Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I'm in, if it will get me to the Soulard Market!
That would be a good endpoint for Phase II.
Yep. And Phase Three of course would be extensions to the Brewery and Old North. For now, I'd be happy to see the ~1.2 mile trolley line built as a purely tourist-focused project to get people, like I said in my post, enjoying the north and south portions of the downtown riverfront.
I think I found my new pet project! Now who wants to make some pretty, pretty concept renderings for me(I'm only trained in MS Paint...
^ I gotta say that a trolley running on a Memorial Drive would be more useful, serve more people and be better integrated into the city. It could serve North Broadway, Old North and Soulard via Broadway!
It is possible this has already been posted, but did anyone else see this design from MVVA for trans highway wildlife bridges. I thought it was interesting to see being conceived by the same firm, and this relates to dealing with environments and roads interacting.
clellchatman wrote:It is possible this has already been posted, but did anyone else see this design from MVVA for trans highway wildlife bridges. I thought it was interesting to see being conceived by the same firm, and this relates to dealing with environments and roads interacting.
It was on the urbanSTL Twitter account. If it's really just $8M then the Arch lid can't be too much more. I think we need these connecting Benton Park/Soulard, CWE/FPSE, etc.
It looks to me like they are planning to tear down the ramps from Southbound I-70 to Memorial and from Northbound Memorial to I-70, and build the reverse ramps (Northbound I-70 to Memorial and Southbound Memorial to I-70). Why would they do that? It will save Laclede's Landing users who arrive from the south the trouble of jogging 2 blocks to the west to get around the closed section of Memorial, but it will force everyone who takes I-70 West into downtown to get off on Broadway and get back on from third street. That's over half a mile of extra city driving each way. I'm certainly not looking forward to it, especially since St. Louis doesn't seem to know how to sync their traffic lights. How much money will we spend reconfiguring the ramps to serve fewer people?
I'm not sure that I follow. You're right about the first part, reversing the ramps. For eastbound drivers on I-70, they'll either take the new I-70 bridge to Illinois, continue on the Interstate as it is, or to get into downtown take Broadway (but only if they want to get into downtown). Then to leave downtown they would take the new ramp from Washington Avenue onto the southbound Interstate and northbound would be from 3rd street. I guess I see what you're saying, the ramp location means you're on city streets for a longer time, but only depending on where you work. It will likely be more convenient than the current configuration for some.
Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I'm in, if it will get me to the Soulard Market!
That would be a good endpoint for Phase II.
Yep. And Phase Three of course would be extensions to the Brewery and Old North. For now, I'd be happy to see the ~1.2 mile trolley line built as a purely tourist-focused project to get people, like I said in my post, enjoying the north and south portions of the downtown riverfront.
I think I found my new pet project! Now who wants to make some pretty, pretty concept renderings for me(I'm only trained in MS Paint...
Why stop with just a linear trolley line? Why not make a linear line that ties into a loop system that hits many downtown spots? Something that could augment the Metrolink?
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Daniel Burnham
zun1026 wrote:Why stop with just a linear trolley line? Why not make a linear line that ties into a loop system that hits many downtown spots? Something that could augment the Metrolink?
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Daniel Burnham
That's Phases VII, VIII and IX. We haven't even built Phase I yet.
zun1026 wrote:
Why stop with just a linear trolley line? Why not make a linear line that ties into a loop system that hits many downtown spots? Something that could augment the Metrolink?
Agree, loop by Ballpark Village and the Stadium Metrolink station.
Alex Ihnen wrote: I guess I see what you're saying, the ramp location means you're on city streets for a longer time, but only depending on where you work. It will likely be more convenient than the current configuration for some.
Maybe so. It's hard for me to be objective when I'm one of the ones who will end up waiting for more traffic lights. But I still don't see what changing the direction of the ramps has to do with the goals of city+arch+river, or why more money should be spent on this infrastructure if the boulevard is still a possibility.
^ You're right. It's a chain reaction: CityArchRiver is determined to have a lid over I-70 and remove Memorial Drive. This results in Lumiere, Laclede's Landing and others wanting new access to replace what's being removed. Without new ramps, the first exit northbound would be 10th Street, north of where the new I-70 bridge across the Mississippi will land in MO.
But again, you're right. A boulevard in place of the Interstate is the proper and best solution. Why should we close city streets and then have that lead to new Interstate infrastructure? It does seem the opposite of the language used by the competition.
Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I gotta say that a trolley running on a Memorial Drive would be more useful, serve more people and be better integrated into the city. It could serve North Broadway, Old North and Soulard via Broadway!
Would City to River be interested in investigating this as part of their efforts? If so, I would be interested in helping. If not, would people like to start a new org that peruses such efforts and possibly even go on to develop ideas and plans for alternative transportation in St. Louis? I would be interested in looking at this too.
Should I start a new thread in the Urban Living section of the site and see if other are interested?
Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I gotta say that a trolley running on a Memorial Drive would be more useful, serve more people and be better integrated into the city. It could serve North Broadway, Old North and Soulard via Broadway!
Would City to River be interested in investigating this as part of their efforts? If so, I would be interested in helping. If not, would people like to start a new org that peruses such efforts and possibly even go on to develop ideas and plans for alternative transportation and TOD's in St. Louis? I would be interested in looking at this too.
Should I start a new thread in the Urban Living section of the site and see if other are interested?
^I think we should look forward to a way to integrate our proposed highway BRT lines into some sort of on-street bus stop north and south of Wash and Memorial. A trolley could surely use the same stops. Please see full concept here. I think City to River would surely support the kind of trolley you mention zun1026, but it would be entirely dependent on the boulevard being created first, so one thing at a time. Get City to River's boulevard in place, and then follow it with the trolley proposal. Or... if you made a new advocacy group, it'd be cool for them to also be boulevard champions.
a couple other thoughts on the plans,
Other than having four parallel sidewalks and a nice view... what would be happening in Luther Ely Smith Square? Seems like it'd be just as dead as it is now, only contextually improved. How could it be programmed? The two plazas on the lid allow for some interesting events, but I'm not sure about the big green bumps.
and
There was some expressed concern about water spray from the Gateway Geyser on windy days. Is the radius of the fountain being expanded at all? Couldn't it be?
Would that water be flowing? I know we have to wait on the route 3 stuff for the ecology and birding programs to be put in place, but there are serious concerns here. We divert the natural streams that should flow to Forest Park and fill the Grand Basin with potable water instead. It's a serious infrastructure mistake that will take perhaps billions to fix... one day. Anybody got a watershed map of ESL? It'd be nice if we could drain ESL into the Gateway Geyser and clean it up with wetlands before introducing it to the river. Manfredi/Weiss's Oxbow Lake should still be possible.
DaronDierkes wrote:^I think we should look forward to a way to integrate our proposed highway BRT lines into some sort of on-street bus stop north and south of Wash and Memorial. A trolley could surely use the same stops. Please see full concept here. I think City to River would surely support the kind of trolley you mention zun1026, but it would be entirely dependent on the boulevard being created first, so one thing at a time. Get City to River's boulevard in place, and then follow it with the trolley proposal. Or... if you made a new advocacy group, it'd be cool for them to also be boulevard champions.
Do plans for a trolley, BRT and other Alt. transportation methods and developments need to be dependent on Memerial Drive?
I am all for multiple organizations championing the Blvd cause. If anything it could be good to have organizations piggy backing off each other. There could even be a council that meets to collaborate multiple organizations.
We have a Gateway Mall Conservancy, and Trailnet is a steward of the Riverfront Trail... but could this new agency take over those duties? It's a fascinating thing.
We have a Gateway Mall Conservancy, and Trailnet is a steward of the Riverfront Trail... but could this new agency take over those duties? It's a fascinating thing.
I very much agree that this will be interesting to see. Hopefully, the right people will hold seats of power within the TransRiver Authority.
The ESTL riverfront, prior to development of the avian area, just doesn't seem to have much worth visiting. Adding a pavilion to the geysor isn't going to be a huge draw, period. An eatery over there makes sense, but it's not a reason to pay to traverse the river. And yes, there's the tram ride, which I'm sure will offer some fantastic views, but knowing the ignorant mentality around here, that won't be worth "getting shot at" to many locals. I'll happily go once for the experience, but unless something else goes in, I won't be dying to show off the new east grounds to visiting friends. For out of towners, I can see the tram ride being something they want to do, but once on the east side, what will lead families to stay for more than twenty minutes? There's value in adding this as an entry to the park for people arriving from the east, but until more is added, this will likely underwhelm. While mentioning it, the current price tag doesn't cover the post 2015 additions, right? I hate to say it, but I'll be surprised if they're ever added.
Similar to the east riverfront, the changes have all but sucked any life out of the potential for the south grounds. Going to queue up for the ride across will be the only thing I'm seeing. Looks like the underpass park is still a part of the plan, which pleases me, but if it's simply grassy/wooded areas, what's there to explore and interact with? Any new life being breathed into Chouteau's Landing by the redesign has now been considerably scaled back.
One final disappointment is 1/3 of this exercise's intended focus. The removal of the water gauges seems to also remove any reason to venture down to riverfront itself. Seriously, what's left? I think it is best to keep some ability to use LKS as a roadway, but surely more could and should be done at the water's edge. They've done their work in connecting the city to the arch, but the arch to river connection is puzzlingly MIA.
I was actually content with the selection of MVVA back in the Fall. Now, however, most of this appears to be a step backward. Case in point, Cathedral Square. Scaled back to the point of irking me. At its current size, is a second floor event space still possible/planned?
