urbanSTL

I would agree with do something is better then nothing. However, it is local politicians getting together to petition the federal government. Talk about good press.



No goals or visions for nitty/gritty infrastructure investment, no hard decisions on priorities, no hard decision to pursue an increase in sales or gas tax or even a downtown transportation deveopment district. All hard questions if we want to replace I-70 between Poplar Street and New Mississippi River Bridge with a Boulevard. The only way in my mind you are going to truly re-connect downton, the arch grounds, and River again.

So what's it take to replace the depressed area? I love how there are so many proponents yet I never hear from them how it would be accomplished. What would the impacts be? Proposed plans? The costs? The players? Get with the program, people.

innov8ion wrote:So what's it take to replace the depressed area? I love how there are so many proponents yet I never hear from them how it would be accomplished. What would the impacts be? Proposed plans? The costs? The players? Get with the program, people.

Once again, the problem is systemic. The people with vision have no power, and the people in power have no vision.

bonwich wrote:

innov8ion wrote:So what's it take to replace the depressed area? I love how there are so many proponents yet I never hear from them how it would be accomplished. What would the impacts be? Proposed plans? The costs? The players? Get with the program, people.

Once again, the problem is systemic. The people with vision have no power, and the people in power have no vision.

Well maybe the people with power should get their eyes checked. Or maybe the people with vision should learn how to better develop their ideas, gather public support and work with those in power. If the business case is sound, communicated and coordinated, it could be advanced. Fatalistic thinking never accomplished anything.

The leaders do need to develop a comprehensive plan before they go petitioning, but I'm just glad they recognized that the riverfront and archgrounds are indeed full of sh*t. I mean don't get me wrong I think the green space is beautiful and well taken care of but the riverfront is disgusting. Whatever is done it needs to be world class......people in St. Louis are so insular that they don't even realize the arch is a international attraction and not just some cool thing we got on our front lawn. It always pisses me off when I go to other cities and see how well kept the area is and how much activity is going on around something that isn't half is cool as the arch. I really doubt they will re-do that portion of 70 ( I mean what makes you think MDOT will help us do this when we cant even build highways and bridges right or get funding for a comprehensive light rail plan), but I like the idea of a lid if it is done right and somewhat innovative.

innov8ion wrote:

bonwich wrote:

innov8ion wrote:So what's it take to replace the depressed area? I love how there are so many proponents yet I never hear from them how it would be accomplished. What would the impacts be? Proposed plans? The costs? The players? Get with the program, people.

Once again, the problem is systemic. The people with vision have no power, and the people in power have no vision.

Well maybe the people with power should get their eyes checked. Or maybe the people with vision should learn how to better develop their ideas, gather public support and work with those in power. If the business case is sound, communicated and coordinated, it could be advanced. Fatalistic thinking never accomplished anything.

That's a lovely, idealistic thought. However, I sat through countless hours of the Downtown Now! process. Ditto the St. Louis 2004 process. This (dumping the depressed section) and other ideas were articulated, quite lucidly. People at the meetings (including folks like AIA presidents of the time) endorsed them, as did lots of "everyday" folks.



And when it came down to actually doing something, the usual sequence is, for example, what's now going on with the Gateway Mall -- some faceless, unelected, wealthy, unaccountable "foundation" wanders in and tells everyone what's going to happen.



Parking, gambling, sports arenas -- easy to promote. TIFs and subsidies -- whopee!, as long as it's some big macher and not, say, Dooley's. But redoing the streetscape based on the idea that interstates wrecked downtown fabrics? Maybe in San Francisco and Boston, but not around these parts.

bonwich wrote:

innov8ion wrote:

bonwich wrote:

Once again, the problem is systemic. The people with vision have no power, and the people in power have no vision.

Well maybe the people with power should get their eyes checked. Or maybe the people with vision should learn how to better develop their ideas, gather public support and work with those in power. If the business case is sound, communicated and coordinated, it could be advanced. Fatalistic thinking never accomplished anything.

That's a lovely, idealistic thought. However, I sat through countless hours of the Downtown Now! process. Ditto the St. Louis 2004 process. This (dumping the depressed section) and other ideas were articulated, quite lucidly. People at the meetings (including folks like AIA presidents of the time) endorsed them, as did lots of "everyday" folks.



