Share
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 12, 2006#401

Tell me the aquarium quote isn't true. I sincerely thought that aquariums were an early 90's pseudo solution to increase tourism. They are amazingly expensive to operate (not to mention it would be somewhat competing with a FREE zoo).



The aquarium in the 'Nati (Newport) drew 1.2 million visitors the first year, but numbers fell to half after four years. Plus, Cincinnati can draw from Indianapolis (1.5 hrs & 1 million people), Columbus (1.5 hrs & ~2 million?), Dayton, Lexington, Louisville . . . Since I've moved to StL I've realized why I never visited - it's 5, almost 6 hrs from home. Not only was Indy closer, so was Columbus, Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit and nearly Nashville. The point is that the StL doesn't have the population to draw from for an aquarium to make sense - or maybe I just don't like aquariums.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostSep 12, 2006#402

Alonzo P Hawk wrote:I was reading my notes today from Entrepreneurship class last Thursday, and Kevin McGowan's speech, and he also said that in the 81 story building will also be a state of the art aquarium, "which is what downtown is really, really lacking."


Fantastic! Early renderings of the BPV had space for an Aquarium, but later renderings I have seen have been more ambiguous. Maybe now it's back, or maybe he's doing it on his own.
1,510
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,510

PostSep 12, 2006#403

maybe they could brainstorm on how to better utilize the green space around the arch


A true, european style beer garden would be great. Thursdays-Sundays. Maybe on the north side of the green space, where there is alot of tree cover.
1,355
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,355

PostSep 12, 2006#404

The issue of the Arch ground has been debated for years but some of the conditions in downtown are changing for the first time since the debate began. It is a Memorial and not a park. The National Park Service is only interpreting legistlation...legislation that will have to be amended.



Isn't there a compromise somewhere between a cemetery-like place and some other place like the National Mall in DC?
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 12, 2006#405

Althought I don't think we'll see a beer garden on the park grounds any time soon, a vibrant Landing, waterfront improvements, capping 70 and providing any kind of pedestrian connection south of 40 would make the place more vibrant.
2,828
Life MemberLife Member
2,828

PostSep 12, 2006#406

Tell me the aquarium quote isn't true. I sincerely thought that aquariums were an early 90's pseudo solution to increase tourism. They are amazingly expensive to operate (not to mention it would be somewhat competing with a FREE zoo).



The aquarium in the 'Nati (Newport) drew 1.2 million visitors the first year, but numbers fell to half after four years. Plus, Cincinnati can draw from Indianapolis (1.5 hrs & 1 million people), Columbus (1.5 hrs & ~2 million?), Dayton, Lexington, Louisville . . . Since I've moved to StL I've realized why I never visited - it's 5, almost 6 hrs from home. Not only was Indy closer, so was Columbus, Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit and nearly Nashville. The point is that the StL doesn't have the population to draw from for an aquarium to make sense - or maybe I just don't like aquariums.


Not sure what you are trying to say here..?

St. Louis has close to 3 million people.

Not to mention, Chicago, KC, Memphis, Indy, Nashville and numerous other cities are within 3-5 hours drive (no more).

In addition, St. Louis has an incredible zoo/museum tax funding program. The St. Louis Zoo, The Art Museum, and St. Louis Science Center, and not to mention The Gateway Arch have some of the highest attendance levels in the country.
212
Junior MemberJunior Member
212

PostSep 12, 2006#407

Downtown St. Louis is a perfect location for an aquarium. To their credit, management from the St. Louis Zoo has also been very available and has offered to operate an aquarium, so they can compliment each other without competing. An aquarium will cost approximately $12 million dollars per year to operate and they cost somewhere between $750 and $1,000 per sq. ft. to build (probably $175 - $200 million) - but an aquarium is a great urban investment since it is such a huge regional destination and can activate a downtown area during difficult hours (school field trips during the late morning and early afternoon - tourists and visitors all day long). Just ask Baltimore what the inclusion of an aquarium to their inner harbor redevelopment provided. The development of an aquarium will only be as successful as its planning and design - a portion of the reason why the Baltimore aquarium has enjoyed such long lasting success.
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 12, 2006#408

I am a firm believer in strength in numbers....And just as I believe it would be way better for our region.... to have all of our casinos in one walkable area...to have clayton and dt as one....etc



I think if we were going to have an aquarium, why not incorporate it with the zoo on the zoo grounds... ?
1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostSep 12, 2006#409

I'm not a big Aquarium fan - but I agree that it could be somethig special IF the zoo - and hopefully the botanical gardens - get involved. They have world class preservation and research arms that gain them international prestige (and funding). If the Aquarium could be likewise supported .. it would make sense (and it would jive pretty well with St. Louis' expertise in natural-livign sceinces) ..... if its just a collection of water life for tourists, then I think it falls on its face. In short - I think it needs to have a well developed academic, reserahc and preservation arm ...
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostSep 12, 2006#410

bpe235 wrote:I think if we were going to have an aquarium, why not incorporate it with the zoo on the zoo grounds... ?


