I totally agree. I suspected this was the reason and this solution just moved them elsewhere and left another issue on LKS. I had driven past there one Sunday evening years back and saw the cruisers and parked cars. Maybe rethink this solution?Kingb4 wrote: ↑Jul 01, 2021For what it's worth, most Landing property owners and residents lobbied to close LKS due to the overnight issues that were occurring down there and spilling onto the Landing. From Advantes' point of view, this was the only option to protect their residents and investments. But this all is part of the bigger discussion that occurs on here frequently related to the Downtown/Wash Ave cruising scene.
- 398
- 2,631
LKS is a tough cookie to crack. Perhaps a system of retractable bollards can be implemented that would close a portion of the street at night. IE between the Eads and the parking access ramp to the souther levee parking.
Having it closed through the Landing just seems asinine to me though. They spent so much money reopening Lucas to ease the traffic clustercluck created by closing Wash Ave, but completely shoot themselves in the foot by terminating all of the streets before LKS.
Also wouldn't mind seeing the empty parcels between Commercial Alley and LKS turned into the short term metered parking requested above. Surface parking sucks but I can assure you the empty lots are way worse right now. GRG can use the revenue to eventually turn them into the amazing greenspace they have planned.
Having it closed through the Landing just seems asinine to me though. They spent so much money reopening Lucas to ease the traffic clustercluck created by closing Wash Ave, but completely shoot themselves in the foot by terminating all of the streets before LKS.
Also wouldn't mind seeing the empty parcels between Commercial Alley and LKS turned into the short term metered parking requested above. Surface parking sucks but I can assure you the empty lots are way worse right now. GRG can use the revenue to eventually turn them into the amazing greenspace they have planned.
- 398
Agreed. Seems like there should be more than an all or nothing approach to the close.
Does anyone think moving the riverboats/cruise port closer to the landing (as close as the bridges would allow anyways) would help the area? I'm thinking of 2 reasons for this:
1. This would encourage some through traffic giving people a reason to actually go down to the riverfront where currently there's really no reason to any further east than your destination.
2. Given the LKS closures this makes those amenities more accessible. While I like visual of them docking at the base of the arch, it's not necessarily the most accessible for people who then either have to make the climb up the arch stairs/ramps or walk over half a mile to the landing, I'm not sure where the river cruises including the planned Viking cruises will be docking, but I imagine it's even less accessible to people with luggage. Putting them closer to the landing would encourage stopping in a restaurant before or after and maybe support a hotel for cruise passengers for the night before or after they sail.
Maybe a relocated riverboat dock could be tied into some of the pleasure pier ideas proposed above in this thread?
1. This would encourage some through traffic giving people a reason to actually go down to the riverfront where currently there's really no reason to any further east than your destination.
2. Given the LKS closures this makes those amenities more accessible. While I like visual of them docking at the base of the arch, it's not necessarily the most accessible for people who then either have to make the climb up the arch stairs/ramps or walk over half a mile to the landing, I'm not sure where the river cruises including the planned Viking cruises will be docking, but I imagine it's even less accessible to people with luggage. Putting them closer to the landing would encourage stopping in a restaurant before or after and maybe support a hotel for cruise passengers for the night before or after they sail.
Maybe a relocated riverboat dock could be tied into some of the pleasure pier ideas proposed above in this thread?
- 398
Well - the President Casino parked there. Maybe the docks could be re arranged like numbers gates at an airport or tracks at a train shed that are spread out. Some closer to the Landing and others downstream. Currently, there are two sightseeing cruise boats with one ticket office - the Tom Sawyer and the Becky Thatcher. It makes sense this gate / docks should only be fore them and together as they have one box office.
A second doc should used for the helicopter tours that take off from a deck and have their own box office (it is today).
I am not sure where long range cruise ships dock, but it makes sense to have an additional dock for these long range cruise boats - Viking. Mississippi Queen etc. and maybe at the site of the old President? Then, we could add signage to help navigate foot traffic.