And when it came down to actually doing something, the usual sequence is, for example, what's now going on with the Gateway Mall -- some faceless, unelected, wealthy, unaccountable "foundation" wanders in and tells everyone what's going to happen.



Parking, gambling, sports arenas -- easy to promote. TIFs and subsidies -- whopee!, as long as it's some big macher and not, say, Dooley's. But redoing the streetscape based on the idea that interstates wrecked downtown fabrics? Maybe in San Francisco and Boston, but not around these parts.

I think I understand your frustration. So why not engage these power brokers to gain their support? Where are the spin wizards?



Gone Corporate makes an excellent point that this is all moot without first having governance approval.

When I initially posted this I thought it was a good thing. Obviously nothing can be done without government approval, but I just thought it was a good step in the right direction to see all the mayors from around the region recognize a problem and try to fix it. No matter how trivial having a nice riverfront seems, I'm sure the region would see a lot more economic interest and investment downtown with a first class riverfront in place.

First, you'd have to figure out exactly who the power brokers are.



The bigger point, however, is that the region has been talking about a new bridge for at least a decade, maybe longer -- as in talking about it with some hope it really happening. Have you heard a single person of influence talk about eliminating the depressed lanes? I'd guess not. The official plan for those lanes is to rename them "I-44." Ridiculous on its face -- but no "power broker" has even let loose a peep in protest or in offering the alternative vision that seems pretty obvious to any number of people on this board.



The "let's get the land from the National Park Service" is a canard. The City and the region already own the Gateway Mall, and we've seen how well that's been developed and managed. And does someone honestly believe that there will be this magical money fairy that comes along and provides funding for building and maintaining whatever the grand vision is for the Arch grounds?

bonwich wrote:First, you'd have to figure out exactly who the power brokers are.



The bigger point, however, is that the region has been talking about a new bridge for at least a decade, maybe longer -- as in talking about it with some hope it really happening. Have you heard a single person of influence talk about eliminating the depressed lanes? I'd guess not. The official plan for those lanes is to rename them "I-44." Ridiculous on its face -- but no "power broker" has even let loose a peep in protest or in offering the alternative vision that seems pretty obvious to any number of people on this board.



The "let's get the land from the National Park Service" is a canard. The City and the region already own the Gateway Mall, and we've seen how well that's been developed and managed. And does someone honestly believe that there will be this magical money fairy that comes along and provides funding for building and maintaining whatever the grand vision is for the Arch grounds?

Can we please get off the depressed lanes bs, that is not gonna happen everybody, but I agree with you Bonwich the city has done nothing with the gateway mall and it is a disaster. If they ever do get the land from the Feds I'm pretty sure there would be developers willing to take that risk on it, but then you might end up with a Ballpark Village situation. My hope is that one of these big projects will lead into another. If we get one big project that is nice and successful I'm sure we will see others fall into place. St. Louis is gaining momentum but we are still in the baby step phase. I mean 10 years ago we would have never guessed how far Washington Ave has come or an Old North St. Louis. That riverfront has to get developed sooner or later, but I think it just takes this region too long to get anything done.

Or perhaps it's mind-bogglingly counterintuitive. There's this lovely space downtown that's already fully maintained by the Federal government. A City faced with massive financial issues wants to take it over on the grounds that it can "make it better."



The key issue here is that someone thinks that the National Park Service is somehow incapable of managing an open urban space that encourages public activity. Has anyone ever heard of the National Mall? Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for local congressmen and the like to pressure the National Park Service to make the Arch grounds more like the National Mall than it would to try to take on massive liability for upkeep and maintenance (not to mention any of the supposed "development" on the Arch grounds)?

bonwich wrote:

innov8ion wrote:

bonwich wrote:

Once again, the problem is systemic. The people with vision have no power, and the people in power have no vision.

Well maybe the people with power should get their eyes checked. Or maybe the people with vision should learn how to better develop their ideas, gather public support and work with those in power. If the business case is sound, communicated and coordinated, it could be advanced. Fatalistic thinking never accomplished anything.

