urbanSTL

Can you restate exactly the question you want answered? The problem sometimes is that there's no good answer. I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but if someone asks, "What's the story with the screen in the Post Office Plaza, who planned it and if it was supposed to be a movie screen and it doesn't work as such then whose fault is it and how much money was wasted." See how no one's going to want to answer that?

"What's the story with the screen in the Post Office Plaza?"

It's not useful as a movie screen.

"Who planned it?"

The Gateway Foundation, among others.

Was it supposed to be a movie screen and why doesn't it work as such

Yes it was planned that way but due to cost overruns cuts had to be made and cheaper materials had to be used. This resulted in a screen that is not suitable for movie projection. As an alternative movies are now shown on an inflatable screen. Because the screen was also planned to block the ugly side of the Orpheum Theater as part of the overall Plaza design it was built anyway.

Whose fault is it and how much money was wasted?"

It's no one's fault, really. It turned out that the cleanup and removal of old foundations cost a lot more time and money than anticipated. No public money was wasted.

See how no one's going to want to answer that?

I just did. But that's because we're friends! Any more questions Loftman?

The point wasn't to get The Count to answer - though I'm sure you know what you're talking about. It was to get someone who actually helped build the thing and maintain it.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Can you restate exactly the question you want answered? The problem sometimes is that there's no good answer. I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but if someone asks, "What's the story with the screen in the Post Office Plaza, who planned it and if it was supposed to be a movie screen and it doesn't work as such then whose fault is it and how much money was wasted." See how no one's going to want to answer that?

"What's the story with the screen in the Post Office Plaza? Was it was supposed to be a movie screen? The early drawings made it seem that way. Are there still plans to use it as such? If not, why was it changed? Seemed like a good idea to me."

ETA: Looks like The Count answered it. Which brings up the next question - can it be retrofitted to work? And if so, how much would it cost?? The portable screen has pretty much been a fail.

loftman wrote:EVERYONE email the downtown partnership i did about the screen but no one ever gets back to me.THE first to get a response post it here , THE president & CEO Maggie ,Campbell 1.314.436.6500 ext 224 also here her email. mcampbell @downtstl.org. LET's put that $170.000 a year to work

I initially responded to this post from Loftman. Hence my posts about the screen. I'll leave the lights and maintenance issues to others, c.q. The Partnership.

clellchatman wrote:I actually think the screen is functional simply because it is beautiful. It is quite a bit more attractive than the side of the theater also.

Agreed.

Plus, the top of the ramp is one of my favorite vantage points from which to see the buildings downtown. The view to the southeast is truly amazing. That great nuanced experience simply wouldn't exist in the same way if it weren't for the ramp/screen.

Clearly, video projection is merely one aspect (and possibly not the most important) behind the screen's design.

While they may have done a few good things this isn't one of them and neither is City Garden. The Gateway Foundation are the same clique of old idiots that have been destroying our City for decades. Maybe now it's not Twain or 80's office buildings, but these philanthropists must realize our City isn't dirty and does not need more open space. Why are they stuck in the City Beautiful movement? If they spent their money on rehabs or promoting new construction we wouldn't have such dead sidewalks. Simply because someone offers money does not render merit. We don't need the Gateway Mall. We need new buildings. But these people are not living downtown or in the City so perhaps we should forgive their misdirection.

Doug wrote:We don't need the Gateway Mall. We need new buildings.

Great. Why don't you build some?

We don't need new buildings. We've got a glut of space in the city. We need new jobs.

Moorlander wrote: So a generous family donates a boat load of money with the intent on making our city a better place and you criticise them for it!? You make me sick. You are no different than the crazies on the stltoday.com comments.

Really? So what about Twain? Intent might be great but that doesn't mean these are good planning outcomes. The Post Office Plaza is a huge failure while continuing the Gateway Mall concept won't be successful either. We do not have enough population to use these open spaces and to suggest that they will bring new residents ignores that this has been the strategy for more than several decades to no avail. If the Gateway Foundation wanted to truly create an impact then it should do more of the lighting our buildings, venture into rehab, and less of the "we need breathing space in our dirty crowded city" plaza-building agenda. The Sun Theater, Mullanphy, Turnverein, and Admiral desperately need attention. They say more about our once-grand St. Louis City than any Pinocchio or large rabbit ever will. Supporting these important structures will bring residential insofar at least we have proof that people do move here for our unique housing and history.

If they actually want the Gateway Mall to work then yes it does require new active mixed use on and around it. Simply because people are not building them now does not matter. How many projects around the country were once underutilized then developed through planning for that development? Why is this an alien idea? Perhaps because that simply isn't a possibility as the Gateway Mall has been driven down our throats since before most of us were zygotes? I'm sorry if I prefer deliberative planning instead of "we're rich take it and like it." They do not own our City, though they may own Slay. I guess that's enough.

There are quite a few very good points here. Our white-haired leaders do seem to be very much in the " "we need breathing space in our dirty crowded city" plaza-building agenda." The seem to think it's 1960 and everyone who left the city will come back if we can just find the cure for why they left. It's all so wrong.

