^ Excellent - thanks for posting. This is exactly the type of conversation that needs to be happening here now. If not, we'll have to wait another 50 years. I wish 70 from the Arch to N. Broadway were gone and 40 from downtown to the city limits were again a parkway.
So we agree that ripping out the depressed section will ADD 50,000 vehicles daily to a reconfigured Memorial Drive, or force vehicles to cross both bridges to make a 70-55 connection. I'm not so sure a "Lakeshore Drive" type at-grade roadway would be better than covering the depressed section. Have you ever crossed Lakeshore Drive? Eight lanes with traffic at near interstate speeds (and frankly, making access to the lakeshore more difficult than what we have on our riverfront). Calming the traffic on Memorial with that kind of volume would not work. And sending the traffic over both bridges would nullify the expected gain in capacity (4 new lanes on the coupler).
A better solution would be to put the elevated 70 section underground, but Metro's Ead's feed makes a fairly deep tunnel mandatory (cut and cover not a likely option).
Believe me, I would like nothing more than to reconnect the riverfront with the CBD by eliminating the depressed/elevated I-70 section... I just can't fathom how it can work when 70,000 vehicles daily use the route.
^Aren't there tunnels under LSD to connect to the Lake? If Memorial Drive is reconfigured as a parkway it should be simple to connect the Old Courthouse with the Arch Grounds via a tunnel. If the new river bridge ever gets built all that extra dirt could fill in the depressed section.
Qualifier - I stay out of all things political, and I neither intend nor want this to turn into a political debate.
Regarding paying for the bridge: Would it be feasible (or even possible) to set up a special "tax zone", much like is being done in the Ballpark Village, along the I-70 corridor? Additional taxes could be levied on gas, and maybe food and/or hotels within, say, one mile of the highway.
Businesses in that zone would likely get a sizable chunk of their revenue from I-70 commuters. This way, those who use the highway would help to cover the cost of a new bridge w/o levying a bridge toll.
If you wanted to get even more granular, you could hike the tax on diesel more to target OTR shipping vehicles, and maybe even exempt E85 fuel from the hike to encourage use of a regionally produced fuel.
IMO, a targeted tax would provide revenue to build the bridge while being less overt (and thus more palatable) than a toll.
I do understand that suggesting a tax increase is often career suicide for politicians, and that may kill this idea before it has a chance, but if money *has* to be raised somehow, this could help w/o pissing off the Illinoisians.
4 Remove the depressed and elevated sections of I-70 downtown
5 Watch St. Louis thrive!
I would support some type of bridge if the depressed section of 70 would be removed. That is a fair compromise, at least for Missouri/St. Louis. In exchange no tolls for Illinois.
brickandmortar wrote:^Aren't there tunnels under LSD to connect to the Lake? If Memorial Drive is reconfigured as a parkway it should be simple to connect the Old Courthouse with the Arch Grounds via a tunnel. If the new river bridge ever gets built all that extra dirt could fill in the depressed section.
Exactly...pedestrians use both bridges and tunnels to cross LSD to the lake. At-grade pedestrian crossings are the rule next to Grant Park, however, and are just frightening. Why would we want a Memorial drive with twice the traffic it has now? I just don't see this plan as an improvement over covering the depressed section. Memorial Drive would become an at-grade monster if the depressed section was 86'ed.
The depressed section needs to stay, but instead of the caps on the openings, the current above ground roads and intersections should be moved directly above the road below and the overall width of the road structure be reduced greatly. With a much smaller width and well designed stop light timing, it would seperate the two sides much less.
^Nice - I like that idea. If the roads were left in the current configuration and 70 was capped, the rectangular areas of greenspace would be dead. Who would chose to spend any time in a glorified traffic island?
I think several years ago Joe Edwards said Memorial should be a 'Delmar like' streetscape, with development on both sides. Logistically, this would work, as foundations could be sunk into earth where roadways exist now. What developer would not jump at this location?
Could you imagine morning shopping under the shadow of The Arch? We have to find some way to get walkable retail back into the mix... what better location is there DT? Plenty of parking at Arch garage. And a way to develop critical mass in the immediate riverfront area... Wish the elevated section could go underground. It could be our own Mag. Mile.
Well, if Boston can get $10B, why can't StL get 2 bills for a bridge and covering 70 from 40 to Cass? Imagine ONSL connected down to the Power Plant, Lumiere Place and Laclede's Landing connected to downtown . . .
How much land, width wise, are we talking about here. If the street were cut in half and the openings capped, how much of that would become buildings. I know this is all in our minds, but I doubt there would be more than 30 feet (deep) for a row of buildings.
