Share
547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostJan 27, 2011#26

dredger wrote:I do feel they addressed some big issues up front in the design and certainly has gotten better from what they originally proposed.

1) A new main entrance and expanded museum from the West would be a huge improvement to accessing the Arch and they should be given some credit in how they tied it into Gateway Mall. Just as important, why put beer garden and ice rink underneath Poplar Street Bridge when you got an underused plaza begging for attention next to the Old Courthouse.
I agree that the entrance is a great improvement for the museum. I like the aesthetics of how they were able to connect the entrance and the courthouse. Yet, there is something about Memorial being gone that irks me.
dredger wrote: 2) Removing the north parking garage!! The problem of course is do you truly get good access to Laclede's Landing without Wash Ave extending to the riverfront? I don't think the proposed Wash Ave configuration is all that bad by the way they configured/presented the idea and sure their will be some support for direct on/off access to I-70 from Wash Ave.
This was a great concern for me earlier, but I am beginning to warm to the idea, as they revise the plans.
dredger wrote:As far at the tram ride, can wait in my mind even though its a much better idea then having a ferry. However, to put it bluntly, it is coming from a biased opinion that trying to expand the park into the East side bank does little for ESTL nor the Arch Grounds themselves. In fact, I think it would be more interesting if their was more industrial activity, barges happening.


Personally, I think the Gondola is a waste of money. I mean does it really provide that much for what it would likely cost? That money could be spent better elsewhere IMO.
dredger wrote: My final thoughts, the plan still does leave open the option of downgrading I-70 to a blvd after coming out of the trench westbound. It might not be as good, but any stadium/bottle work district plans could incorporate a new blvd from Wash Ave to the new Mississippi Bridge and thus a second chance at putting back some of the north side street grid as one should note, the Arch itself was built by destroying the street grid and will remain that way as long as it stands. However, north of Wash Ave is all new story that can be rewritten.


I am not sure downgrading would work that well. At first I thought it was possible, but then I started considering the cap, the slope and the depression. With the lid in place and the highway sunken, there would be no real way to tie into the grid successfully. At least htere is none I can see at first glance.
827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostJan 27, 2011#27

zun1026 wrote:I too like the parking kiosk idea. It certainly could be a good thing, but I would like to see specifics drawn up before I give my full approval...not that my approval really matters.

As for the skating rink (not sure if you realize this...you probably do, but...) the Gateway Mall revitalization plans call for a rink in the fountain area infront of Union Station.
I will be anxious to see how they integrate Arch visitors with exiting parking capacity...The concept is right on, IMO...It could be very practical for Arch visitors...On busy summer days, there can be hours between buying a ticket and the ride to the top...Why not explore downtown while making way towards the Arch for the tram appointment...

I have read the Gateway Mall master plan and like so much of it...That fountain is just simply spectacular, Union Station architecture speaks for itself, and the downtown skyline/Arch is visible...Would be a great spot to skate for a few hours...Then folks could warm up in Union Station with food or drinks...I would love see some type of skate park integrated there for the warmer months too...

PostJan 27, 2011#28

lol...so many thoughts...

I love the proposed energy of Kiener Plaza (linking with Citygarden) and then being able to very easily move all the way towards the dramatic Arch and the Mississippi River...I think eliminating Memorial will only highten the feeling of grandure one gets when approaching the Arch...The proposition of death by speeding crazy has been lessened from the pedestrian approach (the best way to get the effect of the Arch is to walk up to it from a distance, it's too big to finally stop and enjoy it when your right on top of it)...Tho proper and CLEAR wayfaring signage sure better be apart of the plan to not cut off drivers from finding the other side (north or south)...I mean true handholding wayfarer signage...

Love the Cathedral Square space...Like it or not, faith and religion are deeply intertwined with both America's westward expansion and America today...I realize many other not so holy things were apart of America's growth...But to ignore the spiritual part of America is to ignore a large part of this country...Ignorance is generally never something good...

I'm half and half on the gondolas...Usually a gondola works because it takes you somewhere you want to go...I would doubt folks will ride it just to ride a gondola...What exactly is the destination for these gondolas? A geyser and picnic area? I understand the views are part of the draw...which is why I'm half and half...The glass bottom part is really kewl...Link the gondolas to a much larger National Park encompassing the Indian Mounds, large bird sanctuaries and (my absolute fave) a large bison paddock plus add in extensive bike trails...now that might really work IMO...