Probably lack of space. So they would need a few acres of FP to build it. And then listen to the whiners scream!
1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostSep 12, 2006#411

And I also agree that I would rather have it by the zoo .... where they would squezze it in I have no idea but that would be preferable



and I also agree that St. Louis would be much better off if if kept its attractions bunched. How cool would this city be if they KEPT the entire world's fair setup and then turned them into our musueams and opera houses. We could have a mini (and arguably grander) smithsonian like attraction .... why they ever tore all those buildigns down boggles the mind (or rather - why they didn;t build them permanent in the first place boggles the mind). we could have had the opera house, the science center, the history museaum, the aquarium, the art museaum and god kknows what else right nextto each other and centered around a beautifull lagoon.



No foresight st. louis - no foresight ....



and why not bunch casinos on the landing. Might be a real draw for tourists if we could offer three or four withiin walkign distance ... now you have one every sixty miles ...

PostSep 12, 2006#412

and my ultimate st. louis fantasy ... legalize pot in certain well defined districts - take the money and build a proper subway .... not going to happen i know - but one can dream.

PostSep 12, 2006#413

I've shared too much ....



ten years ago though - could you have imagined casino being legal
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 12, 2006#414

markofucity wrote:and my ultimate st. louis fantasy ... legalize pot in certain well defined districts - take the money and build a proper subway .... not going to happen i know - but one can dream.


so off topic...but st. louis would surely see an influx in population...Tons of artsy theatre types would grace those districts...although that would just make our city more lazy and fat
1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostSep 12, 2006#415

maybe we could force everyone found eating munchies at three am to live in the newly christened "skinny" district for a few weeks



seriously though ... i've always wondered how alaska was able to keep their allowance for 1 - 2 private plants .. i assume they can;t be sold (cause then the feds would march in under the commerce clause) ...



i seriously think that in ten - 15 years we'll see somethign like this. Probably not here at first - but eventually. Just like gambling - once cities see how much MONEY they can make their concerns will melt away. Pot is already nearly decrminialized in Seattle ... we all know about the San Francisco "med marijuanna clubs." Most people under fifty overwhelmingly support legalizing it.



i would bet that teh new supreme court would nook favoirably on a city that allowed regulated sale of in state crops (can't go out of state - then its interstate commerce). I know this issue sort of came up last year - but I'm banking that Alito and Roberts will limit the interstate commerce clause ....



If I had the power I would give it a shot. St. Louis would have to go to court but the win could be huge. imagine the tourists ... and the music scene ... and the change in our image as a conservative back water
2,327
Life MemberLife Member
2,327

PostSep 12, 2006#416

There's a Texas restaurant chain that's an 'aquarium' experience.



Maybe this is going in the first floor. Isn't one of the partners (Walsh, I believe) from Texas?



warning: the website is flash so it takes ages on dialup





http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostSep 12, 2006#417

metzgda wrote:Now, what I would love to see would be something similar to the Signature room in the John Hancock. I love going up there and either having lunch/dinner, or just a few drinks looking out over the city. I think that would definately be neat.


...and paying $10 for a beer and $20 for a sandwich, awesome!
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 12, 2006#418

jlblues wrote:
metzgda wrote:Now, what I would love to see would be something similar to the Signature room in the John Hancock. I love going up there and either having lunch/dinner, or just a few drinks looking out over the city. I think that would definately be neat.


...and paying $10 for a beer and $20 for a sandwich, awesome!


those are chicago prices...wouldn't be as expensive here for sure... BTW that aquarium rest. looks pretty cool



here is the link again



http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com/flas ... ntent.html
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostSep 12, 2006#419

^Sure, just like a beer at Busch Stadium isn't as expensive as one at Wrigley...
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 12, 2006#420

jlblues wrote:^Sure, just like a beer at Busch Stadium isn't as expensive as one at Wrigley...


wow you are right... everything is the same price in both cities
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostSep 12, 2006#421

markofucity wrote:I'm not a big Aquarium fan - but I agree that it could be somethig special IF the zoo - and hopefully the botanical gardens - get involved. They have world class preservation and research arms that gain them international prestige (and funding). If the Aquarium could be likewise supported .. it would make sense (and it would jive pretty well with St. Louis' expertise in natural-livign sceinces) ..... if its just a collection of water life for tourists, then I think it falls on its face. In short - I think it needs to have a well developed academic, reserahc and preservation arm ...


