urbanSTL

RobbyD wrote:The only difference in my reaction (and you may feel the same?) is that, overall, I really am excited about the propsals.

Yep, I didn't mean to sound all doom and gloom. There's plenty that I do like. I think a skating rink, while adding to the activity of the south end, is probably more suited for the gateway mall by Union Station. I was astounded by the proposal for remote ticketing and believe it will succeed in getting people to enjoy more outside of the arch grounds. The gondola does allow people to take in the magnitude of the mighty Mississippi and adds a flashy feature. I hope, as a previous poster suggested, the supports for the gondola line can in fact be fashioned as the missing river gauges. The new museum entrance is exciting and an awesome front door to the arch grounds, and the plan to make the space accommodating to traveling exhibits should help draw even more interest/repeat local visitors. The connections to the relatively active parts of the city seem very well thought out. It's just the non-active parts that don't seem to be getting the attention where, yes, at that price, I can't see how they aren't.

I'm stoked to see this happen. Any of these changes will make things better than they currently are. I hope more refinement will take place to address some of the other areas, but I'll still be happy come 2015 and beyond, especially if this ignites development around the grounds, which I think is possible.

In the presentation, Michael mentioned the name of the gondola company with which they have been working. I've been peeking on youtube occasionally to see if the video of the presentation might show up there; I could play back that portion and hear the name of the gondola company.

Did anyone else catch the name of the gondola company? Does anyone know if the video of the presentation will be posted online?

I thought PD put in a nice piece by having a interview with Tom Bradley, park superintendent.

I also think he has a better good feel for what should be the priority. Realistically, it would be nice to see the cost breakdown but the sums are not out of line. Look at the Art museum expansion. A new West museum entrance, expanded space underground and the lid with associated street is easily a 200 to 250 million dollar endeavor. Remember, the goal is get something meaningful accomplished by 2015. The south end of the archs and the East side have been presented as long term goals from understanding and can be reshaped as time goes on.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 69603.html

ST. LOUIS • From his second-floor office in the Old Courthouse downtown, Tom Bradley has one of the best views of the Gateway Arch.

He is superintendent of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, the official name of the federal park that includes the iconic monument and the historic domed building

Q: It could be significantly finished but not have everything proposed done by then, right?

A: Yes, I think to me, the core is Kiener Plaza, the Old Courthouse, Luther Ely Smith Park, the lid, a new museum entrance and the museum. If you think about it, that would be fantastic.

I agree that the proposal does little for the city, in regards to city residents. While the design is a great improvement, there's not a lot to pull city residents there day after day. I think something simple like a dedicated bike/running path (same as in Forest park) that connects to the Miss. River trail at LKS blvd, crosses the eads, and loops around in east IL, and maybe loops around the Arch would be something simple and relatively cheap. It would be about 4 miles. It would be great for people living downtown to have.

As we've said before on this board, we need some of the same kinds of activities for people that we see in Forest Park. The National Mall in Washington is not just a sterile strip of grass, because they use it for tons of activities, like softball, travelling exhibits, and portable food vendors. It is ringed by museums people want to visit. Maybe we could get the Smithsonian to put rotating exhibits from their attic into the new museum space to attract locals and out of towners. How about a few rowboats on one of the ponds -- like the ones at Union Station -- for picknickers to watch. And a temporary Ted Drewes stand in the summer.

Also, when you design new footings for the gondola poles, I don't know why you couldn't design them to include support for an elevated walkway along with the gondolas for bikers and walkers.

And, like others say above, make the East side a safe, attractive place locals and out-of-towners will want to visit and can jog or bike to for free on their lunch breaks. (I still like the buffalos idea -- maybe include other animals of the west, like prairie dogs, and mustangs.) Add some food venues, too, so you could eat and take in the view of the river and Arch. Would a short Pier 39 concept work on the East side?

RobbyD wrote: If you're referring to the investment in Illinios, I have to disagree. Anything aimed at improvement on the east side will benefit the City of St. Louis. Wanna know the bedrock of our "Crime Capital" perception IMO, East St. Louis, IL and the entirely blighted/wiped out near east side. The City does plenty on its own to be recognized as such, I realize this, but the rep of ESL is wide and deep. Any additional economic push there, I am very much in favor of. In a bistate region, money doesn't just have ot be spent in Mizzouri or St. Louis to benefit MO or STL.

