I was wondering about the lease option as well. Hell we could lease it for 200 hundred years ... would seem to rectify the property transfer issue. if anyone has any insight on this please comment.
Plus that means that all the drunk Landing visitors who pee in the Arch parking garage will no longer viewed as having committed a Federal crime.
The PDF is very interesting and underlines one main point: No matter what you want to do, it all costs too much because there is no way to fund it. Maybe if City leaders were open to more aggressive plans, such as development on the gateway mall, funds from the development rights to prime parcels could be used to fund such developments.
- 11K
If the city would put its time, energy and money behind developing Chouteau's Landing, Chouteau's Pond and the north riverside, the Arch grounds would become the nexus of activity and wouldn't be disconnected or desolate. Let's concentrate on less than five grand visions at a time if possible!
- 10K
Shouldn't they have looked into the feasibility of ideas like the floating islands before coming up with the concepts? The whole thing seems like a big waste of time/money now.
Excellent point. Our leaders seem to have severe attention deficit disorder.
I read the Danforth report. First, it's an embarrassment in of of itself and is only superceded by the fact that someone spent $2 million thus far.
Too many engineers and construction consultants who come up with options based solely on the very expensive world in which they work.
Why not add some behavioral science to the mix?
1. Get Congress to change the status of the land from MEMORIAL to "park". The NPS should retain ownership.
2. Solutions to complex problems don't usually require grandiose visions and pronouncements. There seems to be a need for people here to believe in a wizard.
It's been stated and restated that this connection issue between downtown and the riverfront may be very simple to solve. Why not try small steps first to see if they'll work?
3. Following the change in the status of the land to a park, allow private markets to drive solutions and opportunities.
I read the Danforth report. First, it's an embarrassment in of of itself and is only superceded by the fact that someone spent $2 million thus far.
Too many engineers and construction consultants who come up with options based solely on the very expensive world in which they work.
Why not add some behavioral science to the mix?
1. Get Congress to change the status of the land from MEMORIAL to "park". The NPS should retain ownership.
2. Solutions to complex problems don't usually require grandiose visions and pronouncements. There seems to be a need for people here to believe in a wizard.
It's been stated and restated that this connection issue between downtown and the riverfront may be very simple to solve. Why not try small steps first to see if they'll work?
3. Following the change in the status of the land to a park, allow private markets to drive solutions and opportunities.
- 6,775
Slay has asked three people to move the idea forward and craft a plan for the public and Congress to consider: Walter Metcalfe, a lawyer with Bryan Cave who was a key player in the drive to build the Edward Jones Dome; Robert Archibald, president of the Missouri Historical Society; and Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden.
At least Slay has put some heavy hitters on the job. So I would say he is serious. Throw the Danforth boys into the mix, and we might actually see something happen.
How many prior grandiose projects with "heavy hitters" behind them have succeeded?
- 362
Grover wrote:If the city would put its time, energy and money behind developing Chouteau's Landing, Chouteau's Pond and the north riverside, the Arch grounds would become the nexus of activity and wouldn't be disconnected or desolate. Let's concentrate on less than five grand visions at a time if possible!
Excellent point. There are too many irons in the fire and we are bound to lose track of some. I don't really understand why money was devoted to this in the first place. They seemed to know all along that NPS was the key player. Was the study just an attempt to show we were serious about it? If so, "floating islands" doesn't exactly give off an air of seriousness.
If we concentrated on Chouteau's Pond (the one project that could totally transform and reorient downtown), we wouldn't have to worry so much about the riverfront at the Arch Grounds. We are never going to have a Navy Pier type atmosphere down there anyway, but we could create our own unique water oriented space.
However, the one idea that could/should be implemented as soon as possible are boat docks by Laclede's Landing. Believe it or not, there are still people that travel the river for pleasure in ski boats and yachts. Having some activity with boats and a dock would be a major improvement. Plus, that would be a great place for children and families to go down and "touch the river" or take their shoes off and let their feet hand down in the river, etc. I definitely think we should still pursue the boat dock idea. The rest of it, scrap it. If we can get the lid on that one block to connect the mall and the Arch Grounds, great. If not, just improve the sidewalks around there and call it a day.
I am a huge fan of fixing up the riverfront, but the part of the riverfront by the Arch Grounds is not the part that we need to be concentrating on.
- 6,775
bonwich wrote:How many prior grandiose projects with "heavy hitters" behind them have succeeded?
Busch Stadium II & III. The Arch. To name three.
Who in their right mind would even suggest that our board of alderman be given "control" of the Arch grounds? The idea is unfathomable.
I get images of the Arch grounds in a few years looking like "Escape From New York". This can't be what is proposed so they better get out and do some damage control quickly. It's about trust.
NPS is operated like a trust. The proposal could have included a comparable local "controlling" entity that is also like a trust (MoBot).
The $2 million should have been spent on researching innovative public ownership, operating and financial structures for the Arch grounds. But I still think it could all be taken care of simply by changing the status of the memorial to a park.
I get images of the Arch grounds in a few years looking like "Escape From New York". This can't be what is proposed so they better get out and do some damage control quickly. It's about trust.
NPS is operated like a trust. The proposal could have included a comparable local "controlling" entity that is also like a trust (MoBot).
The $2 million should have been spent on researching innovative public ownership, operating and financial structures for the Arch grounds. But I still think it could all be taken care of simply by changing the status of the memorial to a park.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:bonwich wrote:How many prior grandiose projects with "heavy hitters" behind them have succeeded?