Doug wrote: The Post Office Plaza is a huge failure.

Says WHO? You? It's clearly way too early to decide. The Tower isn't even finish let alone occupied. Additionally, the restaurant hasn't opened which means it hasn't even had a chance to enliven the plaza with outdoor dining. Logical folks wait to see how things unfold before making such a bold judgement.

I'm sorry if I prefer deliberative planning instead of "we're rich take it and like it."

There is NO planning more deliberate than the Gateway Mall. You just don't like the concept (or execution). Big difference.

More important....

Doug, public space is very important to a city. All great world class cities have great public spaces. Unfortunately, with the invention of something called "the automobile", meaningful public space has all but disappeared from American culture. With that in mind, for you to continually bash things designed inherently FOR the pedestrian is simply vexing.

...And just to beat you to the punch...drop the rhetoric about horrific, shameful demolitions. We all understand the examples and mostly agree with your sentiments. However, that argument does nothing to address the lack of suitable public space in current American society. Building OPO Plaza does. The space should be commended for increasing the pedestrian realm, rather than criticized for some tangential beef with St. Louis's lack of historical reverence.

The Gateway Mall was an entirely top-down decision. The Gateway Foundation sponsored plan unveiled in 2007 did not have any public input. I asked one of the planners about new construction and he became quite agitated. The concept is the continuation of an outdated City Beautiful idea. Short term success at City Garden does not negate that we had occupied, historic buildings not very long ago. They were demolished in order to follow this agenda and so some downtown barons (who obviously didn't live downtown) could make some money -- much of which was at the public's expense. I don't understand why we're settling for open space when we once had a much higher use. The buildings were not falling down. Some people with little connection to our City decided a better use was appropriate despite people wanting rehabilitation. It all came down to those with money and power making the decision. This is why I do not give much respect to our leaders in St. Louis: they've been at the helm for decades. We can blame suburbia, racism, and you know I do!, but they definitely should be held accountable for the decline on their watch. You wouldn't see City to River's plan promoted if not for some people who had the balls to suggest it. I still worry it won't happen. These people don't see the problems with our downtown otherwise we wouldn't be building so many ***** garages.

OPO does not amplify the public realm. It is inhumane concrete, not even permeable, and entirely too large for the amount of residents living around it. Certainly the car had an impact upon our City, yet also does building parks under the argument that were planning for densities when in fact, at the same time, our agenda happens to promote parking garages and the opposite of residency. Simply because it is designed for pedestrians does not mean we should support it. I'm sorry but OPO has bad timing and design. Moreover, again, this could have easily been the site of the "much needed" Century Garage. If I am beating a dead horse well sorry. The Century Building had 1000 times the class than this banal plaza which only radiates heat. Or maybe after the Robert's Brothers actually get residents then land values could rise as other projects come online. At that point perhaps we could use a plaza or maybe someone could build mixed use here?

Parks and public space are great. I use them at least twice a week. But I would much rather have crowded sidewalks before we decide St. Louis has a shortage and needs more. Even if OPO had improved design it still wouldn't matter. Downtown needs more construction which would actually support our existing inventory before we decided to add more. If we reduced parking that might convince people to move downtown and use the public spaces we constantly build for them. We don't have enough residents to justify demolition of our historic buildings for parks. The inherent problem with your argument: enliven the plaza. We shouldn't need programing if demand really existed.

I guess they figured this would help sell the Alexa and Arcade but that is the problem! We shouldn't market urban living with a park, plaza, or parking attached to every building. That isn't a City. We already have a ton and what's the utility of a dead plaza except to reinforce we are not a living City? The City needs to decide which to keep and which to develop into higher uses, not where to build more. But I think think they are too focused on again drawing people back from the County instead of drawing people from bigger cities. If you came from a big City and looked at this plaza around 5PM you would ask why is this here as it's dead.

Doug wrote:The concept is the continuation of an outdated City Beautiful idea.

It all came down to those with money and power making the decision. This is why I do not give much respect to our leaders in St. Louis: they've been at the helm for decades. We can blame suburbia, racism, and you know I do!, but they definitely should be held accountable for the decline on their watch. You wouldn't see City to River's plan promoted if not for some people who had the balls to suggest it. I still worry it won't happen. These people don't see the problems with our downtown otherwise we wouldn't be building so many f***ing garages.

Very, very true. It's incredible that we continue to let the same people guide our city's future. I mean, the Convention Center and dome didn't work out as they said it would. Laclede's Landing is a disaster, the Gateway Mall isn't much better, jobs are leaving downtown. It truly is time for someone else to start making decisions. How much worse could they do?

Regarding OPO - so much of a park's or any open space's success is do to programming. This is the area that needs to be focused on. I like OPO because it shows that we were planning for the future downtown (when hopefully it's more densely populated and there are more jobs). It's also great to see something other than the gateway that can serve as a civic living room. OPO's been imperfect so far, but we'll see.