I agree with you. Aquariums have "white elephant" written all over them - they're ridiculously expensive to build and maintain, and St. Louisans are too used to not having to pay for things like that. If it was an offshoot/collaboration of the zoo, Science Center, etc., then I might feel a little more comfortable about the idea.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostSep 12, 2006#422

bpe235 wrote:
jlblues wrote:^Sure, just like a beer at Busch Stadium isn't as expensive as one at Wrigley...


wow you are right... everything is the same price in both cities


Bars and restaurants here aren't cheaper. Groceries are only slightly cheaper. Never really understood how the cost of living here could be considered so much lower when the cost of most everyday items seems to be about the same as Chicago. I think the much lower cost of living in St. Louis is mostly a myth. Maybe the lower cost of housing here makes up the difference. Or, more likely, it is the ridiculous tax on gas and cigarettes in Chicago that distorts the cost of living numbers. Anyone want to make a million dollars quick? Buy cigarettes in St. Louis and sell them in Chicago! :lol:

PostSep 12, 2006#423

Alonzo P Hawk wrote:I was reading my notes today from Entrepreneurship class last Thursday, and Kevin McGowan's speech, and he also said that in the 81 story building will also be a state of the art aquarium, "which is what downtown is really, really lacking."


Maybe Kevin just meant that his penthouse on the 81st floor would have a state-of-the-art aquarium. :lol:
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 12, 2006#424

What I'm trying to say is that very few people are going to travel from Chicago to StL to see an aquarium-they have one. Nor would anyone from Indy-they'd go to Cincinnati. The fact that StL has a great zoo/museum program would work against an aquarium (unless of course everyone was willing to split the pie with another institution). I think an aquarium 10 years ago may have made sense - at that time the majority of mid-sized cities didn't have one (people travelled from Cincinnati to Chicago to go to Shedd). If one looks at the zoo on google there's a natural area for expansion to the west. I don't know if there are plans for this area (I believe it's part of the Kennedy Forest). I can't imagine the public going for it anyway.


Tell me the aquarium quote isn't true. I sincerely thought that aquariums were an early 90's pseudo solution to increase tourism. They are amazingly expensive to operate (not to mention it would be somewhat competing with a FREE zoo).



The aquarium in the 'Nati (Newport) drew 1.2 million visitors the first year, but numbers fell to half after four years. Plus, Cincinnati can draw from Indianapolis (1.5 hrs & 1 million people), Columbus (1.5 hrs & ~2 million?), Dayton, Lexington, Louisville . . . Since I've moved to StL I've realized why I never visited - it's 5, almost 6 hrs from home. Not only was Indy closer, so was Columbus, Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit and nearly Nashville. The point is that the StL doesn't have the population to draw from for an aquarium to make sense - or maybe I just don't like aquariums.





Not sure what you are trying to say here..?

St. Louis has close to 3 million people.

Not to mention, Chicago, KC, Memphis, Indy, Nashville and numerous other cities are within 3-5 hours drive (no more).

In addition, St. Louis has an incredible zoo/museum tax funding program. The St. Louis Zoo, The Art Museum, and St. Louis Science Center, and not to mention The Gateway Arch have some of the highest attendance levels in the country.
[/quote]
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostSep 12, 2006#425

Ihnen wrote:I think an aquarium 10 years ago may have made sense - at that time the majority of mid-sized cities didn't have one (people travelled from Cincinnati to Chicago to go to Shedd).


And now all of those mid-sized cities do (except for Saint Louis). Yet the number of visitors to Shedd continues to increase every year, and Shedd now has the highest attendance of any cultural attraction in Chicago. Just briefly looking over the figures for the last few years, it seems that, on average, the top ten aquariums in the country have increased attendance. If it was a trend, clearly it ain't over. Maybe the aquariums where attendance dropped significantly just aren't very good aquariums?



Having said that, if St. Louis IS going to build an aquarium, it better be one of the top five in the country. If it is half-assed, it won't have much of a future...
Read more posts (476 remaining)
Share