I wasn't really thinking about that too much. However, I am not sure that a park on the eastside is gonna spur much development. If anything my belief is that it will be an island in a decrepit area. With a likely increase in media coverage of ESTL, there could be good or bad publicity. I would guess that if a couple of bodies end up being found in that park, it would further solidify public conception of ESTL. Now, I am not one of the people that base what I think about the east side purely on public perception. I have been over there a few times, one of which I did a window and walking tour. While there are some good things going on there, I doubt this park will do much. Hopefully, I am wrong. I would love for this to spark an ESTL resurgence.

RobbyD wrote: I'm sorry, but I really feel there is tremdous potiential wiht these proposals. I'm sure some thought Citygarden would be a waste of money. Who in their right mind spends tens of millions of dollars to put a park in the middle of what is largely perceived as a dead downtown? But, it has succeeded remarkably IMO. And if just a fraction of the millions of Arch visitors also visit our stunning little CBD sculpture park, it will have a life beyond the point when the locals have "been there, done that." The success of Citygarden has demonstrated that an expanded Gateway Mall/JNEM with engaging programming indeed has a good chance of success.

I think there is potential in these proposals too, but I also see some questionable moves and question if they are really reaching their goals with this plan. I know some of my previous posts have been negative, but I criticize when I see something wrong with plans. If a development is going to happen and last for a long time, then I want to see it done right. I am not in the group that thinks any development is good development. Not to say that this is the correct way to think, its just the way I do.

I think the difference between the CityGarden and the Arch is threefold. First, the arch is pretty much separate from the downtown...even with a lid traversing 70 and the changes to Wash Ave. Whereas, CityGarden is right in the middle of downtown. This is an important factor for many reasons IMO. The fact that CityGarden can be visited by simply walking through it while doing things in the vicinity is a plus. The Arch grounds are not something most people will happen to pass through. There is a conscious decision to go there. For residents and workers downtown, more of the mass has easy accessibility to CityGarden than they would the Arch.

The next biggest problem is that proximity to a new physical development (at least from my research...see Chapin's dissertation on the catalytic effects of ballpark stadiums) is important when considering the catalytic effects on the surrounding area. While something as large as the Arch grounds has the potential to impact our feelings about DT, most of the development/re-development is likely to only occur in close vicinity to the grounds. This problem is further compounded IMO by the physical and visual barriers that separate the grounds from the rest of the DT, this is a problem that does not really present itself with City Garden (aside from some wide streets). When I say barriers concerning the Arch grounds, I think of the river, I-70, the two bridges on either end of the park and the highway ramps to the south. If the downtown fabric could more easily integrate with the grounds it would allow for more catalytic driving power. Some might point to the lid and Wash Ave reconfiguration as working toward rectifying this problem, (it does help and I am a fan), but the barriers still exist. This is why I am very much in support for the City to River Boulevard development and I-70 removal proposal.

Finally, CityGarden in many ways does what Millenium Park does regarding why it draws people. There is much more of an active experience, rather than with the arch ground which is much more about promenading ( something I enjoy, but the masses don't seem to appreciate as much as a more direct experience). The plan does little to draw people, especially locals. It does dress up the park a bit and make internal circulation easier, but what are people going there to see thats on the surface? The Arch seems to be it and while I am not meaning to slight the Arch, I doubt it is going to draw many more people than it already does. I think this post discribes what I am getting at in a better way.......

gary kreie wrote:As we've said before on this board, we need some of the same kinds of activities for people that we see in Forest Park. The National Mall in Washington is not just a sterile strip of grass, because they use it for tons of activities, like softball, travelling exhibits, and portable food vendors. It is ringed by museums people want to visit. Maybe we could get the Smithsonian to put rotating exhibits from their attic into the new museum space to attract locals and out of towners. How about a few rowboats on one of the ponds -- like the ones at Union Station -- for picknickers to watch. And a temporary Ted Drewes stand in the summer.

