Book 'em Dano!dano wrote:This has been driving me crazy since the MVVA proposal was released, so I should finally say something about it.
A lot of people loved (and rightly so, I suppose) the proposal for "Cathedral Square," Sorry, it just won't happen.
OK, end of rant.
- 453
That I very true. Though I think the strong 2015 mandate given to the juror's also was very influential.... I don't know if that decision reflects "old Saint Louis" or not, but it seems to be a critical factor on MVVA's success. It would be interesting to know what the outcome would have been if the 50th Anniversary would have been in let's say 2020 or 2025 instead of 2015. But w/o that strong deadline and sense of urgency there may not have been anything really done at all.iceburg wrote:People keep blaming the "old" St. Louisan panel for picking MVVA. I might point out there was only ONE St. Louisan on the jury. The rest hailed from Boston, Portland, Chicago, and Philadelphia if memory serves.
- 11K
The deadline was a huge factor, but it would be easier to argue that the deadline is a new St. Louis instead of old St. Louis.
- 712
The Post-Dispatch used some weird words here. Building lanes onto the bridge sounds like making the bridge a little wider or maybe coverting a lane of traffic. W/M suggested a brand new bridge attached to the Poplar Street Bridge, and so did MVVA. Building lanes and building a new bridge are not the same thing.MVVA also would like to build the bicycle lanes onto the Poplar Street Bridge, a main feature of one of the other teams, Weiss/Manfredi.
Along with the boulevard, I'd like to make the point that this post-2015 bridge is extremely important. It shouldn't be abandoned or forgotten about. How is this new aviary supposed to be accessed? Eads isn't really changing, and MVVA seemed mostly unaware of the MetroLink. If the new bridge doesn't happen, then the area is still going to be rather broken.
There are a few groups that are going to be watchdogs on MVVA, but somebody needs to champion a few of the ideas that might be left out. The design details are not final, and I think everyone would like to see the Eads Bridge designs put forward by the other teams. I'd like to see all four of the downtown bridges made bikable (MLK, Eads, Poplar, and McKinley). Trailnet and GRG need to put MVVA's feet to the fire on that.
MVVA was my third choice of the five, and there's a whole lot that they are not planning to do, but that doesn't mean that they can't given the right encouragement.
- 11K
Both the Weiss-Manfredi and MVVA PSB pedestrian bridges were designed to be anchored to the PSB. That would likely be a better description than what the P-D offered.
I can see the dissappoint for big vision, stunning changes. But I don think they tackle some fundamental issues on the East side that are doable by 2015 as well as fundable
- A western new entrance!! I think this is a big issue for any visitor who comes here on a plus 90 deg day and that is a lot of visitors. Going across a magic carpet is great and good but will be soon forgotten if you sit in line on a hot muggy summer day at the current loction
- The north side garage, in my opinion it needs to go if you want to have a flow between Laclede's Landing (where parking should be in my opinio) and Arch Grounds. The design team grasps that position
- The noise mitigation hood is cute, but it does suggest that this be a temporary solution and approach from here on out is what final design will best embrace the removal of I-70. I think the design team grasps the importance of that
- The south end of the grounds is going to be tough anyway you look at. A minimal approach and the discussion from what I can tell is starting to revolve around pedesterian access via Poplar Street bridge. This a plus in my mind as greenway corridor acess should be the priority.
Too summarize my thoughts, I think the design should emphasize flow in and out of the grounds, as least on the East side, instead of more structures. St. Louis has more then enough immediate areas around the Arch Grounds that need infill and density to come back, like Lacledes Landing. The Arch Grounds like Forest Park can act as anchor for neighborhoods on top of its role as a national monument.
- A western new entrance!! I think this is a big issue for any visitor who comes here on a plus 90 deg day and that is a lot of visitors. Going across a magic carpet is great and good but will be soon forgotten if you sit in line on a hot muggy summer day at the current loction
- The north side garage, in my opinion it needs to go if you want to have a flow between Laclede's Landing (where parking should be in my opinio) and Arch Grounds. The design team grasps that position
- The noise mitigation hood is cute, but it does suggest that this be a temporary solution and approach from here on out is what final design will best embrace the removal of I-70. I think the design team grasps the importance of that
- The south end of the grounds is going to be tough anyway you look at. A minimal approach and the discussion from what I can tell is starting to revolve around pedesterian access via Poplar Street bridge. This a plus in my mind as greenway corridor acess should be the priority.