This plan will change again...but for me, moving the energy of Citygarden into Kiener and flowing that all teh way to the river...and utilizing existing parking structures tells me this plan, if funded properly, is moving very strongly in the right direction...

And I love the museum entrance too...Talk about a city with a front yard.

PostJan 27, 2011#29

zun1026 wrote:
DaronDierkes wrote:Yes, removed completely. The reconfiguration is that Wash Ave would go right onto Eads Bridge. It makes it 4-way instead of 5-way while doing nothing about the massive interstate that runs through the middle of it.
I am sure Landing businesses will love that.
With the correct signage (and even without) I think dirving to LL will be made clearer with teh changes proposed...I also think the pedestrian path is made easier (tho obviously still imposing with I70 there)...

1. I have ended up on teh MLK Bridge at least a couple of times trying to make it to the Landing by car...The current jog in Wash Ave under I70 can be just as confusing...When travelling from DT, it's not at all clear that Wash Ave actually connects to the Landing...The proposals make things simpler and it should become easier to understand what road will take you where...And certainly signage should be easier to follow with less options for choosing teh wrong road...

2. The traffic flow in and out of LL is rarely congested? By eliminating an entrance to LL and making the Morgan St. closest point north of the Arch to get to the Arch, visitors will be forced to park in LL and move through the district...Currently, folks can scoot to and from the Arch via the north parking garage and never venture off the Arch Grounds...

3. Currently, it is freakishly nightmarish to walk down Wash Ave and enter the Arch Grounds...The five way intersections adds to the number of times you have to cross traffic, frustrates the normal street light cycles pedestrians have to wait for green lights to cross (when the lights are cycling and not just flashing)...The proposed changes bring about a simpler and more direct path for pedestrians and more quickly envelopes them into the Nat Park...

4. Commonly, to get from the Arch Grounds to LL, you have to get around the parking garage...The only way, w/o walking in a traffic lane, is to mosey down a narrow path that snakes around the outside of teh garage...Yes, you can walk it, but to me it's like that narrow shopping lane in a store, if it's difficult to pass through, I'm going ot avoid it...Adding to the park acreage and allowing the new space to very easily flow into LL could quite conceivably generate more foot traffic...Especially if youre forced to park somewhere in LL!

I like Memorial Dr. closing...We have a big, wide Broadway and 4th Street that are rarely at capacity...With accurate wayfarer signage that really guides drivers each turn of the way, the lost connection can be overcome, IMO...Espcially when what is gained has so much potential...(The eventuality of an Arch front Boulevard integrated with the proposed I-70 lid would be an amazing result)...
1,218
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,218

PostJan 27, 2011#30

quincunx wrote:There wasn't any talk of noise reduction. Is is just hopeless? I wouldn't want to have a beer while being assaulted by interstate traffic noise.
There were elements in the landscape that were billed as being noise reduction berms.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2011#31

Two points:

The gondolas would be financed with a bond issue. If the bonds can be sold then it has the potential to fund itself through ticket revenue.

City to River has shown has a boulevard can work well with the MVVA lid: http://urbanstl.com/downtown/city-to-ri ... k-together

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostJan 27, 2011#32

Alex Ihnen wrote:Two points:

The gondolas would be financed with a bond issue. If the bonds can be sold then it has the potential to fund itself through ticket revenue.

City to River has shown has a boulevard can work well with the MVVA lid: http://urbanstl.com/downtown/city-to-ri ... k-together


Have you all explored the clearance height from the underneath of the lid and then figured out the necessary ramp slope and length to make the clearance height?
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2011#33

^ Yes - though that obviously depends on the final engineering measurements of the lid. The slope of the boulevard, as depicted above, would be the same as Forest Park Parkway as it dips under Kingshighway, or Forest Park Avenue as it goes below Grand Avenue.
547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostJan 27, 2011#34

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Yes - though that obviously depends on the final engineering measurements of the lid. The slope of the boulevard, as depicted above, would be the same as Forest Park Parkway as it dips under Kingshighway, or Forest Park Avenue as it goes below Grand Avenue.