RobbyD wrote: The City and region need and want a gathering place that we all can call our own. Thankfully, Downtown St. Louis is continuing to grow, improve and fit the bill quite nicely. I may be wrong, zun, but in 6 or 7 or 8 years, I bet our Downtown will be a delightful and entertaining "can't miss" for any local or tourist. (And maybe, just maybe, our many local enclaves can figure out ways to effectively market themselves to what will likely be growing numbers of Arch visitors.)

I don't disagree that we will continue to grow and improve, for this I am extremely excited! But, I think the Gateway Mall will have a much greater impact overall, at least when considering the current Arch ground plans. Now, if the Boulevard and Trolley discussed here become part of the plan, either directly or otherwise, the Arch grounds would have more of an impact than I anticipate. I hope this is the case!

Reading the recent posts I think the idea that the proposal doesn't do enough for residents brings to mind that too much too soon is also a danger. Look what downtown has put together for residents in the last couple of years from Post office Plaza to the Citygarden to the multiple of events already downtown that serve mostly residents - Taste of St. Louis, Live on the Levee, St. Louis Go marathon, Fair St. Louis (4th of July cel). Lets not forget their is a long ways to go to get North Trestle greenway to happen to Trailnet's power park/development going in as a north side trail head to Chotteau's greenway going. Not too mention, more improvement for Gateway Mall being planned and worked on at the same time.

In that context, I think the proposal for the items are under a pretty tight time from considering the design/engineering/raising funds from skratch/to actuall construction. This is huges as it stands now. Trying to program Kiener Plaza while maintain other quality downtown functions will take a lot of effort.

I personally see the gondola proposal as a stand along proposition in a lot of ways. The designers realize it, the Park service realizes it, politician realize it, and so on. It will happen if and only if a suitable business plan can be presented and argued that fees can support a bond. Its going to be tough enough in this political environment to direct any highway funds to the lid.

Alex Ihnen wrote:

dredger wrote:Look what downtown has put together for residents in the last couple of years from Post office Plaza to the Citygarden to the multiple of events already downtown that serve mostly residents - Taste of St. Louis, Live on the Levee, St. Louis Go marathon, Fair St. Louis (4th of July cel).

I've never thought of any of those things serving primarily downtown residents. St. Louis residents, sure. But I think what some of us see missing is that 3-4mi running path across the river and back, the swimming pool idea, basketball courts, the skate park...stuff that can be used everyday in ordinary ways, not the huge festivals or tourist attractions.

Exactly. The best public spaces have activities that people use daily. What better way to celebrate our history than to very frequently be in a place that makes us remember it. What better way to build downtown vitality than by creating places where citizens and visitors want to be all the time. This "what better list" can continue on.

zun1026 wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:

dredger wrote:Look what downtown has put together for residents in the last couple of years from Post office Plaza to the Citygarden to the multiple of events already downtown that serve mostly residents - Taste of St. Louis, Live on the Levee, St. Louis Go marathon, Fair St. Louis (4th of July cel).

I've never thought of any of those things serving primarily downtown residents. St. Louis residents, sure. But I think what some of us see missing is that 3-4mi running path across the river and back, the swimming pool idea, basketball courts, the skate park...stuff that can be used everyday in ordinary ways, not the huge festivals or tourist attractions.

Exactly. The best public spaces have activities that people use daily. What better way to celebrate our history than to very frequently be in a place that makes us remember it. What better way to build downtown vitality than by creating places where citizens and visitors want to be all the time. This "what better list" can continue on.

Sorry, the impression I get from the suggestions offered in the comments above are things that downtown residents should be lobbying the city park department for. As an example, a downtown skate park would be cool and but there is a lot places you can put it that would certainly fit within the wow factor.

The questions in my mind, Do you incorporate it into the Arch Grounds competition? Does the Arch Grounds become all things to all people before one change is made? My answer is no and my argument is it would hurt rather them help things in the next one to two years when finalizing design and raising funds that clearly focus things on the new main west entrance and lid. I probably didn't argue effectively, changes in time can easily be incorporated into the south and north of the Arch Grounds as well as a whole lot of space still available on the mall . That is one thing I like about the overall design.

