Things I like:
-McArthur Bridge reuse - I like the improvements to the bridge entrance by Purina, and connection to Chouteau Greenway
-Lighting of bridges - Much needed
-Pool looks intriguing
-Whispering Leaves (cool!)
-New museum entrance facing Memorial Drive
-Good plan for Kiener and LES Park
-Riverfront promenade looks nice
-Mound park on east side - not sure what it would be used for, but interesting concept, bringing back mounds

Not sure what I think of the "magic carpet" concept for the highway lid.
Not crazy about the northern or southern entrances
Landscape improvements don't look like anything special

debaliviere wrote:Things I like:
-McArthur Bridge reuse - I like the improvements to the bridge entrance by Purina, and connection to Chouteau Greenway
-Lighting of bridges - Much needed
-Pool looks intriguing
-Whispering Leaves (cool!)
-New museum entrance facing Memorial Drive
-Good plan for Kiener and LES Park
-Riverfront promenade looks nice
-Mound park on east side - not sure what it would be used for, but interesting concept, bringing back mounds

Not sure what I think of the "magic carpet" concept for the highway lid.
Not crazy about the northern or southern entrances
Landscape improvements don't look like anything special

I think we are in pretty much complete agreement.

I would like to add that the museum looks good and I really like the wetland garden on the east side.

To me it seems really a waste to put a huge amphitheater on the east side. Just makes no sense.

I think this team like many others failed to create anything that really draws a local resident to the arch grounds on the St. Louis side. A design will not bring people. People want things to do and the Arch alone is not enough.

the design team supports the efforts put forth by City to River in advocating for the removal of I-70 between Cass Avenue and the Poplar Street Bridge, and its
subsequent replacement with an at-grade signature boulevard to better connect the city to the river

SOM's plan seems informed, respectful, and mostly reasonable.

Good

- the support for City to River
- making all the downtown streets narrower and 2-way
- want to knock down ramps to the Poplar Street Bridge
- they map out how Moving Transit Forward fits in, they want to put a bus interchange in next to Eads Bridge
- recognize the importance of making a central hub for Great Rivers Greenway's trail system
- not removing traffic from Memorial Drive. The 'magic carpet' fits in the median, it isn't a road closer
- making the MacArthur bridge an important part of the arch grounds
- wide access area for bikes and people on Eads Bridge, with easy access to the park from the bridge (overhang over wash ave)
- the mound park seems like a great place for picnicing with a view. a bunch of small mounds is less troubling than one giant one
- paths around the ponds, while lacking boadwalks, introduce better landscaping and access
- see the "Whispering Leaves"
- a serious and professional look at revamping the old courthouse (though no mention of the nearby Field House...)
- proposed path to Cahokia Mounds
- not closing wash ave and putting the parking garage underground
- orientation hub looks awesome
- lookouts
- Putting a street grid and green roofs into a practical southern pavilion that extends into Chouteau's Landing. Chouteau's Landing is essentially annexed into the arch grounds or perhaps the reverse. Well played.
- East St. Louis neighborhood development plan (sweet!)
- a plan for a future Cargill repurpose


Bad

- aquarium mentioned as part of Cargill site
- Washington and Memorial is still a wasteland
- the concert venue isn't well connected to the MetroLink (page 242) They plan for it, but it still doesn't seem that well integrated
- Kiener Plaza does not use the Gateway Malls Hallway concept
- Where are they going to put the Running Man???
- Westward Expansion museum renovations are nice, but not as great as some of the other teams (imo)
- the pedestrian bridge, while cool and perhaps a bit Henderson Waves like, is sort of short
- the Easter Island heads
- the farmer's market is a bit isolated. It should be closer to e.stl residents
- the strange omission of Jefferson Barracks in their regional parks maps

DaronDierkes wrote:

zun1026 wrote: To me it seems really a waste to put a huge amphitheater on the east side. Just makes no sense.

