urbanSTL

Thanks for the report, Misty.



As for the museum, I'm with jlblues on this. Let's build a River History Museum, and let's make it the baddest-ass river museum anywhere. Get a big-name architect to design it (maybe the Gateway Foundation could cover his fee), and build it on the northern edge of the Park. This would tie together the Arch and the Landing, without infringing on the awe-inspiring scale of the Arch.



Oh yeah, and let's put a lid over the highway.

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?

I haven't visited in a while, is the museum really that well attended, it always seems like (in the summer) there are tons of people walking around the arch entrances.





They have it's the last page of this pdf.



http://www.nps.gov/jeff/parkmgmt/upload ... .19.08.pdf

I think we need to stop saying "How do we make this area better for tourists?" and start saying "How do we make this area better for residents?".



Sure, some of the ideas overlap and make sense such as building lids over I-70 and connecting the arch grounds better on the north and south ends. As for building a state-of-the-art museum, I ask why? Is this museum for us as residents, or is meant to draw more tourists to the Arch grounds? In the current failing economy, less people are travelling, tourism is down, flights are getting cut meaning less conventions and less tourism, WHY are we focusing on the tourists??



My feeling is that we should focus on connectivity #1, amenities for residents #2 (maybe more paved paths for biking and walking, volleyball and tennis courts to host regional tournaments, food vendors to provide another lunch option for downtown businesses and residents). Lastly after everything else is in place, let the private sector dictate what amenities get built for tourists.

^ Nice Metzgda.



I dont under stand option #5 with the lid... if we have a lid, wont we still need a bridge to go over the lid? It was mentioned there would still be a stoplight to cross... how is that possible.



6 posts ago i showed the bridge in Chicago connecting the two parks..





I think I would actually go for something really "arty" if this could be put connecting the old court house and arch grounds.



As you see, no matter how big you build it, it wont block any picture perfect views, only add to it.



From the east side





And a better view of how big (actually small) the bridge would need to be to make an impact.



I am thinking multiple entrances to the bridge that come to gether and let out on the grounds.



And of course.. even better would be putting a lid over it and incorporating the bridge. (to get over the lid



EDIT: When i mean bridge, i mean a thoughful bridge, not some I-64 freeway bridge

If you have a bridge, why do you need a lid, and vice versa? You answered your own question. You cross at the stoplight or the bridge.

Ok, here is a better render of the proposed LID. If there were NO bridge... and there is a LID over the highway... how does one pass through the lid to hit a stoplight? I would think the only way to get to the other side would be a bridge. Option #5 says that you would get across via a stoplight?

Ok, here is a better render of the proposed LID. If there were NO bridge... and there is a LID over the highway... how does one pass through the lid to hit a stoplight? I would think the only way to get to the other side would be a bridge. Option #5 says that you would get across via a stoplight?

By walking on the lid. Lid = A platform at grade.



Still figuring it out....

We have a world class city 300 miles from here that could serve as examples on what will draw people to the arch grounds. Granted we are not Chicago but some things could be chosen. Millenium park for example. The architecture is top notch(Frank Gehry). The tiled water sculpture that changes pictures internally is a huge draw.



An aquarium would be a huge draw on the river. Think divers in tanks for feedings throughout the day. Something interactive for residents and tourists.

Just a reminder to downtown workers/residents. The open house is going on from now until 6:30 at the Old Courthouse. There was a pretty good turnout there and it was early when I got there.



I'd have to say that after looking at the different alternatives, my favorite is #3. Build bridges, no lid, and build the museum. I think it'd be good thing to expand the museum, it'd keep people DT longer. Also, I've never been a fan of the lid as it costs a lot of money and people would still have to cross at grade. I realize one of the alternatives had a smaller lid and a bridge, but I think the idea of the open house is to get people over the interstate/Memorial Drive and into the arch grounds in a much safer way. The easiest way to do that would be to build a bridge.

So is the plan for the riverfront (floating islands, etc.) from a few years ago completely dead, or will any of the ideas from it be incorporated into this.



Wish I could make it to the open house.

This open house concentrates on the Archgrounds. There is nothing related to the riverfront except for the proposed water taxis to the overlook in ESL.

Yes, it is dead, DeBaliviere

Sunk, you might say.

MattnSTL wrote:Yes, it is dead, DeBaliviere

Aw jeez. How about the next time anyone considers spending thousands of dollars on another plan, we instead spend it on something tangible like landscaping or maybe fix up a sidewalk or two.