I think the running path across the river and back is a HUGE missing piece. That alone would make the Arch grounds the communal centerpiece of the city, bringing residents to the grounds on a frequent basis.

On another note, I think the gondolas (although not necessary to the Arch experience) WILL make the East side more successful. People will be able to go straight from the West side grounds to the center of the redeveloped area on the East side. This will bring a higher level of activity to the limited development in the East side than would otherwise happen with current alternatives.

Miss that Full Circle plan, though...

Didn't the Greenway invest in a new path across McKinnley and the plan for North Trestle works into a broader network of trails that tie the north riverfront trail, downtown, Metro East back south and Arch Grounds together? Won't you lose something if we try to focus everything at the Arch Grounds, In some respects having a bike crossing north of Arch Grounds offers some unique ammenities, experience and alternative experience.

In other words, picture a temporary bike rental setup like you Forest Park next to the Kiener Plaza satellite ticket kiosk or out of towner simply bringer their bikes with them and parking across the street. Get on the bike, explore the bike grounds, If you want to make more of it, head north and you have a choice. Right across McKinnley, down the river, through the East Grounds and pick up a ride back across the Gondola. Heck, maybe take a left and check out the elevated Greenway and pick a place on your way back through downtown to stop. Or just go north on the riverfront trail to the Chain of Rocks (Old Route 66 bridge) if you want some history. Finally, if you don't want to ride the bike that much, short ride to the gondola, hop a ride and come back.

dredger wrote:The south end of the archs and the East side have been presented as long term goals from understanding and can be reshaped as time goes on.

...

Q: It could be significantly finished but not have everything proposed done by then, right?

A: Yes, I think to me, the core is Kiener Plaza, the Old Courthouse, Luther Ely Smith Park, the lid, a new museum entrance and the museum. If you think about it, that would be fantastic.

If this were a development where someone eventually makes money, I wouldn't sweat it. However, I'm concerned once (if) we get to the nearly $600M in funding, how likely will it be that people/groups/the government will want to pitch in even more to pay for those later enhancements? My worry is, as in the past for the arch grounds, once a big portion of the work is complete the post-2015 pieces will be left unfinished (or not started). I'd agree that it's fine to do this incrementally, but if the funding is for pieces that are planned for 2015, I'm not confident much more will be raised to cover the rest.

As for Tom Bradley's comments, that completely typifies my impression that they've done their job in addressing the city to arch connection, but neglected the city to river piece. Of the two, they're focusing on the more important one, but I still would think something at that price should address both.

dredger wrote:In other words, picture a temporary bike rental setup like you Forest Park next to the Kiener Plaza satellite ticket kiosk or out of towner simply bringer their bikes with them and parking across the street. Get on the bike, explore the bike grounds, If you want to make more of it, head north and you have a choice. Right across McKinnley, down the river, through the East Grounds and pick up a ride back across the Gondola.

I really like the idea of a bicycle loop aroud the East and West sides. How about getting Trailnet and the Great Rivers Greenway to incorporate the unused level of the McArthur Bridge (as proposed by SOM and Behnisch) as part of an outer bike loop with McKinley (or Chain of Rocks), as you suggest. That wouldn't be more than 10-15 miles, which is called a Short ride on Trailnet outings. And then have an inner loop for shorter lunch hour bike rides and pedestrians using Eads and a new broad walkway/bikeway North of the Poplar Street Bridge supported by the new footings for the gondolas. That inner loop would offer great views of the river and Arch all the way around.

There is no reason we can't have gondolas AND a new walkway across the river on the North side of the Poplar Street Bridge. Airports typically have BOTH trams and walkways getting to distant terminals. What happens if you park on the East side, and then the gondola lift goes down, or closes for the evening. People will want a way to get back to their cars/homes without walking all the way around to the Eads end. Or get back after a fireworks show without standing in line for a gondola.

RobbyD wrote:@zun...I hear what you are saying brother/sister...I'm currenty flying high on sinus meds (a sinus infection in rural Afghanistan is no fun at all), so I'm not thinking straight...

