rate not one bit. I would laugh. I would then cry if St. Louis again proved to be short-sighted and dimwitted enough to build another building on that block, destroying the incredible civic vista that would be created by the monumental stair of the Civil Courts building, along the central axis, through the courthouse dome and right under the legs of the Arch. If it presents itselt, capture it. It is unfortunately too late for perfection b/c the deplorable Gateway One building is sitting there, so we're left trying to figure out how to strengthen the two remaining open spaces to the east (Kiener) and to the west (new landscaped sculpture garden). The openness itself isn't enough. The moribund sidewalk activity along any of the edges you choose to observe will not serve this new installation well, especially when it's the crosspathing of pedestrians that make open civic spaces worth their cost.
this park is definitely an improvement, BUT i'd take two new towers in its place. lure AT&T's headquarters back with two FREE blocks for two new towers!! retail on the first floor! forget this 1960's "green space" crap. I want a city with density!
and what in the hell is up with that "park" to the east of the Eagleton Court Building? more buildings there too please.