I think this team like many others failed to create anything that really draws a local resident to the arch grounds on the St. Louis side. A design will not bring people. People want things to do and the Arch alone is not enough.

This venue would be upstaging riverport (umb pavilion, what is it called these days?), but it would put a huge concert venue with an incredible view in walking distance to the metrolink.

It seems like a lot of people want to pretend East St. Louis doesn't exist or that it should just be wilderness and farmland. I don't agree with that position, but I do agree the concert venue is not that great considering that what we have historically used the arch lawn for.

This competition is about bridging divides, making connections, and 'framing a masterpiece,' not about building new attractions. Despite this, if you look at the plans, you'll see the swimming pool is certainly an interesting attraction. The performing arts venue to the north is another. The skate park to the south and many sports facilities will have their uses. The programing and cafes on the magic carpet will bring people half way into the park. The underground museum will be twice as big! There's plenty to attract. There's also a denser collection of people working on the grounds with this plan. The north and south ends of the park are both anchored with institutions, jobs, and attractions.

I was and will be a downtown 'local resident' and I was a regular user of the bike facilities we had. This would quadruple the downtown biking options.

I just want to state that I am not opposed to making more out of the east side and that I would not be afraid to visit there. I have on many occasions in fact.

My beef with putting the amphitheater on the east side is there is very little in the way of surrounding amenities: shops, services, and various forms of entertainment. Another challenge is the degree of walkability, which relate to the lack of surrounding amenities. The best part of the Live on the Levee or Fair St. Louis is sitting under/near the arch enjoying entertainment and then, or before, walking around downtown and eating or what have you.

With few amenities around, how many people are going to get in their cars, park, go to a show and then leave on the east side? Probably more than desired IMO. I don't think Metrolink connections or pedestrian bridges will be enough to link both sides. Yes some will use those connections, but it is doubtful that as many would visit downtown if the amphitheater were closer. Granted these are just my educated guesses.

Also how many people will even go over there? In talking to St. Louisians many say they would never go over there and I am not sure how much that will change with the creation of a park or amphitheater. To be honest some of their concerns are justified. Other concerns, probably not so much. I think many would be reluctant regardless of whether they visit the Eastside or not. Right or wrong that is what I assume will happen. Here is to hoping I am wrong.

I don't think the idea of having the amphitheater on the East Side is such a bad idea as it allows you to put the Arch as your backdrop, especially if you can make the logistics of a floating stage work well. What makes this work in my mind is if you can merge the idea with the fact that the Arch lawn itself becomes a bold entry to the Arch/Westward Museum instead of the present configuration.

In other words, drop the Arch lawn as your default amphitheater as long as you make better use of that space.

As far as the pavallion at Riverport, why protect it? Its as poor of an argument as keeping the Kiel closed because it might compete with the Fox.

I agree with dredger but the floating stage was part of benisch's proposal not SOM's.

The pavillion at riverport could probably use some competition and having the main concert venue with metrolink access is a major plus and the surrounding amenities will be built over time and the closest place that currently has ammenities is downtown.

AS far as people not going there I find to be absurd. Are you really telling me that if pointfest was held at this new ampitheatre that people wouldnt go because it is on the east side?

stl pride wrote:I agree with dredger but the floating stage was part of benisch's proposal not SOM's.

The pavillion at riverport could probably use some competition and having the main concert venue with metrolink access is a major plus and the surrounding amenities will be built over time and the closest place that currently has ammenities is downtown.

AS far as people not going there I find to be absurd. Are you really telling me that if pointfest was held at this new ampitheatre that people wouldn't go because it is on the east side?

I wholeheartedly agree that Riverport, UMB Verizon....new name that comes out tomorrow...could use the competition. I absolutely have no problem with that and in fact prefer it.

Having metrolink access to a major concert venue is certainly a plus.

