urbanSTL

^

That was an interesting story. Mike O'Connell showed the press conference from 1999 when St. Louis 2004 was launched and discussed how little it accomplished (Washington Avenue and the bike trail system were its two big accomplishments). It was kind of embarassing.

JC Corcoran was ripping on STL 2004 this morning. Some of it was deserved, but he was a little too quick to dismiss the bike trails. Now I am a biker so maybe I'm a little bias but the city is much more bike-friendly than it used to be and that goes a long way to market the city.



He was correct about the fact that while Danforth is a good guy, he is not like a Joe Edwards--who is always seen in the U City Loop sidewalks and businesses there, even those he doesn't own. Danforth may have the best interests of city redevelopment at heart but when do you ever see him on Washington Avenue or the Landing?



Like I said, I hate to disparage Danforth because in contrast to current state politicians (Blunt trauma!) he at least cares about STL.

I agree with whoever said that we need to build up around the arch grounds first. NoBro, Chouteaus Landing, the Lake, etc...do that, and the Arch Grounds will seem much more lively. Then we can dress it up with some amphitheaters or whatever we want to put there.

Yes its true building up around the arch grounds (downtown area) should be the city's priority, but that is already happening. Sure projects like Chouteaus Landing, the bottle district etc. are currently not happening, but many other projects are well underway. The Arch grounds is what has always drawn visitors to our city. It is the symbol of our city, and as of right now visitors come to the arch and leave before attempting to go downtown. One of the biggest reasons that Danforth and Slay want control over the land is so they can build a cap over I-70, a project geared towards linking the Arch grounds with Downtown. Without the control, ventilation cannot be built for the freeway tunnel underneath the cap. To me if that’s all Danforth wants to do or is able to do with permission from the National Park Service that’s fine with me.

Directorscut18 wrote:One of the biggest reasons that Danforth and Slay want control over the land is so they can build a cap over I-70, a project geared towards linking the Arch grounds with Downtown. Without the control, ventilation cannot be built for the freeway tunnel underneath the cap. To me if that’s all Danforth wants to do or is able to do with permission from the National Park Service that’s fine with me.

And I really can't imagine that the NPS would object to the city paying for a quality connection to the park. Surely this can be worked out. Again, I hope that the city would invest in Chouteau's Landing and Laclede's Landing. Why, WHY didn't the Mayor step in and save the Switzer building if he's so concerned about vitality surround the Arch grounds?

And don't forget those beautiful new steps. The wider steps in front of the Arch happened because Danforth's 2004 effort worked hard for an improved riverfront.

^That's a good point. Wider steps in front of the Arch are a leap forward for this city and will not be soon forgotten. I often find myself walking up those steps and noticing the newfound room that I have on either side of me. I remember the days of slowly shuffling shoulder to shoulder up those same Arch ground steps. I have spent many a night praying for the day when they'd be wide enough for me to walk up without being crowded and pushed around by the bumbling climbing motions of those around me. Bravo, Danforth. Bravo.

I want to see specific (like the Hwy 70 lid) realistic plans before I even think of supporting this. Can you see the genius who approved the hulking Pinnacle Casino marring our Arch grounds? However the article today in the Post about the lack of food available to tourists brings up a good point. There has to be someway for the Park Service to approve a couple of nearby restaurant concessions in the meantime.

Wow, St. Louis 2004! A blast from the past. It seems much longer ago than that.



No one I know who was involved cares to admit it or talk about it.

I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only one who recognizes that the Lord Danforth wears no clothes.

I rarely go to the Arch, but that is ridiculous that there is no restaurant inside of there. I know there are certain rules about National Parks, but we aren't talking Yosemite or Yellowstone. It's time to bring back the McDonald's barge!

I don't want to get off topic but this whole thing started about the Arch grounds anouncement a few days ago. I have been in an argument with these people in another blog at myfoxstl.com about the resurgence in downtown. The it started about the arch rounds and quickly spread to different opinions about the city and the change happening there. They don't believe the new loft movement is a good thing, no one can support the new condow towers, (Roberts tower, Skyhouse) and the ballpark village will fail within a year. Check it out maybe you guys could help me out, I feel like i am the only one in there supporting St.Louis.

http://community.myfoxstl.com/blogs/Lon ... iver_front

That blog cracks me up! "No one wants to live downtown" and "it's smelly and run down looking". First of all as you point out Directors Cut the DT population has quadrupled over the past decade. If it were a municipality it would be outpacing growth in Lake St. Louis or Wentzville. You counter well on the smell question too. And that girl who thinks it looks "run down" probably thinks any building over 20 yrs. old is run down looking.

There was a report on KMOX this morning about Saarinen's original vision for the memorial and it included something like 5 restaurants/cafes and additional museums of architecture and a living history village, it was a eye opener to me.

wow.

And a synopsis of the story, including audio from KMOX:







-RBB

If the Mayor and others would market these changes correctly I think they'll be successful. There's nothing like invoking the creator when you want to make changes!

Saarinen's winning contest and some of the other competing designers' entries have been on display inside the ground floor of the Old Courthouse for years. I think a village around the Old Cathedral would have easily made this last-standing building less of a visual oddball all these years. And activities on both edges of the grounds would likely get more people walking than just primarily to/from the north parking garage.



However, even if it seems Danforth could be more true to the original designer than the NPS, I think he should take a crack first at a connection between the grounds and Old Courthouse, such as a lid over I-70. Somehow I don't think wider steps are quite enough proof yet that Uncle Jack knows best for the riverfront. Let him and his fellow donors play over the depressed section first before touching a national parkland.

southsidepride wrote:That blog cracks me up! "No one wants to live downtown" and "it's smelly and run down looking". First of all as you point out Directors Cut the DT population has quadrupled over the past decade. If it were a municipality it would be outpacing growth in Lake St. Louis or Wentzville. You counter well on the smell question too. And that girl who thinks it looks "run down" probably thinks any building over 20 yrs. old is run down looking.

That's been bothering me ever since I read it. And I submit it just ain't true (it's based on some GIGO numbers from DTSLP, or at least a GIGO baseline.)

On the Fox forum, DirectorsCut wrote:In just five years, downtown St. Louis’ population nearly quadrupled to 9,700 residents from 2,300.

The flaw in that figure is the 2,300 starting point. The 9,700 figure matches one I founded DTSLP quoted on for 2005 -- but the other comparable figures from DTLSP over the years have been



2007 - 10153

2005 - 9700

2000 - 8450

1999 - 8100

1998 - 7861



And in its current literature, DTSLP itself only estimates a 63 percent growth for the entire decade of the 2000's:

63% projected growth in population from 8,300 in 2000 to 13,500 in 2010. Currently 10,100.

Now, for some reason, John Fox Arnold and some of the other big shots were quoting a downtown population of just 3400 in 1997. If anyone would like to believe that downtown population suddently went up by more than double between 1997 and 1998, I have some excellent subprime mortgage funds for sale.



Meanwhile, I smell some misinformation floating around.

Huzzah for the return of civic boosterism!

Thanks for helping me out on the myfoxstl.com blog. I'm glad someone agrees with me.

^ You should really stay off of there!