What the projected grade? I can't picture either of the examples at the moment.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2011#35

~6% - which is also the current maximum allowable grade on an Interstate highway, i.e. - less than the maximum for a city street. Here's a link to the Google Streetview of FPP at Kingshighway: http://bit.ly/ebtxtV
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostJan 27, 2011#36

As a commenter to the Post-Dispatch pointed out, we need to examine why the Mississippi Aerial River Transit (MART) aerial gondola across the Mississippi River in New Orleans failed due to low ridership after only 1 year. It was constructed as part of the Worlds Fair there in 1984. It was billed as a commuter transit after the fair, unlike the one MVVA is proposing for the Arch grounds, which may have been the problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississipp ... er_Transit

On the success story side -- I rode the old skylift in Clarksville, Missouri 20 years ago, and it was viable from 1962 until 1996 when it was shut down for repairs.

We need the East Side to be enough of an attraction that people will want to go there almost as much as they want to go visit the Arch side of the river. Or convince ourselves that people from Illinois will start their Arch visit from the East side and use the gondola to come to the Missouri side.
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostJan 27, 2011#37

Anyone notice the crop-circle-like etching of the Arch proposed to be carved into the BPV parking lot? (Page 5 of the presentation.)
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostJan 27, 2011#38

Almost all commenters to published stories about last night's presentation look at the 500 million price tag and ask how we can justify this in today's deficit environment. The foundation wants to sell the plan as one package deal, but if it was funded incrementally, I would prioritize implementing the features in this order:

1. New Museum
2. Lid over the highway
3. New landscaping on the Arch grounds / ADA compliance
4. Kiener Plaza / Fountains / Beer garden
5. Replacement of the North Parking garage with slope to Lacledes Landing, etc.
6. Lenore K. Sullivan riverfront paver replacement
7. Gondolas / East Side pavillion
8. Cathedral Square
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJan 27, 2011#39

Sadly, I was out of town for the presentation. But my favorite quote from the PD:
"The city already is full of garages that are half full," Van Valkenburgh said. "We want to make the downtown parking more welcoming and friendly."
Amazing that it takes an out of towner to figure that out. I hope local leaders were listening.

Also, why not close Memorial from Walnut to Washington instead of Pine? I see no reason not to.
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostJan 27, 2011#40

the central scrutinizer wrote:Sadly, I was out of town for the presentation. But my favorite quote from the PD:
"The city already is full of garages that are half full," Van Valkenburgh said. "We want to make the downtown parking more welcoming and friendly."
Amazing that it takes an out of towner to figure that out. I hope local leaders were listening.

Also, why not close Memorial from Walnut to Washington instead of Pine? I see no reason not to.
Van Valkenburgh harped on the parking issue for quite a bit. He called the plethora and underutilization of parking garages in the area as "sobering" more than once, if memory serves me right.

SB Memorial is closed from Walnut to Pine ¿to diffuse traffic from the Landing? NB Memorial is effectively closed north of Market St due to the directional reversal of the I-70 ramps south of Washington Ave (entrance becomes an exit, exit becomes an entrance) I can't see how the latter will be possible.
512
Senior MemberSenior Member
512

PostJan 27, 2011#41

Just some stream of thought here on the presentation last night...the gondolas, in particular.

If we have to have them, it's much better that they are located in front of the Poplar Street Bridge, rather than jutting diagonally across the river as Behnisch had proposed. Another perk of this is that it will help hide the Poplar Street Bridge a bit. One thing that immediately stood out to me is that there may be an opportunity here for MVVA to re-implement its photovoltaic River Gauges as a part of the in-river stanchions used to support the gondola lines. That could potentially offer an impressive evening view, having these glowing, alt-energy (both photovoltaic and using river current, maybe?)spires to the south.

Among other things, I'd still like to know more of the plan to "kind of" keep Lenor K. open to "some" traffic and how the Washington Avenue closure is still a-go, considering the judging committee was so vehemently against it.