Busch Stadium II & III. The Arch. To name three.
Busch Stadium II was built amidst grandiose promises about all the ancillary business it would bring to the surrounding neighborhood. Those few businesses that tried to make a go of it (anybody remember the Gay '90s Melody Museum?) failed within a year or so -- plus there were civic disasters like the Spanish Pavilion.
Calling Busch Stadium III a "success" while the vacant lot remains across the street is a bit of a stretch.
- 623
1. Get Congress to change the status of the land from MEMORIAL to "park". The NPS should retain ownership.
Ironic that in another story buried in today's paper the Arch's NPS supervisor is being promoted to be superintendent of the the National Mall.
The National Mall is busy with activity including vendors, small food vendors with outdoor seating, and recreational sports leagues, including softball within a foul balls distance of the Vietnam Memorial.
Yet, with very few exceptions, notably Fair St. Louis and RiverSplash, this activity is banned from the Arch grounds.
- 6,775
bonwich wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:bonwich wrote:How many prior grandiose projects with "heavy hitters" behind them have succeeded?
Busch Stadium II & III. The Arch. To name three.
Busch Stadium II was built amidst grandiose promises about all the ancillary business it would bring to the surrounding neighborhood. Those few businesses that tried to make a go of it (anybody remember the Gay '90s Melody Museum?) failed within a year or so -- plus there were civic disasters like the Spanish Pavilion.
Calling Busch Stadium III a "success" while the vacant lot remains across the street is a bit of a stretch.
I recall seeing that museum when I was a kid attending Gridbird games at Busch II. I always wondered what the heck it was. What was it?
Busch II & III are successes as stadiums. Nothing more.
^ "Gay Nineties" was a prototypical "interactive" museum, sort of along the lines of a Ripley's, but dedicated to the 1890s. Some of the exhibits had a separate fee, where you paid to watch a stereopticon, listen to one of those multi-instrument automated music machines, etc. I thought it was cool when I was 10, but it wasn't the kind of place that generated a whole lot of repeat visitors.
- 2,093
^Sounds like something C Montgomery Burns would have liked
- 8,912
Little Egyptian wrote:
However, the one idea that could/should be implemented as soon as possible are boat docks by Laclede's Landing. Believe it or not, there are still people that travel the river for pleasure in ski boats and yachts. Having some activity with boats and a dock would be a major improvement. Plus, that would be a great place for children and families to go down and "touch the river" or take their shoes off and let their feet hand down in the river, etc. I definitely think we should still pursue the boat dock idea.
I like that idea alot. I must say that "a few people" go boating on the river is definately an understatement.
- 31
Today The Danforth Foundation anounced that they are hoping to persuade the federal government to give up some of the 91 acres of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, otherwise known as the arch grounds. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be in support of this effort, but all the opinions I have hear so far on this subject have been negative. This makes me sad. Why aren't more behind improving our city?
- 1,610
^Because the City has done so well with all their acres stretching numerous blocks along Market Street. 
Then again, we also have Danforth to thank for helping push his pet urban plaza project, such that Ninth Street Garage couldn't have been built there instead.
Then again, we also have Danforth to thank for helping push his pet urban plaza project, such that Ninth Street Garage couldn't have been built there instead.Directorscut18 wrote:Today The Danforth Foundation anounced that they are hoping to persuade the federal government to give up some of the 91 acres of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, otherwise known as the arch grounds. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be in support of this effort, but all the opinions I have hear so far on this subject have been negative. This makes me sad. Why aren't more behind improving our city?
Because none of those involved have shown the slightest ability to handle such a hefty task. Look no further than the decades of "progress" that is the Gateway Mall.
To me, the riverfront is an embarassment. You go to just about any other river city, large or small and their riverfront is MUCH better. I was just in Cincinnati this past week and they have a relatively vibrant riverfront - certainly WAY more happening than ours.
Then, we went to many small towns in Michigan on the Lake Michigan shoreline. They all had beautiful waterfronts - people were active with them and out and about.
I agree with Slay that until the city gains control of some of the archland, nothing will happen. However, most important is connecting the arch-land to the city's downtown, Laclede's landing, and Chouteau's landing. That should be Phase I - after that is complete, we should look into providing the other ideas they mention on the riverfront.
Then, we went to many small towns in Michigan on the Lake Michigan shoreline. They all had beautiful waterfronts - people were active with them and out and about.
I agree with Slay that until the city gains control of some of the archland, nothing will happen. However, most important is connecting the arch-land to the city's downtown, Laclede's landing, and Chouteau's landing. That should be Phase I - after that is complete, we should look into providing the other ideas they mention on the riverfront.
- 10K
I'm doing everything I possibly can to resist the urge to click on STLToday's "talk" feature on this topic.
- 2,005
^I set my mouse to shock me if I ever click on that link again. All you need is a couple wires and a battery.
- 2,093
I noticed on channel 4's 10 p.m. news last night in the story they had on Danforth's report a sign in the background of the live shot had an arrow pointing to St. Louis Centre.
I'm not sure yet how I feel about the whole riverfront/Arch takeover, but can the city first remove signs pointing the way to a dormant shopping center??
I'm not sure yet how I feel about the whole riverfront/Arch takeover, but can the city first remove signs pointing the way to a dormant shopping center??