Too summarize my thoughts, I think the design should emphasize flow in and out of the grounds, as least on the East side, instead of more structures. St. Louis has more then enough immediate areas around the Arch Grounds that need infill and density to come back, like Lacledes Landing. The Arch Grounds like Forest Park can act as anchor for neighborhoods on top of its role as a national monument.
- 3,235
I am very disappointed as well. I have been trying to embrace the proposal but have a hard time finding a lot of positives. I would like to see more of an emphasis on everyday use for residents and workers not just tourists and weekend destinations. Below are my concerns with various aspects and the sustainability of the proposal….
Lid and Removal of Interstate - I know MVVA recommends the removal of I-70 but what if that doesn’t happen. The lid proposed only covers part of the depressed sections which leave at least half of it open. I am not sure how they plan on reducing the traffic lanes and creating a better connection to city and river without covering all of the depressed section.
Washington Ave is a major entry point to the Landing and riverfront. By removing this portion it could cause accessibility problems to both. The grounds and nearby areas need to be accessible by a variety of transportation modes (cars included) or it will eventually limit the amount of visitors in future years.
Eads Bridge - The proposal makes a weak attempt to reconfigure the Eads into a more walkable and bike friendly bridge. I would like to see a wider walkway for pedestrians, ample space for a bike lane, and only 2 lanes of traffic (1 in each direction). It would also be helpful if they lowered the speed limit.
The East Riverfront plans are lacking. More leisure activities to promote everyday use such as bike and walk trails to compliment the bird sanctuary. If the bird sanctuary is the only reason to visit the east side then it will evolve into a seen it once no reason to see it again destination. I don’t disagree with the bird sanctuary but it appeals to a small amount of people that would use it on a frequent basis.
Aquarium - Can we please make an attempt to place an aquarium on or near the Arch grounds. This would create another primary use and diversify the attractions.
A Water Ferry was proposed in some of the other plans as a means of getting people to enjoy both sides of the river. I think this is a great attempt to encourage people to visit both sides and would like to see it be a part of the plan selected.
South Bridge - No pedestrian access from east to west bank on the south portion of the grounds. Can we please implement pedestrian and bicycle access to both banks via the McArthur or Poplar Street bridge as proposed in a few of the other proposals?
The Cobblestone Paved Riverfront on the bank does not take into account bicycles. How are people supposed to bike on the riverfront with it being made of cobblestones. One of the great things about Lenor K Sullivan boulevard is the fact you can bike from the graffiti wall to the Landing very easily.
Everyone has said there is no budget however after the announcement was made it has become clearer that there is a watchful eye being kept on the cost of the project.
Lid and Removal of Interstate - I know MVVA recommends the removal of I-70 but what if that doesn’t happen. The lid proposed only covers part of the depressed sections which leave at least half of it open. I am not sure how they plan on reducing the traffic lanes and creating a better connection to city and river without covering all of the depressed section.
Washington Ave is a major entry point to the Landing and riverfront. By removing this portion it could cause accessibility problems to both. The grounds and nearby areas need to be accessible by a variety of transportation modes (cars included) or it will eventually limit the amount of visitors in future years.
Eads Bridge - The proposal makes a weak attempt to reconfigure the Eads into a more walkable and bike friendly bridge. I would like to see a wider walkway for pedestrians, ample space for a bike lane, and only 2 lanes of traffic (1 in each direction). It would also be helpful if they lowered the speed limit.
The East Riverfront plans are lacking. More leisure activities to promote everyday use such as bike and walk trails to compliment the bird sanctuary. If the bird sanctuary is the only reason to visit the east side then it will evolve into a seen it once no reason to see it again destination. I don’t disagree with the bird sanctuary but it appeals to a small amount of people that would use it on a frequent basis.
Aquarium - Can we please make an attempt to place an aquarium on or near the Arch grounds. This would create another primary use and diversify the attractions.
A Water Ferry was proposed in some of the other plans as a means of getting people to enjoy both sides of the river. I think this is a great attempt to encourage people to visit both sides and would like to see it be a part of the plan selected.
South Bridge - No pedestrian access from east to west bank on the south portion of the grounds. Can we please implement pedestrian and bicycle access to both banks via the McArthur or Poplar Street bridge as proposed in a few of the other proposals?
