Looks pretty much like what we've already got on the Arch grounds, more or less.
i should have added some detail, but the big picture i posted doesn't really show the area to the east of I-65. the parkway extends further to the east permitting biking, jogging, boat docks, a big skate board park, a golf area, soccer fields, baseball field, etc - some of which wasn't built specifically with the parkway in mind, but is now all connected .... so it isn't really like the arch grounds at all. it reminds me of the park area that borders the charles river along storrow drive in boston.
- 10K
DeBaliviere wrote:Here's an update from the Great Rivers Greenway District (via MayorSlay.com):
Update
Wow. This wasn't my first choice of the options, but I'm impressed that the people involved aren't afraid to dream big. If we can find a way to pay for it all, this could be pretty exciting!
I'm dissapointed to see them moving forward with this proposal. IMO, it will be yet another white elephant for downtown. Locals will continue to ask for "shops and restaurants" on the riverfront, tourists are already there for the Arch so any increase will be negligable.
The real problem is that the archgrounds are a park that is disconnected from the city around it. The first proposal ("promenade") fixes many of the problems for a fraction of the cost.
The real problem is that the archgrounds are a park that is disconnected from the city around it. The first proposal ("promenade") fixes many of the problems for a fraction of the cost.
- 1,054
This is where New Urbanism has filled the urban gap....
Small Store-cottages in a park like at New Town St. Charles.
These semi-huts allow for merchants to set up shop and blend well into their environs when done appropriately.
Tourist dependent retail was a major drawback that my Community Development class PLN 372 discussed when we walked around Laclede's Landing, Arch Riverfront, and Downtown (other city neighborhoods too). At the National APA conference it was great to see how San Antonio does it with the Alamo being in the downtown grid with one crosswalk to first floor retail buildings on two streets across from it.
Memorial Drive is the major hurtle along with the first level of Mansion House and Gentry's Landing, Adam's Mark, Equitable Building, and the Millenium Hotel.
Small Store-cottages in a park like at New Town St. Charles.
These semi-huts allow for merchants to set up shop and blend well into their environs when done appropriately.
Tourist dependent retail was a major drawback that my Community Development class PLN 372 discussed when we walked around Laclede's Landing, Arch Riverfront, and Downtown (other city neighborhoods too). At the National APA conference it was great to see how San Antonio does it with the Alamo being in the downtown grid with one crosswalk to first floor retail buildings on two streets across from it.
Memorial Drive is the major hurtle along with the first level of Mansion House and Gentry's Landing, Adam's Mark, Equitable Building, and the Millenium Hotel.
SMSPlanstu wrote:
Memorial Drive is the major hurtle along with the first level of Mansion House and Gentry's Landing, Adam's Mark, Equitable Building, and the Millenium Hotel.
So is there any pressure on those establishments to change their first level? I'd imagine the change would be night and day if they had inviting ground level retail.
It's be a pretty major development effort to do anything on ground level in most of these buildings, and Memorial is afflicted with I-70, which the lid won't help on the north and south ends.SoulardD wrote:So is there any pressure on those establishments to change their first level? I'd imagine the change would be night and day if they had inviting ground level retail.
The Adams Mark should be ashamed of its streetfront presence, though. Hopefully they can get over not having their pet project selected for the lid and respond with some new street-level retail development.
(I, too, am sad to see energy continue to be spent on floating islands. I want to see sustainable "baby steps" starting with riverboat-hosted museums.)
- 10K
I still think that Balmori's idea of building retail into the foundation of the Eads Bridge was one of the best parts of the plan and should be explored regardless of what plan is chosen.
And at this point, they're just exploring the feasibility of the islands - it's quite possible that it won't be doable.
And at this point, they're just exploring the feasibility of the islands - it's quite possible that it won't be doable.
The islands never excited me. I personally don't need a lot of 'stuff' down on the riverfront. I'd be fine with just an improved connection to the city, and to the river.
phobia wrote:(I, too, am sad to see energy continue to be spent on floating islands. I want to see sustainable "baby steps" starting with riverboat-hosted museums.)
Word!
- 8,912
Framer wrote:phobia wrote:(I, too, am sad to see energy continue to be spent on floating islands. I want to see sustainable "baby steps" starting with riverboat-hosted museums.)
Word!
Not sure if this has been mentioned...but wasn't there a USS Missouri used in WW2...that would make for a cool museum imo
- 6,775
bpe235 wrote:Framer wrote:phobia wrote:(I, too, am sad to see energy continue to be spent on floating islands. I want to see sustainable "baby steps" starting with riverboat-hosted museums.)
Word!
