urbanSTL

Maybe some time of mix of all the ideas could work well.

-I sort of like the idea of the crazy bridges going all over the place. Reminds me of the pedestrian bridges in London.

-The retro "Jetsons" style sort of ties into the time when the Arch was built, so I see what they were going for there- to state the obvious.

-JMedwick has a good point, besides a quick bike cruise once in awhile, what would be the draw? Maybe something more than just a kiosk and cafe?

-My biggest question/ concern about the whole island concept is barge traffic. Does anyone remember when the President got knocked from it's moorings after a runaway barge hit it? I believe it slammed into the Poplar Street Bridge. how will the islands be protected?

-The cobblestones really should somehow be saved.

-I don't want to be the St. Louis critic, but I think it wouldn't hurt to go back to the drawing board and continue to expand on these ideas.. They didn't jump for joy with the first renderings of the New World Trade Center in New York either.

All critisim and no solutions? Well here you go:



The ideas, as i said before, lack any real draw to get people down from the Arch grounds. The arch is already a heavly visited tourist spot, so the people are there, but no one ventures down from on high.



My solution: I don't know that you will ever get people to descend down the long stairs to the river. My change? Build the Retaining wall out to the edge of the river, thereby extending the arch grounds out and keeping it all on the same level. The put parking garages underneath at either end to offer parking for the landingins. Keep the idea for shops underneath the eads bridge. Make sure the two landings are full of riverboats and other atractions. In the center edge of the arch grounds, leave a semi-cirular stairs that meet down at the bottom with an outdoor stage for people to enjoy music or concerts, right up against the edge of the river. IN this soultion, you no longer worry about anything nesscary to get people down onto the area below the arch grounds and make say Laclede's landing the one possibel atraction that will get people to venture beyond the grounds.

Honestly though the reason people don't go down below the arch grounds is because there is nothing there. I don't think getting the tourists down there would be hard at all and obviously they would tie it in with the arch grounds as that's one of the major purposes. I think getting the residents down there is something else entirely though. They could build just about anything and it would be better then what's there. Obviously that's not saying much, but the tourists are dying for something else to do, but again they have to be careful of not going with the whole carnival feel.

"Weird"

"out there"



I am just surprised at everyone more than anything. Everytime something gets proposed in St Louis that doesn't look like things that are already in St Louis, a great deal of people (even a great deal of the people on this board no less) always hate the idea. Why do people not go to the riverfront? Cause there is currently nothing there! Go to the arch during the summer, there are people just standing around looking for something to do. The arch is our biggest attraction and there SHOULD be connections from it to the riverfront and the riverfront SHOULD be attractive and innovative. As Xing said, new things are always weird. The arch was weird! Picasso was weird! Lets get "weird" behind us and embrace new ideas for what they are---better than what's already there! If Ballpark Village is anything but a bunch of redbrick highrises everyones going to attack that too.

What does everyone think about the pool/skating rink idea?



Personally, I'm not sure who would use the pool. I do like the idea of having a skating rink there, but I think that if a skating rink were to be built downtown, I might prefer that it be built on the Gateway Mall like the temporary one we had 5-6 years ago.

Bastiat, good point, it would be great for young people to take Metro downtown to participate in sports on the riverfront under the arch. A very positive thing. (I would prefer they keep up the charitywork, too ).



Now for old folks like me. Everywhere I go, I notice that people are drawn to water for the same thing. Fresh air, breezes, watching and hearing the water, people watching, escape from fumes, traffic, daily life, enjoying the world enjoy itself. There is nothing better than sitting on a bench on an ocean boardwalk and enjoying the air, the sounds, people having fun. Same thing with harbors like Baltimore. And then after a nice lunch or dinner, having a relaxed stroll. That is where the bridges and promenades come in. For me, having places to eat, watch, & stroll would make it worth the trip. My favorite feature is the spray cooled walkway. Great for a hot St. Louis summer.



The current situation is uncomfortable and inaccessible. A space-age boardwalk would be an incredible improvement.

stlmike wrote:"Weird"

"out there"



I am just surprised at everyone more than anything. Everytime something gets proposed in St Louis that doesn't look like things that are already in St Louis, a great deal of people (even a great deal of the people on this board no less) always hate the idea. Why do people not go to the riverfront? Cause there is currently nothing there! Go to the arch during the summer, there are people just standing around looking for something to do. The arch is our biggest attraction and there SHOULD be connections from it to the riverfront and the riverfront SHOULD be attractive and innovative. As Xing said, new things are always weird. The arch was weird! Picasso was weird! Lets get "weird" behind us and embrace new ideas for what they are---better than what's already there! If Ballpark Village is anything but a bunch of redbrick highrises everyones going to attack that too.