The Cobblestone Paved Riverfront on the bank does not take into account bicycles. How are people supposed to bike on the riverfront with it being made of cobblestones. One of the great things about Lenor K Sullivan boulevard is the fact you can bike from the graffiti wall to the Landing very easily.
Everyone has said there is no budget however after the announcement was made it has become clearer that there is a watchful eye being kept on the cost of the project.
- 3,428
How about an aquarium at the old Switzer Candy Building at Lucas and 1st Street (now an empty lot) stretching down to the River on the North side of Eads Bridge. Or -- could the Old Power Plant become an aquarium?
I'm surprised none of the teams proposed a potential aquarium, even if beyond 2015. Maybe they were coached not to.
I'm surprised none of the teams proposed a potential aquarium, even if beyond 2015. Maybe they were coached not to.
SOM included a local river aquarium in their post-2015 at the base of the cargill silos
- 3,428
Architecture Critic Review on Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-3 ... ssell.html
"Can skating and eco-education hope to reverse the effects of long-term economic forces and decades of wrong-headed urban renewal?
I say yes, with caveats. Punching through the physical barriers around the arch could assemble a waterfront with enough cultural critical mass to spur investment and invite the four million annual visitors to linger.
But the ear-splitting rails and roads and the enormous scale of urban decay won’t succumb to Van Valkenburgh’s modest but too tentative, prettifying approach. He must learn from his competitors and be as bold as Saarinen and Kiley were."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-3 ... ssell.html
"Can skating and eco-education hope to reverse the effects of long-term economic forces and decades of wrong-headed urban renewal?
I say yes, with caveats. Punching through the physical barriers around the arch could assemble a waterfront with enough cultural critical mass to spur investment and invite the four million annual visitors to linger.
But the ear-splitting rails and roads and the enormous scale of urban decay won’t succumb to Van Valkenburgh’s modest but too tentative, prettifying approach. He must learn from his competitors and be as bold as Saarinen and Kiley were."
- 1,218
This will be the true test for the final plan, will it successfully connect the Arch grounds to the north and south. Will a "sensuous path" be enough to spur development in Choteau's Landing? Will visitors be able to easily get to Laclede's Landing and Washington and Olive (and eventually Choteau's Landing) on foot to enjoy lunch, dinner or a drink?Van Valkenburgh hopes that closer park and neighborhood links will kindle renewal of the dignified but semi-abandoned warehouses in an ostensibly gentrifying area known as Choteau’s Landing.
The team deploys similar tactics on the north side of the arch grounds, in this case linking the arch to Laclede’s Landing. This is a warehouse and entertainment district brutalized by parking lots and two misbegotten gambling casinos, one shuttered. The tools: sensuous paths slithering around playgrounds, a river-view amphitheater, and an ecology center.
- 453
It would be nice for it to be rther routine for visitors to enjoy the Arch grounds followed by dinner at Choteau's Landing and a Cardinals game, all seamlessly connected with an inviting pedestrian experience. And the same for an Arch/ Wash Ave or North Riverfrint experience.Mark Groth wrote: This will be the true test for the final plan, will it successfully connect the Arch grounds to the north and south. Will a "sensuous path" be enough to spur development in Choteau's Landing? Will visitors be able to easily get to Laclede's Landing and Washington and Olive (and eventually Choteau's Landing) on foot to enjoy lunch, dinner or a drink?
- 6,775
The goal should basically be to turn the Arch grounds into another Forest Park. Somewhere residents of St Louis might actually go to have a picnic or other activities besides going into the Arch. It could help spur residential north and south of the grounds.
- 11K
I understand the need for better north and south connections, but shouldn't the emphasis be on connections from the west, you know, where all the people and businesses are?
I'm guessing such thoughts will come out in the refining process, although I hope said process is very transparent. It was pleasing to see the selection committee dumping all over the idea of closing Washington Ave.Alex Ihnen wrote:I understand the need for better north and south connections, but shouldn't the emphasis be on connections from the west, you know, where all the people and businesses are?
As one of the last people to have an office in Chouteau's Landing (20-some years ago), the whole "we're going to build cool stuff at that edge and it will spur development" philosophy rings hollow to me. This city has a long history of trying to spur development with public-works/civic projects, and basically *none* of them has worked.