And what would happen to the old cathedral, would it just be behind a row of buildings?
Looks close to 150' to me. I'd say leave a bit of a plaza to the west of the Old Cathedral. I think putting a row of low retail would be possible. Of course it would take vision . . . oh well.
Hmm, well there are three basic ways to divide up Memorial drive.
1. Shift the combined memorial drive in both directions eastward, creating a space adjacent to the existing buildings along Memorial drive, where likely new low rise construction could take place.
2. Shifting the combined roadway westward, creating a space along the Park where new low-rise construction could take place (I don't think you could get the NPS on board with building more than 10 stories in that area).
3. Leaving Memorial drive in each direction roughtly where they are now and using the proposed "cap" area to instead building some new towers. This is the idea I like the best.
Using google earth, the cap area appears to be approximatly 70 feet wide and about 285 feet long. Of course, along the current airwells, there are no sidewalks, so some of that area would be eaten up for new wide sidewalks. And then there is the question of how many lanes of traffic in each driection would be needed to handel the new road vollume. Finnaly, on-street parking to support the retail and make the area more lively would be great as well, but that too would eat up more room for new construction. Maybe someone who has a good idea of the travel lanes needed (and the width of such lanes, seems like they are 11 feet now) could give us all a good idea of how such a layout could work well.
Or as a much cheaper option, just convert existing NB Memorial Drive to a bi-directional road between Walnut and Pine. Due to its width, I imagine only one SB lane and two NB lanes to still have dedicated turn lanes and on-street parking on at least the west side, if not both sides. Still cap the block between Market and Chestnut as open space, thus a continuous park between 4th and NB Memorial, since SB Memorial would be vacated between Chestnut and Market. However, build structures over the blocks north and south of then only a one-block lid. As such, present SB Memorial could be narrowed to an alley if needed on the those blocks along the Adam's Mark and Gateway Tower. I like this idea because then new, narrow buildings with street-level activity could be built in front of today's buildings (Adam's Mark and Gateway Tower) that have dead street levels or blank wall faces along present-day Memorial Drive yet neither block the Arch/Old Cathedral from Memorial nor build on the one-block lid between the Old Courthouse and the Arch.
Traffic exiting EB I-70 to Memorial Drive would have to turn right (likely changed to dual right as primary movement) onto Pine as today or a new left if wanting to go to Memorial Drive (present-day NB Memorial). Traffic exiting NB I-55 to Memorial Drive would travel much like it does today but make left turns onto Market and Pine from a two-way Memorial on those blocks. Traffic wishing to go onto WB I-70 from Memorial would travel much like it does today too, just on a two-way street between Walnut and Pine, picking up the added on-ramp lane north of Pine. Traffic wishing to go onto SB I-55 from Memorial Drive from Walnut would be the same as today, but from Chesnut would have to go down the two-way section of Memorial to Walnut and back over to present-day SB Memorial Drive. Traffic to/from the PSB would be eliminated as planned following the rerouting of I-70 to the MLK (EB) and new coupler (WB) bridges.
In summary, NB Memorial would become two-way between Walnut and Pine. Pine and Walnut would each then need to become two-way only between present-day NB and SB Memorial Drives. As a result, present-day SB Memorial Drive could be completely vacated between Chestnut and Market for an extended park east, and reduced to an alley, if not also vacated, along side the Adam's Mark and Gateway Tower to build new buildings north and south of the one-block lid in line with the Old Courthouse.
^Looking at the width available, it does look like only one side of a four lane Memorial could be developed. West side is the logical choice. Keeping greenspace in the center block makes sense, as it would preserve the east-west linear vista toward The Arch. Development north and south of that would be great. The bases of One Memorial (KMOV) and Adams Mark are quite ugly and mostly windowless anyway. I could see 2-3 story development with retail on ground floor and office or residential above. Rear service via alley between current buildings and new construction should be possible. The Millenium would lose views from pool and restaurant areas on first couple of floors, but could also expand eastward into the new area (how about a main entrance on the east side instead of current entrance?) Not sure how Mansion House would be impacted... what is on the first 2-3 floors there? Anybody know?
^The first floors of the Mansion House complex (Crowne Plaza, Mansion House, Gentry's Landing) along Memorial are structured parking. I'd love to see new linear buildings in front of this complex as well, but the ramps to/from I-70 make it more difficult than in front of Adam's Mark and Gateway Tower/One Memorial (KMOX/KMOV). I could see these two new blocks of buildings as short as 4 stories, so that upper levels of buildings now fronting Memorial Drive would still have views on their upper levels. The important thing for these new buildings built north and south of only a one-block lid east of the Old Courthouse, is that they have active street-levels, especially fronting the new center block lid and the Archgrounds.