After talking with Steve Patterson regarding the designs, I can't help but wonder why they underwent the pains to try to jam in a development in these cramped quarters when several other areas around downtown could use the time and money. I would much rather see a study of what to do with St. Louis Centre. Luckily, we already have the Gateway Mall charette, as well as funding/planning for the lid over I-70. The Chouteau Lake and Greenway seems a better use of a more expansive plot of abandoned and unsightly land. Downtown streetscape improvements should be put ahead of riverfront redevelopment as well.



Simply put, our riverfront imposes to many developmental limitations to turn it into a circus that might not even be supported after the novelty dies down (or even in the winter months).



Trust me...at the meeting, I was all for the "weird" and "out there" designs, because I thought the riverfront needed to be a national destination with a truly innovative design. The reality is that downtown has higher, or at least as high, priorities than can be addressed perhaps more simply and more quickly.



However, noting that that they have already conducted the study and come up with designs, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't devote so much time and money to designs 3 and 4. I would go with the more simple "Serrated Edge" design for reasons discussed above. It's an improvement that should have been made years ago without the necessity of a study and multiple design teams tackling it.



Keep in mind that even if none of these designs wins approval, the design team is still dedicated to implementing better connectivity between the Arch grounds and the riverfront, in the form of the Eads Bridge elevator and by extending pedestrian ramps down the massive floodwall. So these obvious problems will probably be addressed no matter what happens in the end.



I would hope no one on this forum would ever think that anything is too "good" or too innovative for St. Louis to support. I just don't think we should be putting all of our proverbial eggs on floating baskets.

It's funny that you mentioned how your opinion of the third and fourth options has changed, because I'm feeling the same way. The more time I've had to think about it and get input from other people who were at the planning forum, the less I'm in favor of the more extravagant plans.



Maybe it would be a good idea to run with a plan like the serrated edge, and leave the door open for future expansion and additional facilities as warranted.

After reading what's been posted on here and looking the plans over, my favorite is the serrated design too. I like the 'breakwater' effect so that boats may be allowed to stop-off. I'm concerned with a runaway barge too, the Cargill elevator across the way is always busy along with other terminals on the east side of the river. All it takes is one bad day.



I think the key to making this a destination is to maintain two way street access along the riverfront with one side of on-street parking. Saving the cobblestones is important as well. Use them for crosswalks, denote parking spaces, a fountain, anything really as long as they stay along the riverfront.



I scanned back a couple pages, but couldn't find cost estimates. Were those given out?

If I remember correctly from the presentation, they did not provide cost estimates - I'm not even sure if they know what the costs would be.

hey everyone, I'm new to the list, I just found the discussion so interesting I had to weigh in.



I was at the meeting too and they made no mention of costs, but if the city can't find money to fix the orange plastic fence by the old courthouse, it's hard to see how it'll find the funds for Concept 3 or 4. It could be done, of course, but I thought Concept 1, the Promenade, was the best idea. It has all the good connections to the riverfront, Laclede's and Chouteau's landings, it also has a couple of the extreme sports parks and a couple of places to buy a drink or bite to eat. It also gets rid of auto traffic, which I like (a shuttle to the Arch steps should probably be added). I feel like it keeps the best of what's there - the peaceful atmosphere - while fixing the lack of connections with its surroundings.



Are people really going to drive downtown (or take metrolink) to go to a swimming pool? The skating rink might be a better idea, but I also like the idea of putting it in the Gateway Mall.



Sometimes I wonder how much the "floating isalnds" plans are about what's best for St. Louis, and how much they're about getting Diana Balmori's name in the national media for a few weeks. Remember, she doesn't have to stay and use this place, we do. We should get the best bang for our buck.

"The Chouteau Lake and Greenway seems a better use of a more expansive plot of abandoned and unsightly land."



^^great point that Matt made. Chouteau Lake has much greater potential than the riverfront to become an urban green space that is used and appreciated by city residents as well as the wider public. in a perfect world, it would become a sort of Forest Park East.



At the same time, the riverfront needs a makeover, no question. i say bring on the serrated edge.

I agree Xing I am more along the lines of your thinking. On one hand I hate the don't waste money on this or that it won't work etc. I'm not one for a just settle design myself. I think we have to start thinking like a major city if we want to become one again. It starts with the people living here to start acting like it first though. It's started in that direction, but it will take time to shake it out. People have to quit being so afraid of things not working. Not everything will work, but you don't grow and prosper unless you take chances regardless of how many times you fail. You eventually hit things that work and you progress.

If I could make my own design, I would choose the first or second, but make some changes.



1. I would remove cars from the lower drive and make it completely pedestrian access only.



2. I would line the riverfront with shops/small eateries that are built on barges that float. This way, if the river floods, the shops won't be open but they also won't flood. I would love to see a bunch of STL tourist shops with the typical tourist things, antique shops, and hot dog/sandwich type places where maybe they could setup seating on the lower sidewalk.