Over and above that argument about Chouteau's Landing, the infrastructure required to make that south garage accessible to standard traffic routes seems awfully involved. What's more, the plan calls for eliminating one existing access to that side of the grounds, namely Wharf/LKS.
(An aside: In the '70s/'80s when I worked downtown, specifically when I worked for SWBT computers in the middle building of what's now the Drury complex, parking on the levee was free. And I can say from experience that several hundred people every day parked down there and walked across the Arch grounds to get to work.)
The above example notwithstanding, another fundamental flaw I see in the chosen plan is the idea that people are going to distribute some of their parking preferences for Arch visits into the area west of Fourth Street. Some portion of tourists may in fact do this, but the idea that St. Louisans are going to walk any distance ignores the local personality.
I think CS hits the nail on the head for what one of the goals for the final design should be -- making the Arch grounds more frisbee-picnic-hangin'-out-friendly. I think the redesign concept in present form is somewhat caught in between: There are any number of simple things that could be done for much less than the anticipated $300M price tag; but if they're going to spend $300M, the final plan should have elements that provide much more of a "wow" factor.
- 1,218
Of course western access is important, but I think extending the grounds and access north and south are equally important as tourists who stop by want to walk along the riverfront and may be less inclined to wander into the city toward city garden or Washington/Olive/Locust. Helping spur a vibrant riverfront north and south of the arch is something I was really looking for in all this.Alex Ihnen wrote:I understand the need for better north and south connections, but shouldn't the emphasis be on connections from the west, you know, where all the people and businesses are?
- 3,428
I completely agree. When I first visited the National Mall in front of the Capital Building in D.C., I was kind of shocked to see people playing softball on the mall, Art Fairs going on, etc. To me, it looked like they had turned this sacred place into a local city park.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:The goal should basically be to turn the Arch grounds into another Forest Park. Somewhere residents of St Louis might actually go to have a picnic or other activities besides going into the Arch. It could help spur residential north and south of the grounds.
But now I believe this is exactly the right thing to do. The National Mall is so big that, from the air, it still retains its grandeur and dignity, even while people are playing softball and having picnics on it at ground level.
The Arch grounds are big enough to work exactly the same way. From the air it can retain its current dignified relationship to the iconic Arch, while from ground level, under the trees, people are having picnics, playing softball, jogging, dining outdoors and generally filling the grounds with life, the way Forest Park does.
Alex Ihnen wrote:I understand the need for better north and south connections, but shouldn't the emphasis be on connections from the west, you know, where all the people and businesses are?
I agree. Plus how many regulars are going to be drawn by the new museum entrance? As of now that seems the only new draw from the west.
Why can't you put emphasis on design for all four directions, North, South, East and West? Recognizing that each side for its strengths and cater to those strengths. Also, why do visitors feel that they need to be able to approach from all sides let alone have parking available on each side.
- The new west entrance in my opinion is a must for visitors considering the current entrance/exit to the tram and museum as well as supportting the argument for relocating the visitors parking to an underground parking lot using the existing I-70 trench. In the same breadth, extending the hallway approach from the Gateway mall into the Arch Grounds provides the connectivity and feel of an urban core. Also, talk about a great focal point to rent a bike, get a map, and pick a direction!
- North and South must bring new emphasize and connections to their respective neighborhoods as well as embracing the continuity of the Greenway Corridor. The north side focusing on the entertainment of Laclede's Landing as well as access for Wash Ave/Downtown residents. The north parking garage is barely one step above having someone park under the Poplar Street bridge and telling them how great the city is.
- East should not only embrace the power of a big working river and its history but also embrace access to the other side. Like many people posted, the strength is in utilizing Eads and Poplar Street bridges to their fullest and giving people a destination on the east side.
- The new west entrance in my opinion is a must for visitors considering the current entrance/exit to the tram and museum as well as supportting the argument for relocating the visitors parking to an underground parking lot using the existing I-70 trench. In the same breadth, extending the hallway approach from the Gateway mall into the Arch Grounds provides the connectivity and feel of an urban core. Also, talk about a great focal point to rent a bike, get a map, and pick a direction!
- North and South must bring new emphasize and connections to their respective neighborhoods as well as embracing the continuity of the Greenway Corridor. The north side focusing on the entertainment of Laclede's Landing as well as access for Wash Ave/Downtown residents. The north parking garage is barely one step above having someone park under the Poplar Street bridge and telling them how great the city is.