Not sure if this has been mentioned...but wasn't there a USS Missouri used in WW2...that would make for a cool museum imo
Yes. It was on board the Missouri that the Japanese surrendered. I think it's a museum in Hawaii now.
^ Yes, the USS Missouri is now part of the navel exhibit at Pearl Harbor, morred along "Battleship Row" near the USS Arizona memorial. Not only would it be hard, if not impossible to get the boat up the Mississippi, but given the roll of the ship and it's historic value, it is best as part of the Pearl Harbor exhibit. With the "begining" and "end" of WWII for the US on site, it makes too much sense.
- 8,912
JMedwick wrote:^ Yes, the USS Missouri is now part of the navel exhibit at Pearl Harbor, morred along "Battleship Row" near the USS Arizona memorial. Not only would it be hard, if not impossible to get the boat up the Mississippi, but given the roll of the ship and it's historic value, it is best as part of the Pearl Harbor exhibit. With the "begining" and "end" of WWII for the US on site, it makes too much sense.
hmmm... guess that answers my question... I was just trying to think of something more interesting IMO or maybe i mean more out of the box than a tom sawyer or steamboat museum...
City Planning Director Rollin Stanley was looking at a moored submarine last year. Next time you seem him, ask him about it.
In defense of my harping on riverboat museums: I wish to see the levee transformed into a museum district with a variety of regionally-relevent musems, that happen to be hosted on boat. Not just museums about riverboats.bpe235 wrote:i mean more out of the box than a tom sawyer or steamboat museum...
Outside of Forest Park, a museum district is an obvious hole in St. Louis's tourist offerings, and the Riverfront is a tourist destination looking for a role.
- 1,026
Probbaly a bit off topic because it woudl essentially be impossible to recreate - but yesterday I was looking at pictures of the old riverfron (circa 1840) at the federal court house and it looked better than anything we've proposed. An actual, functioneing, riverfront - with brick buildings right up to the water. Always thought it was too bad we tore most of it down for the arch
- 156
I would love to see more riverboat/paddleboat/tom sawyer stuff on the Mississippi--in addition to other things. It's a huge part of STL history, and with the Casino Queen riverboat leaving (I think...) and the Admiral sort of up-in-the-air, we should have something highly visible to celebrate that history, pride, and culture.
Yeah, its so frustrating! The Admiral and the Queen will both soon be gone. The Riverfront just keeps losing boats! Why is this happening? (I'd be pulling my hair in frustration, but I don't have enough to spare)
What is going on with this? I guess they have gone with the serrated edges. When does any further planning proceed on this project?
- 86
An idea that I have not heard for the riverfront is to build a lock and dam south of downtown St. Louis. This would have several advantages:
1) water level could be controlled enabling development very close to the river edge
2) current speed could be reduced making the area more boater friendly
3) slower current creates an environment where desirable marinas can be built downtown. Imagine hundreds of boats in marinas in front of the arch. It would look great! The Baltimore harbor is an example of how it can look.
Obviously cost is a major downside, but the most recent riverfront proposal is not exacly cheap either plus the federal government might chip in on a new lock and dam if the business case can be made.
1) water level could be controlled enabling development very close to the river edge
2) current speed could be reduced making the area more boater friendly
3) slower current creates an environment where desirable marinas can be built downtown. Imagine hundreds of boats in marinas in front of the arch. It would look great! The Baltimore harbor is an example of how it can look.
Obviously cost is a major downside, but the most recent riverfront proposal is not exacly cheap either plus the federal government might chip in on a new lock and dam if the business case can be made.
Sounds great! Now, what part of St. Louis do we get to flood with this dam?FromTheLou wrote:An idea that I have not heard for the riverfront is to build a lock and dam south of downtown St. Louis. This would have several advantages:
1) water level could be controlled enabling development very close to the river edge
2) current speed could be reduced making the area more boater friendly
3) slower current creates an environment where desirable marinas can be built downtown. Imagine hundreds of boats in marinas in front of the arch. It would look great! The Baltimore harbor is an example of how it can look.
Obviously cost is a major downside, but the most recent riverfront proposal is not exacly cheap either plus the federal government might chip in on a new lock and dam if the business case can be made.
I would love to see a lock and dam south of St. Louis, it would eliminate the biggest obstacle to the redevelopment of the riverfront. The last estimate I saw for the lock and dam, however, was over $1 billion, and that was several years ago. So, unless Ted Kennedy magically becomes a Missouri Senator tomorrow, I don't see the Federal government spending that kind of cash just to make our riverfront pretty.
Plus, the environmentalists are against it. The fish can't spawn or something...
Plus, the environmentalists are against it. The fish can't spawn or something...