3. To draw people down, I think dancing fountains out in the river would be awesome - think Bellagio in Vegas. I also like the idea of mist tunnels along some of the walk in the summer.



The riverfront will be a spring/summer/fall event, so most of this would probably close in the winter.

The funding for any new riverfront concept will come largely from philanthropic donations as well as the regional parks tax. The new riverfront, the riverfront trail, the lid over I-70 and the Chouteau Lake and greenway are all projects spearheaded by the regional parks district of Great Rivers Greenway.

The Great Rivers Greenway District was established in November 2000 by the successful passage of the Clean Water, Safe Parks and Community Trails Initiative ("Proposition C") in St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles County, Missouri.



Great Rivers Greenway is funded by a 1/10th of 1 cent sales tax.



Great Rivers Greenway works for a clean, green, connected St. Louis region. To deliver its mission, Great Rivers Greenway is spearheading the development of The River Ring, an interconnected system of greenways, parks and trails that will encircle the St. Louis region, enhancing the quality of life for residents and visitors.

Though the funding will only come indirectly from the City, as part of a regional sales tax, I still worry about the costs of concepts 3 and 4, but not out of concern for whether we can afford them, but more so whether we can afford to complete those plus other Great Rivers Greenway projects in the City and throughout the region. IOW, the money spent on Concept 4 could probably buy a Concept 2 PLUS Chouteau Greenway connections from the riverfront to Mill Creek Valley.

Everyone,



Be sure to share your thoughts with the design team.

This link has the public comment forms which you can e-mail to the team:



http://www.greatrivers.info/Projects/Gr ... ojectId=41

Okay, I've made it through the PDF, really studying what they were trying to do, and I think I've wrapped my brain around it. And frankly, I like certain ideas of each of the options. I think I liked #3 the most after really looking into them. But there are still all sorts of problems.



I really don't like the idea of a swimming pool. I think it's stupid, frankly. I like the fact that they are thinking about an ice skating rink, but I don't think that it the place for it. I'd rather have it further back on the Arch grounds, or perhaps in the land between the old courthouse and the Arch. I just think it works better surrounded by buildings, and not the river.



I do like how they seem to be trying to draw more people within the grounds. Connecting to the Landing and all that. Eads bridge is something we need to pay more attention to.



A lot of this development just doesn't work without other developments. Particularly Chouteaus Landing. That place is desolate right now, and it needs some serious developing. I wouldn't take this riverfront development over the Chouteau Lake Greenway, which is, IMO, the single best project that the city could focus on at this point. That would completely change the perspective of the south, which is largely right now, a parking lot. From 7th, to the river, and the block south of Chouteau all the way to Poplar St right now is just a wasteland.



Starting to work on the riverfront, without a serious plan to develop this area just seems dumb. The land to the north is being developed, Lacledes Landing, the new casino(s), the Bottle District...it's all starting to open up. South, it's like the city stops at 64/40. But we've got bridges being built right now, with the Ballpark, that really pushes the land up to the edge of the highway. We need to allow that to spill over south and develop the south of the city.



And frankly, that starts with the absense of the parking lots covering most of that area, and plunking in a beautiful lush greenway w/ lake. I think you could develop a small harbor on the south landing, giving the credence even more so to the idea of a extreme sports park. And that could spill over into the lake. To me, we need to develop this fully first, and then allow ourselves to move towards the riverfront.

good points trent, ditto on the swimming pool. That's why I like the first design the best, it has the connections, extreme sports, and vending and dining locations, without the pool (which is unneccesary) and the rink (which would be better located surrounded by the city and easier to walk to).



I know the serrated edge gets a lot of good reviews on this list, and it would probably be my second choice, but the pool is a real turn off.

Somebody else may have suggested this, but why can't we make one of the existing Arch lakes into a winter skating rink? There's no water in them in the winter anyway, so why not?

A lot of the problems in and around the Arch seem to begin and end at the National Park Service.

Bastiat wrote:I think all of these plans are two small, they only encompass the riverfront inbetween the bridges. The riverfront could be a great way to unite the city. They should have a plan that reaches north past Laclede's Landing and south to Soulard. It would be awesome if they could relocate all of that industry and replace it with a neighborhood of high quality historic replicas to mirror Soulard and stretch the neighborhood to the river. There should definetely be some high rise residential at Chouteau's Landing, too.



The problem is that once you go see the arch, there isn't much reason to return. Anyone know a native who's been to the top more than twice? There needs to be actual neighborhoods on the riverfront with stores, cafes, etc to ensure 24/7 activity.

I think this would be excellent. We discussed this idea (and its implausibility) in the "Urban Fabric" topic.