Not in St. Louis. We just make plans.

I just came back from vacation in the Washington DC area. On the Mall they were having a big festival sponsored by the Smithsonian. There were multiple large tents and food and entertainment venues that will all come down by the end of summer I presume.



I was wondering why the Park Service couldn't allow a large beer garden under a temporary tent allowed to be up for most of the summer. It would serve the large crowds visiting the Arch grounds but would not have the stigma of a permanent facility. There is something about a temporary tent setup that is more acceptable to all parties, since it is clearly not intended to remain permanently. It could stay up from May through October and then come down for the winer.



In Washington, I'm sure nobody would have allowed permanent structures to house the mall festivals. But tent structures seem to be OK since they are clearly temporary. The same could be done on the Arch grounds with temporary structures put up each summer.

Gary Kreie wrote:I was wondering why the Park Service couldn't allow a large beer garden under a temporary tent allowed to be up for most of the summer.

Because the National Park Service has a policy that does not allow any overlap with services outside the park boundary. In other words, if you can buy a beer, or eat a meal, anywhere within a 5 to 10 minute walk of the park, then the park is not going to allow the sale of beer or food on its property. The occasional, special-use such as Fair St. Louis is acceptable because it is only a few days.



All of the NPS reps I talked to at the recent public input events seemed completely intractable on this issue. Their attitude seems a bit hypocritical to me though since they are apparently ok with having a gift shop on their property full of things you can buy outside the park.



Given that policy, I'm not sure how they can justify having tents selling food on the National Mall all summer, though. Maybe because the Smithsonian is sponsoring it? I bet there was a lot of opposition to setting up those tents. I can see a case being made however that, depending where you are on the Mall, you could walk at least 15 minutes without seeing a single place to buy a Coke and a sandwich.

There must be 100 places in Washington within 10 minutes of the mall where you can get anything you want. The Metro subway stops on the mall for goodness sakes, and downtown Washington is just off the mall. So that rationale is nonsense. Especially if you allow some of those beer places that are just off the Arch Grounds actually run the sales at the tents.



So let the Smithsonian or the St. Louis Art Museum run the tent at the Arch.



I recall how Amtrak officials in Washington would not allow trains to pull in to St. Louis Union Station because it was a pull-in / pull - out configuration rather than a drive through. So they set up Amshack Instead. Then they let Washington's Union Station do pull-in / pull-out when it was referbished and bragged that their Union Station was still used for trains.



And of course they gave us Arch bollards for terrorism protection vs. the attractive hidden wall used at the Washington Monument. (I see some of the new retractable bollards are now rusted and unattractive.) With friends like this, who needs terrorists.

^I can guarantee you that there will be a small, but very vocal, outcry if there is a proposal to put any permanent above-ground structure, or even a tent, on the Arch grounds.



There was a guy at the NPS public input event that was adamant that there be no permanent or temporary structures, or even something like a hot dog stand, because it would destroy the view of the Arch, or the view from the Arch, or the view of the river, or of downtown, or from downtown, or something...who knows. I just don't understand this...

Are the Arch Grounds that much more sacred than the National Mall in Washington? The first time I went there in the 80's, it was used for softball games by the local Washingtonians and hasn't seemed to diminish the importance. I think a temporary tent for food/beer/entertainment in the summer would be acceptable on the Arch grounds. I agree we should avoid new permanent structures, but it is not a cemetery.

shinpickle wrote:
all of their 'concepts' for the waters edge seem like variations of one. i guess i can live without the cobbles, but these designs are half baked.. a swimming pool .. water taxis .. water turbines and biomass .. they should have spent more money for proposals, and less on drugs for whoever made that ppt. what a joke. i still laugh at those renderings for the islands .. page 79 is comic gold!

what exactly is wrong with water turbines in the Mississippi? Or is it the riverfront specifically? I wanted to make a post about the possibility of water

turbines in the Mississippi but i thought i'd up this thread first.



does anyone know how much power the river is capable of generating? I think it would be a great idea on the surface. We can use all the "free" energy we can get.

Arch_Genesis wrote:what exactly is wrong with water turbines in the Mississippi? Or is it the riverfront specifically? I wanted to make a post about the possibility of water turbines in the Mississippi but i thought i'd up this thread first.



does anyone know how much power the river is capable of generating? I think it would be a great idea on the surface. We can use all the "free" energy we can get.

Turbines were included in one of the riverfront redevelopment plans - I thought it was a very cool idea.