South of the arch has some heavy equipment stored there.
A second doc should used for the helicopter tours that take off from a deck and have their own box office (it is today).
I am not sure where long range cruise ships dock, but it makes sense to have an additional dock for these long range cruise boats - Viking. Mississippi Queen etc. and maybe at the site of the old President? Then, we could add signage to help navigate foot traffic.
South of the arch has some heavy equipment stored there.
Yeah, that illustrates my point very well. Fixed infrastructure just isn't going to work on the Mississippi the way that people are envisioning it. A fixed pier is either going to be 20' above and 100' away from the waterline half of the time, or it's going to be underwater a whole lot in the spring and early summer.
Thanks for interesting discussion above.
To follow up on the comments. I think the one thing we could probably all agree on is the fixed infrastructure that needs to be addressed for the Landing first and foremost but not involves the river at all is removing the raised section of freeway for a Blvd starting from Wash Ave to at least Cass Ave. Second, take care of north riverfront trail and the park space being added to it so its on par with Arch Grounds/Parks Service. Maybe add a public beach/or water park above the flood line that never touches the Big Muddy itself but a great amenity for downtown residents and visitors w families. For various reasons stated in above posts just don't see a big need to get elaborate with more expensive propositions for the Landing and on the river itself.
Of course, still trying to sell the idea of a year around indoor/outdoor water park will do well, is coming to St. Louis at one point. However, it needs to be near one of the two well traveled destinations whether it be the Forest Park/Zoo and or the Arch Grounds/Downton. Landing give families a great option to hit Arch Grounds/Court House/City Museum as well as a metrolink ride/Uber ride to Forest Park, etc.
To follow up on the comments. I think the one thing we could probably all agree on is the fixed infrastructure that needs to be addressed for the Landing first and foremost but not involves the river at all is removing the raised section of freeway for a Blvd starting from Wash Ave to at least Cass Ave. Second, take care of north riverfront trail and the park space being added to it so its on par with Arch Grounds/Parks Service. Maybe add a public beach/or water park above the flood line that never touches the Big Muddy itself but a great amenity for downtown residents and visitors w families. For various reasons stated in above posts just don't see a big need to get elaborate with more expensive propositions for the Landing and on the river itself.
Of course, still trying to sell the idea of a year around indoor/outdoor water park will do well, is coming to St. Louis at one point. However, it needs to be near one of the two well traveled destinations whether it be the Forest Park/Zoo and or the Arch Grounds/Downton. Landing give families a great option to hit Arch Grounds/Court House/City Museum as well as a metrolink ride/Uber ride to Forest Park, etc.
They did build some concrete barriers after that accident, around the Admiral's new location north of the bridge.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 01, 2021As I recall they discussed building a breakwater at the time because of that accident. I think it's a little bit of a leap to assume the Admiral would have sunk immediately with such drastic loss of life the moment it hit a bridge, but I'm not familiar with the boats internal arrangements . Certainly it's better to avoid an accident altogether. (That said . . . if it's going to vaporize or capsize the moment it bumps a bridge it really needs a redesign. Even is SOLAS doesn't fully apply. It's still a floating thing on a major waterway with people on it.)urbanitas wrote: ↑Jul 01, 2021I agree it can be done. Just don't forget how close St. Louis came to a nearly unprecedented tragedy when the Admiral almost broke loose due to some errant barges.
But for a bit of luck and quick thinking by the barge captain, it's very possible that the Admiral would have hit the Poplar Street Bridge and sunk almost instantly. If it had, more people would have died than on the Titanic. And yet, I bet a lot of people on this forum have never even heard about the accident...
Three things regarding the Admiral accident that made a very high death toll likely, if that one remaining mooring line had failed:
There were about 2,500 people on board at the time, and it took them hours to evacuate everyone, even with the boat pushed up against the shore.
