urbanSTL

Calling the current grid "intact" is somewhat like calling Ballpark Village "developed." Memorial Drive is a bastard avenue divided by a 30-foot-deep pit -- hardly a valid urban street.



Moreover, the "grid" extends to Laclede's Landing and the area immediately west of it. By demolishing the section of I-70 from 64 to the new bridge, the city would eliminate one of Laclede's Landing's biggest impediments, its amputation from downtown.



And finally, by making Memorial Drive into an urban parkway, you could build things there. I could see the argument of limiting building heights to 10-15 stories, but I could also see some well-designed signature high-rises being built outside the boundaries created by west-running lines coming out of the each leg of the Arch.



Of course, all of this would require an ounce of vision. Talent, Slay, Danforth, Fleming, Bueller, Bueller, anyone, Bueller?

bonwich wrote:Calling the current grid "intact" is somewhat like calling Ballpark Village "developed." Memorial Drive is a bastard avenue divided by a 30-foot-deep pit -- hardly a valid urban street.



Moreover, the "grid" extends to Laclede's Landing and the area immediately west of it. By demolishing the section of I-70 from 64 to the new bridge, the city would eliminate one of Laclede's Landing's biggest impediments, its amputation from downtown.



And finally, by making Memorial Drive into an urban parkway, you could build things there. I could see the argument of limiting building heights to 10-15 stories, but I could also see some well-designed signature high-rises being built outside the boundaries created by west-running lines coming out of the each leg of the Arch.



Of course, all of this would require an ounce of vision. Talent, Slay, Danforth, Fleming, Bueller, Bueller, anyone, Bueller?

Love it.

Bueller, Bueller, anyone, Bueller?

I don't understand all of this talk about the depressed lanes not being needed after the new bridge is finished.



Sure, folks going East and West will be able to choose the appropriate bridge, but what about people traveling North and South? I don't think the executives at Anheuser Busch are gonna like having their route to the airport cut off.



Wishing and dreaming is fine and dandy, but let's face it; Interstate Highways are not going away any time soon.

^They could just hop onto the 40 West and take 170 to the airport... which usually has less traffic. (or hopefully will in 2 years)

Right, that works, but it's out of the way, compared to the direct route that already exists. And if you shift all of the I-70 traffic onto I-170, then that route will become more congested.



I don't think any proposal for doing away with the depressed section would get very much support (other than on narrowly focused internet forums). I'm just trying to be realistic. The depressed lanes aren't going away, so I think we should push for the best lid money can buy.

Framer wrote:Right, that works, but it's out of the way, compared to the direct route that already exists. And if you shift all of the I-70 traffic onto I-170, then that route will become more congested.



I don't think any proposal for doing away with the depressed section would get very much support (other than on narrowly focused internet forums). I'm just trying to be realistic. The depressed lanes aren't going away, so I think we should push for the best lid money can buy.

As I've pointed out probably a dozen times, the I in I-70 stands for INTERSTATE. The new bridge obviates that role for the section of the aptly named depressed section.



Aside from the previously stated note about an urban parkway, when the new bridge is open, the proposal is to rename the depressed lanes as I-44. So think about that for a second -- the stated reason to keep them is to connect I-44 eastbound with I-70 westbound. Makes perfect sense, no?



Hey, but the depressed lanes aren't going away. And the National Park Service will never allow the Arch grounds to be reconfigured. And a new Mississippi River Bridge will never be built. And the City will never reverse its population decline. And blah, blah, blah. Let's not even bother examining and progressive ideas, because we live in St. Louis. (/sarcasm)



So -- we can either "keep it easy for A-B executives to get to the airport," or we can act like cities with somewhat more progressive reputations, cities like San Francisco and Boston and Chicago, who realized how the '50s Interstate plan ravaged their downtowns and reversed the process by reconfiguring

Yeah, I understand every seemingly unattainable goal starts with a single voice in the wilderness, but I just don't see the benefit in removing this short stretch of highway. How would a busy, at-grade thoroughfare make a better neighbor for the Arch than some kind of landscaped lid?



Is the highway itself really causing that much trouble, or is it the psychological barrier that we need to address?

Both.

^ agreed

Oklahoma City swaps highway for park



USA Today released this article about Oklahoma City's plan to move their downtown highway out of the way and replace it with a tree-lined boulevard. The article discusses a few other cities that have or are looking to do similar things with their divisive urban highways.

The lid idea sounds like a good compromise in some respects. But, it also creates a condition of more infrastructure to maintain. You now have built additional bridge structures as well as creating a tunnel condition. Then you compromise on the amount of the lid in order to avoid the added cost of ventilating a tunnel. I think of N. Tucker where the city isn't doing anything because of the cost to replace a bridge versus a street is considerable more.



Their is great long term argument that filling in the hole and rebuilding it into at grade boulevard is much more cost effective for the city and state considering the traffic base and short distance involved. Thru traffic from south to west or vice versa can easily be accomondated via I-64 and I-170.

Interesting article in the Post today about Danforth's efforts in all of this:



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument



Notice the tidbit about the Danforth Foundation's willingness to contribute several million dollars to help fund a major new museum on the Arch grounds.

I love Danforth's vision...hopefully something can come out of this.

I think a new museum is an odd suggestion, when there is already a fairly well attended museum on the Arch grounds.



It sounds like Danforth is looking for suggestions, but have they given anywhere to submit feedback?

The biggest check could come from Danforth himself, who has said his family foundation is prepared to put down as much as $50 million for a museum, perhaps one that honors the nation's migration legacy. The foundation would also pledge to help raise $100 million more, he said.