That's a lovely, idealistic thought. However, I sat through countless hours of the Downtown Now! process. Ditto the St. Louis 2004 process. This (dumping the depressed section) and other ideas were articulated, quite lucidly. People at the meetings (including folks like AIA presidents of the time) endorsed them, as did lots of "everyday" folks.



And when it came down to actually doing something, the usual sequence is, for example, what's now going on with the Gateway Mall -- some faceless, unelected, wealthy, unaccountable "foundation" wanders in and tells everyone what's going to happen.



Parking, gambling, sports arenas -- easy to promote. TIFs and subsidies -- whopee!, as long as it's some big macher and not, say, Dooley's. But redoing the streetscape based on the idea that interstates wrecked downtown fabrics? Maybe in San Francisco and Boston, but not around these parts.

Bonwich, I used to have "lovely and idealistic thoughts", and then I realized what you're describing is the reality of St. Louis.



Don't get me wrong, I still believe St. Louis is a great city, and I think many great things can and will be accomplished to make it even better. I have a great quality of life with a low cost of living and a vibrant city right outside my doorstep. However, I am growing increasingly weary of those in power that have no vision, and I don't see any strides made by those with vision to obtain the necessary power. It doesn't make me a negative person, as I still find much about St. Louis to love, but it means I'll approach any new big-ticket plan with the appropriate level of healthy skepticism from now on.

Does the NPS own and maintain Leonor K. Sullivan Blvd.? It would appear that is the case from the Assessor's site.



I am just trying to understand exactly how NPS control is hindering redevelopment of the riverfront, or development of the lid for that matter. Exactly what land does the city need to control to redevelop the riverfront? I understand that the lid would require construction on NPS land, but the allowance of actual construction activity wouldn't seem difficult to negotiate. Unless the city is planning some sort of commercial development on the lid? But then, the lid itself wouldn't be on NPS land, unless they are back to the pedestrian overpass idea?



IOW, what exactly does the city want, other than control and a handout from the federal government?

bonwich wrote:Or perhaps it's mind-bogglingly counterintuitive. There's this lovely space downtown that's already fully maintained by the Federal government. A City faced with massive financial issues wants to take it over on the grounds that it can "make it better."



The key issue here is that someone thinks that the National Park Service is somehow incapable of managing an open urban space that encourages public activity. Has anyone ever heard of the National Mall? Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for local congressmen and the like to pressure the National Park Service to make the Arch grounds more like the National Mall than it would to try to take on massive liability for upkeep and maintenance (not to mention any of the supposed "development" on the Arch grounds)?

Hell Yeah! I'm sure the Feds would be wiling to work with St. Louis in order to renovate the park. Why would we take on that unnecessary bill of maintaining the arch grounds. Let the Feds work for us.

It'd be nice to do something with the riverfront, as long as it's not too much.

^But don't forget the other dismal part of St. Louis planning:

Sure, we settle for anything as an improvement, but we also somehow believe that whatever we do, we can never surpass that supposedly glorious past.

Very well stated. For all those people out there preaching "CHANGE" let me remind you; "CHANGE" does not necessarily make anything better it only makes things different. I am never an advocate of "CHANGE" just for "CHANGE" sake - let's just encourage strong planning and design efforts and if done correctly they will provide the desired end product.

National Park Service Wants Public's Input on Arch Grounds Development

The National Park Services has developed some preliminary ideas based on the Danforth Foundation's recommendations last August.

A walk way over I70? Eh, better than nothing To bad we couldnt burry the I70 underground. That would be an amazing city/waterfront. I dont think any other city could match that with a straight view of grass right into the arch from the old court house.

I'll volunteer to be the Ed Golterman of the "Lid." It's a 30-year-old idea whose time has passed. There's a new bridge going up, and that section of highway will not be "I-70" anymore.



Lose the Lid. Restore the grid.

bonwich wrote:
Lose the Lid. Restore the grid.

What are you suggesting? that we fill it in?

The street grid is actually mostly intact with Walnut, Market, Chestnut and Pine all having bridges across.



What about flooding the depressed section and connecting it to Chouteau's Lake? That would make areas of water that could be used, opposed to the Mississippi!