What a massive blow. All that excitement and then...this.

So disappointed...they do nothing to create excitement. It's just a minor face-lift, not a dramatic step forward.

Moorlander wrote:What a massive blow. All that excitement and then...this.

My thoughts exactly. I am SO disappointed in how this turned out. I thought SOM, W/M, or Benisch were shoe-ins for sure.

Mill204 wrote:

Gone Corporate wrote:How does this team compare to the others if we take I-70 removal into the equation?

Only the Behnisch and PWP team proposals would have gotten in the way of removing I-70 for an urban boulevard. As I summarized on my blog last week, the other three teams leave Memorial Drive as is... mostly.

I'm reserving full judgement on MVVA's proposal until after I get the chance to listen to their jury presentation (Alex, do you have links to the jury presentations of the other 4 teams?). Otherwise, I don't get the backlash to their winning selection that in my mind was at least in the top three. From reading all the narratives, it seems people are simply upset they were bold enough in there pre-2015 ideas. Either that, or people are upset there weren't another 50 pages of pretty pictures and renderings.

The backlash is probably due to the fact that this proposal was one of the weaker ones on the programming side.

I think all of the designs had merit, from a feasibility standpoint this is probably more workable than the others. But it ranked 4 out of 5 for me.

The thing everyone needs to remember is what gets built is going to be different than what you see on the boards (look no further than the first competition and Saarinen’s original design as evidence.

Also remember that the selection committee has intellectual rights to all the designs, elements from other entries that reinforce the overall mission of the winner could show up in the final product.

Alex Ihnen wrote:I'll have a few more thoughts later when I get some time.

Too busy being interviewed for the lead story on Channel 5, huh Mr. "Urbanstl.com"?

I'd prefer a Boulevard to a lid, but I guess the developers have to work that out.

The Post-Dispatch gave you guys credit as well.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 2bc8b.html

Some top notch reporting on this site.

This is the most disappointed I have been with anything in Saint Louis in quite some time. What a lost chance to make something inspiring.

Urbanstl got a mention in Chicago Tribune.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com ... arch-.html

I get the feeling that the jury had a scoring criteria up front, such as connection to the city, respect for Saarinen/Kiley original design, etc., that they used to score each team. The team that best mathes the scoring criteria wins. The only problem with this type of system is that it doesn't give credit for new ideas the award team had not already thought of upfront, such as Memorial Boulevard, which is why nobody had it in their base proposal. I assume juries also look at the team and the team's track record as much as their specific proposal, and MVVA has a great reputation in similar waterfront and landscaping renovations.

I've always said I could accept any of the five proposals. The MVVA design has some very nice things -- like Cathedral Square, and the new Arch garage under Luther Ely Smith park, which means visitors will start their experience in the middle of downtown, and end it there. They also want visitors to use the abundance of existing downtown parking garages that bring them into downtown and keep them there for a while. They also advocate remote ticketing with time stamps, so a visitor can buy his Arch tram ticket at Luther Ely Smith park, see that he has 2 hours to wait, and then go wander downtown until he needs to get to the Arch.

They aslo have a nice understated but visible entrance from the West to the expanded underground museum. Their design respects the Kiley landscape vision and makes it more accessible with walkways, and replaces ash trees with Kiley's desired tulip trees. It is also kind of nice to keep a cobblestone riverfront where people can walk down and interact with the water the entire length of the park, but it will be interesting to see when and if that reshaping of the current cobblestones happens in the five year period.

Their design also repsects Eads Bridge and opens all the original arches into Laclede's landing, although I'm not sure how car traffic will flow through the Landing with Washington Blvd no longer running along side the brigde to the water. Although they close Sullivan Wharf street in their plans, I'm not sure why it couldn't remain in some new form even with their design, and it may need to be accessible to emergency vehicles. Their proposal for a Beer garden on the South is a must for St. Louis and probably got them a checkmark on the scoring criteria.

East side access and plans are a little weak, which could dampen funding enthusiasm from Illinois. But the East side plans from the other four finalist looked very ambitious, very expensive, and not doable in five years.

MVVAs design may be the only one that could be entirely compelete in five years, but it will be interesting to see what gets prioritized first to make sure it is complete by the anniversary. So I think it came down to, what did the foundation say that it wanted and who best matched up with that scoring criteria. And who had a track record for landscape renewal. Overall, I'm OK with MVVA.

WOW. How depressing is this selection? what was even the point of the competition? they could have hired Joe Blow MissouRAH to come up with this plan. This looks like something that Cape Girardeau would do. just when I thought St. Louis was thinking BIG again. something to match the internationally recognized gateway arch, we come up with something that will attract ZERO additional people. and the "farmers market" on the waterfront. sounds like a lame attempt at being modern and fresh..wow..

I can understand that over photoshopped images are often pie in the sky, but this plan is just pathetic. it's like save the money, and don't even bother. who in the HELL would go to a farmers market along the riverfront?! The one on Post-Office Plaza is barely surviving.. adjacent to ALL of the downtown residents. and the cutesy "natural water waterways" look around the ponds, which clearly fly in the face of the original arch grounds 1960's design. Removing the garage, where TONS of downtown workers park, is ridiculous too. Now the Landing will have an even HARDER time attracting office tenants.. this is a cheap alternative for workers east of 70...

All in all, this brings NO MORE PEOPLE downtown... truly a missed opportunity. here's to keeping it as is until funds are available to do something good. CLEARLY there's no way we could build the Arch today...One thing i just saw, I actually DO like the new entrance and expanded museum but that's IT. why can't they do an amphitheater facing the arch? talk about a place SECOND to Redrocks.. maybe even better. what wasted potential.. there are plenty of "Green pathways that can be built in other areas. a metroride to the eastside for concerts is CLEARLY possible.

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," and in fact called it one of the strong points of the design. But the reason no other team did anything with that parking lot is that nothing CAN be done with that parking lot. The church owns the lot, and has been fighting with the NPS for years about it - both parties want the other to give up land. The church wants more parking, and the NPS wants the land as park space. Neither has budged for decades. And the church will certainly not budge to provide a European-style outdoor cafe, no matter how sexy the proposal makes it look. Sorry, it just won't happen.

OK, end of rant.

dano wrote:But the reason no other team did anything with that parking lot is that nothing CAN be done with that parking lot.

SOM and Weiss/Manfried are the only 2 teams that left the cathedral site and parking alone. Behnisch and PWP both eliminated the cathedral's parking lot. MVVA put their "cathedral square" where the parking lot is now, but they still included the same amount of parking behind the square.