urbanSTL

Well, I don't think many elderly people would want to venture out onto a thin platform floating on the Mississippi (nor might parents want small children to either), but I personally would not be afraid of something the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is looking closely at. In fact, I would assume that is part of the experience--the thrill of walking/riding a bike while hovering just above the nation's largest river.



Imagine a bike trail that stretched from North Riverfront park in North St. Louis, amidst abandoned industry and scenic rural views of the river, down to downtown, over the Mississippi River itself, and then onto the Chouteau Lake and Greenway, ending at one of the nation's largest urban parks. That is one awesome trail. I think Bike Rental kiosks would see a lot of success and might even be a tourist "must-do" while in St. Louis with such a scenic and extensive trail.



Of course, the bike trail is only a small part of the riverfront plan, but I think it's a legitimate attraction in and of itself. I'm picturing Chicago's Ohio Street beach, with hundreds of bikers and joggers tracing the contour of the lake and Lake Shore Drive in a constant flow. Replace the cluster of modern skyscrapers with the nation's coolest modernist monument as a backdrop, and you have a downtown that looks bustling for much of the day (at least in good weather).

I guess I am elderly, because I wouldn't want to walk out on one of those bridges without a good rail. And I would have a nervous breakdown if any kids were on it. One is certain to fall in and never be seen again. I am assuming that I don't really understand what they have planned.



Beyond the rails, I think the whole thing is exciting. I have never seen anything like this before.

The bridges have railings, but they are only shown in some of the renderings. The islands themselves do not, but have you every seen an island with a railing?

TheWayoftheArch wrote:All the walkways to the islands have rails, guys. Common sense would dictate that the city would not even think of the liability of leaving them off. Anyway, I went to the spiel, and they did have railings. And the islands, I think, look sizable enough that you won'tbe in danger of falling off...

In my own defense, I didn't even know that people were considering that there'd be no rails on the walkways... Hehe, no offense Expat.



Of course there will be rails. But my point was that it will still be seen as "dangerous" by older people and parents with young children, depending on the final designs.

If they think something like that is dangerous then they probably wouldn't be down there in the first place in my opinion. They will be too busy refilling their prozac and ritalin prescriptions lol.

The renderings show bridges without rails, but I figured they would have rails. But, don't worry about me. I will take my prozac and go down there, rails or not. The elderly need a little excitement, too.

Yeah I don't think older people that would be down at the landing for any reason are going to be anymore scared then anyone else. Obviously they are going to make it safe as it's a family oriented attraction. I wouldn't even worry about that angle IMO.

I assumed they would have railings too .... so I guess what I should have asked is this: why are there no railings in the renderings? I'm a little tired with this whole "rendering" bsuiness when it comes to development. What the public wants to see is how it will actually look .... not an artist's abstract interpretation or an artists fancifull wish

I like the islands, or even the serrated edges that jut out into the river, but think the bridges are a little "out there."



I'll be sure to check out your blog posting!

hmmm. Lots of interesting ideas, from what i read the island ideas could be cool, although i'm skeptical about being able to put cafes and what nots out there. Regarldess, one glaring thing comes to mind:



Isn't the cobblestone landing historic? I have no idea, but my impression was that the cobblestones have been there for over a hundred years and were the original stones upon which steam boats and laborers used to haul their goods on shore. None of the plans seem to adress their conservation in anyway, infact, according to the island proposal all of the cobblestone would be removed. To me this seems like an immense shame. I agree we need to figure some way to bring people down to the river and make things more attractiive, but i feel like the cobblestone landing is a HUGE part of St. Louis' historic legacy. Is there a way to maybe preserve the cobblestone landing while building the islands? Or atleast minimize their destruction?



The terrace idea sounds cool, but the cobblestones always seemed to me like quintessential St. Louis history and culture. Then again, am i wrong? Were the originals torn up during the Arch building? Are the existing cobblestones from recent history?

Thanks for posting these pics. This must be how the riverfront looks where the Jetson's live

I agree with Comandante. The cobblestones ARE historic. I would miss them greatly if we lose them. I realize, times change, but can't we come up with some great new ideas and still incorporate the cobblestones? And bring back the name "Wharf Street" while we're at it!



St. Louis wouldn't be here at all today if not for the Steamboat Era. Shouldn't our history be acknowledged in these proposals? Are we just gonna bulldoze-and-forget the very place that St. Louis began?



And personally, while I like the idea of getting out onto the river, those wild-and-wacky ramps are just weird.

I'm not sure how I feel about it...I'm still absorbing a lot of these renderings and ideas.



So I'm going to jump in with my preliminary thoughts. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed with the renderings. It just seems a little over the top to me. I know we want this riverfront to be a draw, but just based upon how the River is through St. Louis, it's not like a lot of other riverfronts. I think we should focus on tieing the Arch grounds to the rest of downtown, work on finding a way around the interstate to connect the rest of the city with the riverfront first.



It just seems to me that some of these ideas are trying to hard. Islands? I don't think that's a good idea because I'd rather the plans for the riverfront be more natural instead of some pseudo-beach thing. The serated edges is the most agreeable with me, it just seems the most natural.



Like I said, I'm still absorbing things, but at this point I'm just not sure that I'm really into the designs.

well I'm open to ideas and ways for bringing people down there. I think the island thing could be cool, but i probably should have been at the presentation since i'm not really sold on it. Architectural renderings always look bad ass, with plenty of people using the facilities and having a good time, whether they do it in reality tends to be the big gap. Too many projects end up being useless because they forget fundamental issues of human scale and needs (ESPECIALLY "innovative" and "avant garde" projects that get caught up in the aesthetics of the structures and forget fundamentals about how people behave).



Beyond that, if those cobblestones are indeed historic, they should definitely be saved. Since none of these proposals seem to address this, i think they need to be redrawn. Where are the historic preservationists?

I would agree with Trent. I really expected more from the design team and I am not at all sold on what has been presented. All the ideas look very nice on paper. In sketches it always looks like the space will be well used. But i don't know. For any of the designs, I see no reason for people to head down to the river. None. First off, one of the main problems with the current riverfront is the abrupt and striking difference between the riverfront and the Arch grounds. Its a long way down those too narrow steps. And the only way down is along those steps. All of the plans do little to address this. A few more paths down, but those imposing curving cement walls remain. Second, no one ventures down those stairs now unless you parked your car there. Now even the parking will be gone. The design does not mesh with the riverfronts on either end of the Arch grounds. The whole park will look horribly out of place. I just don't like it and fail to see how these designs address the fundamental flaws of the current riverfront.

I think they do have to tread on water (no pun) to keep it from being cheesy. There are enough tourists that come through that would make it look busy on most any given day. I don't want it to turn into some sort of carnival type feel though LOL. It definitely has to tie in to the arch grounds nicely, but that shouldn't be much of a problem. I agree about the tie in with downtown as well especially with the ballpark village and bottle district etc coming along.

I was also worried about the riverfront becoming our own mini version of Chicago's Navy Pier. Turning the riverfront into an exclusive tourist trap will certainly do a disservice to the river's history and connection with St. Louis.

All I read is a bunch of criticism and noboby offering any alternatives. For the record, I really like option two . . . simple and functional . . . and obviously less expensive.

I like the islands. And a possible connection to Forest Park: a future St. Louis Marathon? I also like the turbines. I haven't read everything close enough, but how could this development whether flooding in the future: let's not forget '94?



Very exciting