I agree with your reasoning on why Citygarden works...and I agree with previous reasonings given for why the National Mall works (find me a collection of insanely interesting things to do anywhere else in the world as exists along that stretch of our nation's capital)...Citygarden is clearly very pedestrian accessible and is a clear reason why it works...My hope is that the increased energy/activity in Kiener Plaza (I have always loved the idea of a carosel there) and the much improved pedestrian access towards the Arch from this spot (I would also make the pedestrian crossings at Broadway and 4th St. wide, raised and painted loudly) will result in more folks moving towards the Arch and vice versa...

I agree that there isn't the programming on the Arch Grounds to warrant weekly visits by locals or Downtown residents...Frankly, I'm for many of the suggestions of additional things to do on the Arch Grounds, but would rather see them along the Gateway Mall...My biggest thing to improve routine visits to the Arch would be a credible running/biking loop through the area that has been mentioned...I would use a path that loops through the east side of the river (that isn't a 20 mile loop) tomorrow...And you know what, the ability to interact with a world-class monument (representing American might no less), a historic, grand bridge, the mighty Mississippi, many visitors from far and wide, a very nice downtown skyline, and the beauty that is Wash Ave (on my way down to the river) while getting in decent exercise is extremely attractive to me...And is something simple that credibly adds to the livability, even desirability, of teh current Downtown/DT West neighborhoods...

We need to pay close attention to the opinions National Park people (they/we invented the idea of national parks to begin with and have the sole mission of preserving them (and we probably don't have much choice!)), but I see no reason why the Arch Grounds could not have the reputation of something like the iconic Golden Gate Park in SF...Personally, I put myself in the same frame of mind when in either place...(We don't have mountains or oceans in MO, but there is a definite beauty in the Arch/Mississip/countryside mashup even given the industrial nature of the area (hey, I'm not gonna live like the natives)...

Damn, get well and stay safe.

As for the your comments on citizens and the arch. I think you are spot on in your recommendations. The arch grounds don't have to have a bunch of stuff thrown in for residents, but a trail and a few other things would be good. We should place a majority of the "interesting" things in the mall. The arch should maintain more of a national park feel.

I keep wondering, why is there not more citizen involvement in the redevelopment of downtown? Why are there not any charrettes?

This might be a stupid question but I do I view the revised plans? Is there a PDF or something somewhere like what was published for the original plans? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

downtown2007 wrote:This might be a stupid question but I do I view the revised plans? Is there a PDF or something somewhere like what was published for the original plans? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

See the clickable link on this page http://www.cityarchrivercompetition.org ... n-concept/

gary kreie wrote:There is no reason we can't have gondolas AND a new walkway across the river on the North side of the Poplar Street Bridge. Airports typically have BOTH trams and walkways getting to distant terminals. What happens if you park on the East side, and then the gondola lift goes down, or closes for the evening. People will want a way to get back to their cars/homes without walking all the way around to the Eads end. Or get back after a fireworks show without standing in line for a gondola.

MVVA said it was a matter of finances - it was cheaper to build a gondola than to build a footbridge. If you combine the two, it'll cost more than either one individually.

Plus, consider your average 'mercun tourist. They're not walking more than they have to. For those that want to, they can take the two mile walk from the base of the north Arch leg over the new dedicated pedestrian pathway on the Eads bridge to the Geyser basin. Fat tourists, on the other hand, can pay to get shuttled there with minimal physical exertion, as the majority prefers.

If you want a southern footbridge over the Mississippi for locals, IMO see if you can talk UP into letting someone reopen/rebuild the upper portion of the MacArthur bridge for foot and bicyle traffic.

-rbb

I assume that the walkway proposed by Weiss/Manfredi was bolted to the Poplar Street Bridge because the cost of sinking all new piers for it would be cost prohibitive. So I find it a little hard to believe that the Gondolas are cheaper than a walkway, since the Gondolas, as proposed by MVVA, do require new sunken piers.

Since they are going to all that trouble to start with, what if we ask them to include an attachment point on the piers for a future walkway structure. Attahment points alone should be cheap enough. Then on the Arch's 75th anniversary, another generation can complete the inner loop walkway. The MacArthur Bridge could eventually be part of the longer outer loop for bicycles as suggested earlier.