I never understood why we'd waste $200 million on a three-block lid, when the northern and southern blocks of open space would end up looking at the dead street walls of Adam's Mark and Gateway Tower/One Memorial. So then, keep the center block as open space, but let the private sector build the north and south blocks of the three-block lid as truly active spaces.
If we follow southsliders basic plan, with a removed I-70 through downtown, wouldn't we have even more room to work with north and south along Memorial drive. Downtown could get development stretching from Washington to Spruce along Memorial . St. Louis is lacking in "Flatiron buildings". With the afore-mentioned ally, this would be a great solution to that problem. That combined with a major round-about with fountians and a statue at the intersection of Washington, Eads, and Memorial, that stretch of downtown along memorial could be come an amazing space and a great opertunity to rebuild the face of downtown.
^And I think this may be more/at least as important then the riverfront itself. Having an appealing riverfront is nice, but not if there's not connection it. I think we need a lid/other pedstrian connections all the way from Spruce to Carr.
^ No doubt. Looking up and down that corridor you can find more and more great development spots. The parking lot in the southwest corner of the landing that would now face out on a thriving Washington and Memorial intersection, new developable land next to the Casino, better connections for any BD develoment that might come. The list goes on and on.
I would much rather see the City use the developable value of the memorial drive land to pay for either some of the new MRB expenses or pay for upgrades to the riverfront itself. The land has value and the City and state need money. Let step up it and use!
JMed, I agree that ripping out I-70 remains appealing. I was only offering a compromise that at a minimum, the three-block lid of all open space as currently proposed should at least change to allow private development on the northern and southern blocks.
Another compromise between ripping out I-70 and building the lid I always question is whether you could in effect do both. Leave the depressed section and build more than just open space on its "lid," but still rip out the elevated section of I-70 between just north of Pine and the MLK bridges. That way, you wouldn't need the I-70 ramps to/from Memorial, have room to build linear buildings along the Mansion House complex in the space of present-day SB Memorial, and still build your classic, giant traffic circle at Washington Avenue and the Eads Bridge. In effect, the depressed section would become an extended exit to the Washington Circle to/from I-55. That way, I-44/55 traffic wishing to head to Market or Pine would still exit to Memorial, but then a bi-directional Memorial (present-day NB piece) north of Walnut. But I-44/55 traffic wishing to head to I-70 would take the extended exit to Washington Circle (or likely more of a north-south elipse to squeeze into the space and handle the heavier north-south traffic), continuing onto a new multi-way boulevard north of the Circle to I-70 ramps at Cole and the MLK bridges.
Okay, I admit this is becoming a lot to visualize. I promise to play with an aerial of I-70 from Biddle (MLK Coupler) to the PSB and then post a picture on here soon to help show what I'm saying. In fact, I'll try doing one version with I-70 completely ripped out, and the other with a joint-development lid over the depressed section but elevated section still ripped out. But JMed, even before I play with aerials, I think the benefit of keeping the depressed section piece will be a narrower Memorial and thus new linear buildings are most feasible in keeping more traffic below-grade in such scenario. That's because completely ripping out I-70 would likely necessitate a wider boulevard akin to Lakeshore Drive, and hence less room to build along the blank street walls of present-day SB Memorial.
Removing I-70 is rather unlikely, and if it is to stay a "cut and cover" approach could easily move the roads from either side of it directly above it, as the "cut" portion is already present. The "cover" portion of the work could be done fairly rapidly as a cement support structure if primarily made off site could be assembled onsite at high speed.
Private development is never going to be allowed directly above any of these roadway infrastructure sections. So by instead consolidating the space required for the roads, the maximum amount of salvageable land will be produced and concurrently allowing for the most city like feel. A street instead of a divided roadway. Instead of full buildings for construction minimal glass and steel structures only up to three stories tall could allow reconfigurable shopping, museums or other attractions to be built on the fairly narrow spaces produced. It would be enough though to give a feeling of connection between the city and the arch grounds.
^ Maybe unlikely and certianly more expensive, but to simply nix a more elaborate plan because our leaders lack the vision and determination to think bigger about what memorial drive can be and the tremendous value in both people and positive news that such development brings is foolish. Explore all the options and figure out what is best. Don't settle for the cheap and easy (caps) when we should be looking at all options.