This rant isn't to say I don't see significant benefits in some of the newly proposed and carried over changes. Instead, I simply don't see the new plan as hitting as many factors to enliven the place and draw visitors to areas that are currently underutilized, which is disappointing.
^I would have to agree with just about all of what you point out. I just figure that this side of heaven will always have shortcomings.
The only difference in my reaction (and you may feel the same?) is that, overall, I really am excited about the propsals. There is a real chance IMO that if the current ideas are mostly realized, the footprint started in 2015 could creep east, north and south. Meaning that if Arch visitors (the guarantee) very clearly demonstrate a desire to explore beyond the boundaries of the National Park, by being given the ability to do so (better pedestrian connections, gondolas, varied and clear parking options) and actual things to do/visit (Citygarden, carousel, interactive fountains, "Ted Drews", Landing, Busch, BPV), then there would certainly be momentum behind ideas that aim to further expand the time and dollars those tourists part with.
I'n not suggesting that the Arch will solve all of Downtown's problems. However, we do know that millions of people will be coming every year to visit the Arch. Many of those will be from outta town. If, big if, they are able to be plugged into additional amenities of the City, then the Arch can be an engine of economic growth. And once you start something growing, if the conditions are appropriate enough, it might continue to grow.
jrathert wrote:The ESTL riverfront, prior to development of the avian area, just doesn't seem to have much worth visiting. Adding a pavilion to the geysor isn't going to be a huge draw, period. An eatery over there makes sense, but it's not a reason to pay to traverse the river. And yes, there's the tram ride, which I'm sure will offer some fantastic views, but knowing the ignorant mentality around here, that won't be worth "getting shot at" to many locals. I'll happily go once for the experience, but unless something else goes in, I won't be dying to show off the new east grounds to visiting friends. For out of towners, I can see the tram ride being something they want to do, but once on the east side, what will lead families to stay for more than twenty minutes? There's value in adding this as an entry to the park for people arriving from the east, but until more is added, this will likely underwhelm. While mentioning it, the current price tag doesn't cover the post 2015 additions, right? I hate to say it, but I'll be surprised if they're ever added.
Similar to the east riverfront, the changes have all but sucked any life out of the potential for the south grounds. Going to queue up for the ride across will be the only thing I'm seeing. Looks like the underpass park is still a part of the plan, which pleases me, but if it's simply grassy/wooded areas, what's there to explore and interact with? Any new life being breathed into Chouteau's Landing by the redesign has now been considerably scaled back.
One final disappointment is 1/3 of this exercise's intended focus. The removal of the water gauges seems to also remove any reason to venture down to riverfront itself. Seriously, what's left? I think it is best to keep some ability to use LKS as a roadway, but surely more could and should be done at the water's edge. They've done their work in connecting the city to the arch, but the arch to river connection is puzzlingly MIA.
I was actually content with the selection of MVVA back in the Fall. Now, however, most of this appears to be a step backward. Case in point, Cathedral Square. Scaled back to the point of irking me. At its current size, is a second floor event space still possible/planned?
This rant isn't to say I don't see significant benefits in some of the newly proposed and carried over changes. Instead, I simply don't see the new plan as hitting as many factors to enliven the place and draw visitors to areas that are currently underutilized, which is disappointing.
This is why I continue to question if the price tag is worth it.
RobbyD wrote:^I would have to agree with just about all of what you point out. I just figure that this side of heaven will always have shortcomings.
The only difference in my reaction (and you may feel the same?) is that, overall, I really am excited about the propsals. There is a real chance IMO that if the current ideas are mostly realized, the footprint started in 2015 could creep east, north and south. Meaning that if Arch visitors (the guarantee) very clearly demonstrate a desire to explore beyond the boundaries of the National Park, by being given the ability to do so (better pedestrian connections, gondolas, varied and clear parking options) and actual things to do/visit (Citygarden, carousel, interactive fountains, "Ted Drews", Landing, Busch, BPV), then there would certainly be momentum behind ideas that aim to further expand the time and dollars those tourists part with.
I'n not suggesting that the Arch will solve all of Downtown's problems. However, we do know that millions of people will be coming every year to visit the Arch. Many of those will be from outta town. If, big if, they are able to be plugged into additional amenities of the City, then the Arch can be an engine of economic growth. And once you start something growing, if the conditions are appropriate enough, it might continue to grow.
The fact that we have come to this is both sad and disappointing. Our city needs a higher standard and to figure out ways to make great plans turn into actualized development. The problem...we need great plans and financing.
The more and more I think about the proposal, the less excited I get. To be honest, we could develop Kiener, Luther, the Lid and rework the park on Washington Ave and that would be good enough. The rest of the proposal does little for the city, especially at the costs associated.
Personally, I think a trolley could be as successful at connecting people to the city, arch and river, as anything presented in this proposal. That shouldn't read that it would be the most aesthetically pleasing avenue, but...