It had been stripped of engines and steering and everything else that made it a boat. And it had been heavily modified twice, first as an entertainment center, then a casino. It was only given an occupancy permit based on the obviously mistaken belief that it was permanently moored. I don't think it was even considered to be safe at that point to be towed in the river channel, as they had to get a special permit just to move it several hundred feet upriver, with no passengers. So, I don't know if it even met the requirements of a barge. Even if it did, remember a barge hit one of the PSB piers sometime in the Aughts, I think, and it sank very quickly.
But, most importantly, the river was above flood stage at the time of the accident. If it didn't hit the bridge pier (hard), then the top deck of the Admiral would have hit the bridge span itself, and it likely would have been sideways or nearly so when it hit. It would have been pushed sideways by the current anyway the second it was stopped by the bridge span. So, imagine the full force of the river at flood stage, pushing against the entire length of the hull, while the top of the Admiral was pinned against, or wedged under, the bridge span. The hull would only have one direction to go, down...
- 6,121
^I was noticing the concrete . . . bollards, lets call them. (For lack of a better term. I'm sure there is one, but I don't immediately know it. Hopefully Dredger will chime in.)
Anyway, everything you mention makes me think that, yes, they really should have followed the SOLAS regs a bit better. There's no way you should permit people on a barge on the Mississippi if there's any chance at all it could end up adrift and you have no evacuation plan. Which . . . they appear to have addressed after that. (Though maybe not sufficiently.)
As to the barge sinking quickly: I think the typical barge has no compartmentalization at all and an obscenely simple hull. Basically just a big john boat into which you dump stuff. To have people aboard you're required to have a bit better hull than that. Passenger vessels are generally required to have a cellular double hull and other fancy things. (Might even be a triple hull these days. I'm not up on the current regs. I just read nautical history. All of which is old.) That may not have been true when Admiral was built, mind. Which is an issue. But that may be why your average museum ship is permanently moored in a basin from which it cannot conceivably escape and which isn't exposed to traffic. And that would, in fairness, be something of an engineering challenge here. (Honestly, it always is when there's tide. But it's a known challenge. Just costs money.)
All that said, I'd still maintain that a safe anchorage for fun boats would be a good investment. And if we build the anchorage the boats just might come on their own.
Anyway, everything you mention makes me think that, yes, they really should have followed the SOLAS regs a bit better. There's no way you should permit people on a barge on the Mississippi if there's any chance at all it could end up adrift and you have no evacuation plan. Which . . . they appear to have addressed after that. (Though maybe not sufficiently.)
As to the barge sinking quickly: I think the typical barge has no compartmentalization at all and an obscenely simple hull. Basically just a big john boat into which you dump stuff. To have people aboard you're required to have a bit better hull than that. Passenger vessels are generally required to have a cellular double hull and other fancy things. (Might even be a triple hull these days. I'm not up on the current regs. I just read nautical history. All of which is old.) That may not have been true when Admiral was built, mind. Which is an issue. But that may be why your average museum ship is permanently moored in a basin from which it cannot conceivably escape and which isn't exposed to traffic. And that would, in fairness, be something of an engineering challenge here. (Honestly, it always is when there's tide. But it's a known challenge. Just costs money.)
All that said, I'd still maintain that a safe anchorage for fun boats would be a good investment. And if we build the anchorage the boats just might come on their own.
- 2,631
I read somewhere that the reason they scrapped the Admiral was because an engineer was able to easily punch a hole in the hull with a just a hammer.
- 6,121
^Not sure you really need Mjölnir to break through a half inch of rust.
On a walk down there, as is custom, I encountered a couple of cyclists who were stymied by the floodwall on an attempted journey north. There's not even a detour sign, a road closed ahead sign or anything.
Then once you navigate around that, there's the forever-closed Ashley Energy fence.
It seems I can't walk down there without seeing that.
So many people are probably left with a bad taste in their mouth that we're a city that doesn't care about cyclists in the slightest. And it doesn't take that many negative experiences on a visit to make you remember a city in a negative light.