I am not sold on growing amenities on the east side. East St. Louis has a long way to go before that happens. One could make the argument that this project could serve as a catalyst for new development on the east side, but there are so many problem over there that I feel skeptical. However, if positive development happens over there then thats awesome.

As for people going there or not, I bet people would feel more comfortable going there for large events than smaller ones.

Again the distance factor kind of sucks but I guess thats inevitable with anything that goes over there, being as one of the largest rivers in the world bisects the two cities.

My last concern is in regards to St. Louis events. Does STL want to put an event like Rib America on the east side when it is an economic generator for ST.Louis MO? I guess we could continue to have it in the gateway mall, so that could be a mute point. But I feel like St. Louis based events could really tap into the amphitheater better if it was on the MO side.

It would be pretty sweet to watch fireworks from the amphitheater on the east side though!!!

I agree stl events should stay in st. louis. I would say using the gateway mall would be the best place for the events or we could be creative and use the 22nd st. interchange and help revitalize union station.

stl pride wrote: AS far as people not going there I find to be absurd. Are you really telling me that if pointfest was held at this new ampitheatre that people wouldnt go because it is on the east side?

oh, people would obviously go, and that would be much nicer than driving out to the middle of nowhere like going to riverport. but, unless there was a large event, nobody would ever be there. it would sit untouched. so i don't think putting a lot of money/effort into the east side makes much sense.

stl pride wrote:I agree stl events should stay in st. louis. I would say using the gateway mall would be the best place for the events or we could be creative and use the 22nd st. interchange and help revitalize union station.

Under the current layout there is not enough room for Rib America. I find it almost annoying enough not to go down there. Plus what happens when Fair STL is going on? We will still need an area for concerts near the arch, not to mention Live on the Levee. And the Blues festival (can't remember the name right now) is really picking up speed.

If the gateway mall develops in a way that works for these events, then aren't we in competition with the amphitheater on the east side? If we are going to build an amphitheater then lets get the most use out of it. Otherwise it will just be a structure that sits there unused for prolonged periods. It would be great to see a venue like that really become part of our history and civic pride. Not saying it can't happen on the east side, but I think it will have a greater impact on the STL side.

I guess I just see so many more reasons why such a venue should be on the arch grounds than across the river.

As an aside, I think having a learning center on the eastside with some wetlands would be a great idea. Something with enough size to represent what wetlands really looked like pre-development would be awesome. Not only for community understanding, but it could be a great resource for research. Thats not all that should be on the east side obviously, but it would be pretty neat IMO.

P.S. I can't believe I missed this before, but when designing an amphitheater for use in the afternoon and evening, it is best to orient the stage facing west/southwest, because the audience will be looking right into the sun as it is setting and will have the heat on their faces rather than their backs if the stage is oriented east, as it is in SOM-Hargreaves proposal. Any decent landscape architect should realize that.

Well I finally got a chance to read the proposal and I have to say I am pretty impressed, only the amphitheater is of concern...as you all are probably tired of hearing about it by now.

I am really interested to see more about how the pool, ferry, flood precautions and magic carpet will work.

DaronDierkes wrote:I've only read two of the narratives at this point, but so far SOM is the leader in my book.

I downloaded all 5 narrative .pdf files -- all 437 megabytes. I found that to view the SOM .pdf file correctly with two page spreads layed out side by side, I needed to download it first, and then go to Adobe reader, and, from the menu, go to View/Page Display and check "two-up" and "show cover page during two-up". If I don't check both of those for SOM, I can't see the two page spreads correctly -- sequenced with the intended left page on the left and right on the right. Also needed "show cover page during two-up" for Behnisch.

Overall this seems like the most solid proposal to me. I really like the north and south ends of the park and their plans. My only changes would be the "magic carpet" which would likely put a nail in the proposal to drop I-70, and the performance venue on the east riverfront, UNLESS it replaced Riverport as the biggest entertainment venue.

However, do they even address parking for the venue?