"We're willing — anxious — to support something that's big," Danforth said. "But not something that's small. And we have made that known to the Park Service."



Danforth framed the project as a possible boon to the city's sagging psyche, that, as he sees it, has been dragged down by the exodus of corporate headquarters from St. Louis, the latest of which could be Anheuser-Busch. Danforth's own grandfather founded Ralston Purina, acquired by Swiss food giant Nestlé in 2001.



"St. Louis needs to win something big for a change," Danforth said. "We have had too many losses in a row."

I have the utmost respect for Sen. Danforth, but I think this museum idea is a huge waste of money. There are much better ways to spend $50 million downtown.

^Other than more retail and more residential units, I can't think of anything downtown needs more than something else for tourists to do, and another reason for them to hang around and explore downtown, besides the Arch. A well-done, modern interactive museum, with a theme that would appeal to a broad demographic, would do wonders for downtown.



I would like to see a broad-ranging Mississippi River Museum. There are so many things you could cover; the natural history of the river with lots of displays and a large aquarium, a recreation of a steamboat and/or the riverfront in the steamboat era, with actors, archaeology of the river, i.e. items recovered from the river, the role of the river in the history of jazz and blues, Native American history, the colonial era, the river's role in shaping the nation, the river during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, etc. I think you could really build around that theme to include something for everyone, plus it would tie in very well with the Museum of Westward Expansion

jlblues wrote:^Other than more retail, I can't think of anything downtown needs more than something else for tourists to do, and another reason for them to hang around and explore downtown, besides the Arch. A well-done, modern interactive museum, with a theme that would appeal to a broad demographic, would do wonders for downtown.

I disagree. Downtown has more pressing needs than a museum at the Arch grounds. We still have numerous vacant buildings in need of renovation. We still need to add businesses and jobs. We still have crumbling infrastructure.

^ I am going to have to agree with Jblues on this one.

Downtown is lacking historic "To Do's" (aka museum of substance) [However I would rather have a good access route to get to the arch rather than a museum i cant get to]



-Vacant Buildings? Sure, but we are already inthe process of rehabbing a lot of them. Going any faster and the city could end up like Pyramid.

-Crumbling infrastructure? The only thing I complained about were the roads downtown...they are fixing those right now.

-Jobs... well we need more investment to make downtown look good for business to move downtown.



One thing I think we should consider is what Seattle does.

They put a 1% 'tax' on all Public improvement works or new public buildings and that 1% has to go to Public Art.



"The program specifies that 1% of eligible city capital improvement project funds be set aside for the commission, purchase and installation of artworks in a variety of settings. "

http://www.seattle.gov/arts/publicart/default.asp



I love walking downtown Seattle and seeing all the crazy/weird/interesting pieces of publuc art. Some are even "interactive"

I love the idea of the shuttle across the river to a park on the east side however I can't help but wonder why they are so insistent on building a museum on the arch grounds. Why not build it on an adjacent parcel? Perhaps a remodeling a portion of the Mansion House, Lacledes Landing or better yet Chouteau's Landing, Kiener Garage or Illinois. Spend all this time and effort on creatively tying it in with the Arch grounds while expanding the park.

I think a nice connecting bridge like this one in Chicago.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ch ... otogallery



(you can click all the other pictures.. some are very cool.)

Well that was certainly an informing meeting at Forest Park today. Since everything is conceptual at this point, it helped to talk with the park employees etc. A lot of confusion lied in the depictions in their newsletter, many people automatically thought the highlighted portion over Memorial drive (In between Chestnut and Market) was a bridge. I enjoyed learning that a lot of people from the area are concerned with entering the park from the courthouse side.



Action Plan 1 - Do nothing



Action Plan 2 - Basically leave memorial drive the way it is but use traffic calming (My guess would be that this is changing the stop light signals) Any enginerds out there know what "traffic calming" means.



Action Plan 3 - Build a museum at ground level (which is on an incline now) and have the eastern part of it be a ramp(elevated deck is their term) that goes over Memorial drive and down on to the green space at the Arch ground.



Action Plan 4 - Still at little foggy on this one. 2 pedestrian bridges? How? What? At grade lid??? I get the lid I'm just not picturing the bridges with no other structures arround. I was told that there would still be 2 sets of crossing lights here similiar to the way Memorial Drive is now, but I'm not sure if that's correct because that would make me think grade level. So where the bridge fall into play? Basically, I do know a new underground museum would be added on here, providing an entrance to the park.



Action Plan 5 - Put a lid over 70 for about 3 blocks equidistant to the North and South on either side of the courthouse center. Change Memorial Drive so that instead of running North on one side of 70 and South on the other. It runs North and South on one side and there is only one stop light for pedestrians to cross. Then parkground is what you walk onto next.



There were no real details about Wash Avenue, just that it would be easier to cross over around that intersection than it is currently.



I still have to think a little bit more about parking, other entrances, and a new museum (if these new things are brought in even) Right now I think the biggest problem as a downtown resident is foot traffic accessibility to the Arch.



Right now, the ramp idea is my fav. I don't have to walk on huge curbs (which I learned are so tall because they keep the bridge stable, some specs or something) The noise enh, I live in a city, it's noise. I really could care less about food. It's a national memorial, we're in a city, find food elsewhere. Personally I'll eat at home. I'd rather have a park/memorial that's easy to enter than a lid on 70 because of noise and scary traffic. Oooh.



Honestly if it were mine to work on I'd revamp all of Memorial Drive and make it a plaza in front of the Courthouse, use Broadway and 4th street to go North/South on the highway instead of Memorial.