Then once you navigate around that, there's the forever-closed Ashley Energy fence.
It seems I can't walk down there without seeing that.
So many people are probably left with a bad taste in their mouth that we're a city that doesn't care about cyclists in the slightest. And it doesn't take that many negative experiences on a visit to make you remember a city in a negative light.
Obviously it was heavily influenced (if not completely) by the fireworks, but I was down on The Landing to grab some food and drinks prior and I can't recall a time there were that many people buzzing around. There was actually a wait to be seated and the food took about an hour to arrive at the table.
- 9,561
The residential developers need to go to BJC and WashU and work out a one or 2 month free rent program for employees that sign a 18-24 month lease and give up their parking pass. WashU/BJc already does this for people who buy in neighborhoods around campus, so why not extend it to renting in downtown and landing, where you can walk 50 yards to a station and get to medical campus/cortex in 15 min
^ That would require mental creativity, though.
Cortex should have already been doing that for all of the new developments. And you can see where we are now.
Cortex should have already been doing that for all of the new developments. And you can see where we are now.
- 10K
Get rid of those overhead I-70 lanes, convert to a boulevard and we'd be talking "Riverfront = Downtown." "Downtown = Riverfront."
Think it will take more development on both sides of this I-70 wall to get $$ and interest in undoing highway damage. But, at that point, developments might just be so used to turning their back to the highway that our new boulevard would be very uninviting.
Think it will take more development on both sides of this I-70 wall to get $$ and interest in undoing highway damage. But, at that point, developments might just be so used to turning their back to the highway that our new boulevard would be very uninviting.
^ I don't think it will take more development at all at this point now that Arch Grounds completed, further GRG investment and you have pending CVC expansion/upgrades to go along with current development
It just needs a vision from Mayor, Aldermen, CVC and local business leadership to embrace as signature urban renewal project for when the Feds/Dems get there infrastructure bill passed with funds set aside/program in place for removing urban freeways. But they have to act now. I also think it would a manageable cost to at least have the traffic studies started/completed on impacted travel times (minimal) and preliminary engineering & costs with existing data such as geotech work & survey data/elevation/GIS data that is probably readily available or archived between Feds/DOT and city streets department.
As far additional funding sources the city can also go all in & set aside some Covid rescue funds and I would make it part of any Rams/stadium settlement if it happens (mitigation for impacts of removing street grid when building Dome for Rams)
It just needs a vision from Mayor, Aldermen, CVC and local business leadership to embrace as signature urban renewal project for when the Feds/Dems get there infrastructure bill passed with funds set aside/program in place for removing urban freeways. But they have to act now. I also think it would a manageable cost to at least have the traffic studies started/completed on impacted travel times (minimal) and preliminary engineering & costs with existing data such as geotech work & survey data/elevation/GIS data that is probably readily available or archived between Feds/DOT and city streets department.
As far additional funding sources the city can also go all in & set aside some Covid rescue funds and I would make it part of any Rams/stadium settlement if it happens (mitigation for impacts of removing street grid when building Dome for Rams)
The new dog park under the MLK bridge looks to almost be completed. Looks pretty nice
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 10K
This could also go under the corporate mergers & acquisitions thread, but it's also great news for the Landing: Abstrakt Marketing has acquired Sapper Consulting, which is currently based in Cortex.
Terms of the deal weren't disclosed, but officials said it is part of a three-year growth strategy to take the combined company from 500 employees and more than $58 million in revenue by the end of 2021 to about 1,000 employees and $100 million in revenue by 2023.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... 0#cxrecs_sAbstrakt COO Brian Condon called the company "a cornerstone" in the redevelopment of Laclede’s Landing. “The addition of Sapper Consulting, along with our own growth, will result in almost double the number of people we will have working downtown," he stated. "We plan to add 400 more jobs over the next three years.”
- 2,631
Well bully for Abstrakt. Even with their new office space it's hard to think they have room for an additional 400 employees. I hope they just keep filling up the upper floors of the Landing.