I'm still concerned about the possibility of seeing a massive garage built on Laclede's Landing proper -- I think I'd be okay with one placed a respectable distance away in the empty parking lot across from the President -- especially if that could precipitate the removal of the existing Laclede's Landing parking garage and give that space over to new developments. If this happened, the JNPS would be wise to run a Lenor K. shuttle regularly from the garage up to the Arch grounds (or put in a trolley!)
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2011#42

bonwich wrote:Anyone notice the crop-circle-like etching of the Arch proposed to be carved into the BPV parking lot? (Page 5 of the presentation.)
It's on page 4 too... I love it! :?
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJan 27, 2011#43

Kevin B wrote:If this happened, the JNPS would be wise to run a Lenor K. shuttle regularly from the garage up to the Arch grounds (or put in a trolley!)
They could put in a short one like they have in Seattle. It runs along the waterfront, for only a mile or so, I think. Go from the north end of the Landing to the south end of the Arch grounds, with an extension into Choteau's Landing, if/when that happens.
547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostJan 27, 2011#44

Alex Ihnen wrote:~6% - which is also the current maximum allowable grade on an Interstate highway, i.e. - less than the maximum for a city street. Here's a link to the Google Streetview of FPP at Kingshighway: http://bit.ly/ebtxtV

Thats pretty good considering the constraints. With decreased speeds it would not be too bad. The only thing to really worry about is drainage.
512
Senior MemberSenior Member
512

PostJan 27, 2011#45

the central scrutinizer wrote:
Kevin B wrote:If this happened, the JNPS would be wise to run a Lenor K. shuttle regularly from the garage up to the Arch grounds (or put in a trolley!)
They could put in a short one like they have in Seattle. It runs along the waterfront, for only a mile or so, I think. Go from the north end of the Landing to the south end of the Arch grounds, with an extension into Choteau's Landing, if/when that happens.
That's exactly what I was thinking, tcs. It would have its northern end beginning near or past the Laclede Power Center, move down the edge of the Landing, along the Archgrounds flood wall, across the steps (clanging bells all the way), and along the southern flood wall or entering a new Chouteau's Landing district via either Poplar Street or the existing rail-line cut-out in the flood wall. I wrote about it just a little bit here: http://yastlblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/m ... art-3.html.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJan 27, 2011#46

Kevin B wrote:That's exactly what I was thinking, tcs. It would have its northern end beginning near or past the Laclede Power Center, move down the edge of the Landing, along the Archgrounds flood wall, across the steps (clanging bells all the way), and along the southern flood wall or entering a new Chouteau's Landing district via either Poplar Street or the existing rail-line cut-out in the flood wall. I wrote about it just a little bit here: http://yastlblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/m ... art-3.html.
I think it would be easier/cheaper to put it at street level on LKS drive, but the concept is same.
512
Senior MemberSenior Member
512

PostJan 27, 2011#47

the central scrutinizer wrote:
Kevin B wrote:That's exactly what I was thinking, tcs. It would have its northern end beginning near or past the Laclede Power Center, move down the edge of the Landing, along the Archgrounds flood wall, across the steps (clanging bells all the way), and along the southern flood wall or entering a new Chouteau's Landing district via either Poplar Street or the existing rail-line cut-out in the flood wall. I wrote about it just a little bit here: http://yastlblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/m ... art-3.html.
I think it would be easier/cheaper to put it at street level on LKS drive, but the concept is same.
Oh, me too. I said "along the flood wall" which I guess could make you think I meant on top of it, but yes, having a 1.2 mile(ish) trolley line on Lenor K. Sullivan is the plan I had in mind. Hey, maybe the Laclede Power Center could house the trolley(s) when they aren't running...just run it right in, get it cleaned up and sprayed down for its next run and turn it around. Actually, I think the LPC roundhouse itself would be a big draw. Seeing the trolley on its turnabout, getting worked on -- kids and adults would love it.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJan 27, 2011#48

^ I'm in, if it will get me to the Soulard Market!
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJan 27, 2011#49

Kevin B wrote:Oh, me too. I said "along the flood wall" which I guess could make you think I meant on top of it, but yes, having a 1.2 mile(ish) trolley line on Lenor K. Sullivan is the plan I had in mind. Hey, maybe the Laclede Power Center could house the trolley(s) when they aren't running...just run it right in, get it cleaned up and sprayed down for its next run and turn it around. Actually, I think the LPC roundhouse itself would be a big draw. Seeing the trolley on its turnabout, getting worked on -- kids and adults would love it.
It's a wonderful building.

PostJan 27, 2011#50

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I'm in, if it will get me to the Soulard Market!
That would be a good endpoint for Phase II.
Read more posts (51 remaining)
Share