- East should not only embrace the power of a big working river and its history but also embrace access to the other side. Like many people posted, the strength is in utilizing Eads and Poplar Street bridges to their fullest and giving people a destination on the east side.
- 2,929
Amen. Because right now, the Arch Grounds feel like Cameron Frye’s house:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:The goal should basically be to turn the Arch grounds into another Forest Park. Somewhere residents of St Louis might actually go to have a picnic or other activities besides going into the Arch. It could help spur residential north and south of the grounds.
That feeling is why I was initially turned off from MVVA: sure, it’s pretty, but what do you do on all that land? While I do respect that MVVA did earn the position as master planners of the development, I am still hesitant to see that their biggest idea, in my view, is for a new type of tree being planted.Ferris Bueller wrote:The place is like a museum. It’s very beautiful, and very cold, and you’re not allowed to touch anything.
Same time, I do have hopes for this on multiple angles:
1. This group is apparently the most cost-effective, meaning most likely to accomplish its objectives.
2. They are probably the best group to accommodate the closing of Depressed I-70.
3. They have full access to all the other groups’ plans and can incorporate other ideas into theirs.
With that said, I sure would love to see the Gateway Mall rebuilt to house underground parking. Talk about a stellar way to get people into Downtown and visiting the Arch Grounds at the same time.
Another thought: The City to River concept envisions new construction on land heretofore inaccessible, from which new buildings can sprout up. Who’s to say that some of the ideas for buildings on the Arch Grounds, say for those by SOM, can’t be build adjacent to the Arch? Who knows, such planning & collaboration may actually help to spur the realization of City to River’s mission and finally get that highway out of there.
I still see Choteau’s Landing as being one of the most isolated spots in any prominent City in the US. It’ll be a real hard challenge to fix that, but that's their job now, and I hope they're up to the task.
- 11K
The issue of all the passive land is not the MVVA plan, but the National Park Service dictating its use. The NPS simply will not allow a new prominent structure on the Arch grounds, or active uses outside the far north and south ends.Gone Corporate wrote:That feeling is why I was initially turned off from MVVA: sure, it’s pretty, but what do you do on all that land?
....
With that said, I sure would love to see the Gateway Mall rebuilt to house underground parking. Talk about a stellar way to get people into Downtown and visiting the Arch Grounds at the same time.
This is why City to River imagined new buildings on the west side of a new Memorial Drive after I-70 is gone. That solution avoids the NPS issue.
I do have to disagree with underground parking. It's insanely expensive, maybe $40K/parking spot depending on what's underground. Why not make the Kiener garages the main parking spot? The park includes a new Kiener and the Old Courthouse and 7th Street could become a retail corridor. MVVA identified the use of existing parking, but they also build two new garages because it was dictated that Arch dedicated parking could not be reduced.
The existing garage has 1224 spaces. The three garages proposed by MVVA will have a combined 1047 spaces. PWP has only 500 spaces ignoring their Kiener garage. Behnisch got rid of all parking.Alex Ihnen wrote:MVVA identified the use of existing parking, but they also build two new garages because it was dictated that Arch dedicated parking could not be reduced.
I'm still trying to grasp the need for parking on either the north or south end of the Arch Grounds? Is it revenue for NPS? The Arch Grounds is surrounded by a sea of parking, downtown garages and its share of empty lots.
If anything, Laclede's Landing could use as much foot traffic as possible. Instead, the north end garage facilitates visitors coming and going without ever having to leave the grounds while the Eads bricked in archways creates the feeling of a massive wall at street level between the Arch Grounds and Laclede's Landing. Sooner those items are adressed the better.
If anything, Laclede's Landing could use as much foot traffic as possible. Instead, the north end garage facilitates visitors coming and going without ever having to leave the grounds while the Eads bricked in archways creates the feeling of a massive wall at street level between the Arch Grounds and Laclede's Landing. Sooner those items are adressed the better.
- 11K
Many, if not all the Eads bricked in archways are false arches - they have never been open and significant structural reinforcement would need to occur to open them. Regarding parking, the exact number wasn't dictated, but the need for dedicated parking was. Looking at the jury report, it was considered a negative by the jury and NPS is parking was reduced in any significant way.