urbanSTL

And a huge part of Union Station's problems can be attributed to one of the earliest "saviors" of downtown, the Gateway Mall. Having nothing but dead space to the north of US makes Market Street even more of a barrier to the north.



What is Union Station's identity? It doesn't even have enough good shops and restaurants left to be considered a tourist trap.

Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the most recent Union Station ad campaign, which was something to the extent of "look at the the great things you get if you're only willing to pay the exorbitant parking fee."



That was another piece of sheer genius of Union Station's overall plan -- making the parking fee an integral part of the way the place made money.

Well, there's two sides to that. Faneuil Hall is largely just Chesterfield Mall with a Founding Fathers exhibit, but it seems to do just fine, in large part because there are actually workers and residents nearby to complement the tourist crowd.

Unfortunately we don't have the tourist crowds that Faneuil enjoys. It hasn't always been a success either. The granite wearhouses were slated for demolition in the 70's and were rehabbed in spite of many declaring them dead. The Gateway Mall doesn't add to foot traffic, but more than the mall, it's the dead area on the other side that hurts. The City Hall across from Faneuil is dead as well.

To go a little deeper, Crown Center in KC was built by the Hall family to enhance the neighborhood surrounding Hallmark corporate headquarters. So the driver was a civic-minded family. Through great times and rough patches, Crown Center is successful because of its diversity. Just to list a few:

entertainment of all types, shopping, office, production, residentail, ice skating, event venues, and hotels.



This idea could contribute more to the development of Lemp by AB.



Who/what has Union Station got?



What is the driver behind Reading and some of the other successful examples?

gut it and put in the publicly-funded institution our city doesn't have (and likely doesn't need though people always propose it to go in any new large-scale development): a st. louis aquarium.



that was a half-hearted suggestion. either way though, a "mall" does not belong there. i say, for the short-term, redo the hyatt (talk about the epitome of all that was bad about 80's/90's architecture) and put in some pleasant mixed-use with a few restaurants in shops but just a few. for the long-term, wait for development to travel further west before there might be the emphasis and ideas to do something more useful with the space.



my hometown, duluth in northern minnesota, had a fabulous decommissioned train depot that was turned into a combination of a theatre, regional arts display and development space, a small but excellent turn-of-the-century museum recreating the train station (as a kid, that place was IT) as well as spaces for events, meetings, etc. it wasn't a big depot but it is still self-sustaining and popular as well as it really bolstered the local arts and performance economy while making some homage to the really rich history of the american railroad.

I don't understand why we can't use it as a ***** train station. I know that Amtrak is not widely used, but it does come in and out of the city and (IMO) stands to become a more and more practical transportation option as gas prices soar and airlines continue to piss everyone off. Make Union station the center of the metrolink system as well. The central point from which all the trains radiate. In that way, as inter-state train travel/ intra-urban mass-transit becomes more popular in our (hopefully not imaginary) burgeoning 21st century metropolis, Union Station will have thousands of people pass through every day. It could have a retail, entertainment, and hotel landscape that catered to those individuals. In such a way, we wouldn't have to "convince" people to come to US. They would come anyway, and their needs and wants would dictate the commercial landscape in a "natural" way.

a st. louis aquarium.

I'm almost warming to this idea. If done right. They should build the world's largest freshwater aquarium. They could specialize in river ecosystems. Every aquarium has a big shark tank - big whoop. What about a moving river with a glass tunnel!? The aquarium could also be a research center for freshwater ecosystems, part tourist attraction, part research center . . . like the Botanical Gardens - or the zoo. If the special taxing district actually covered the metro area we could probably afford an aquarium.

^ Not to be a Debbie Downer, but what's wrong with the aquarium in the City Museum?

I heard a bunch of people complaining that the City Museum aquarium smelled like fish.

TGE-ATW wrote:I heard a bunch of people complaining that the City Museum aquarium smelled like fish.

Are you serious or joking?

^ Not to be a Debbie Downer, but what's wrong with the aquarium in the City Museum?

Besides smelling like fish . . . It's small and without a research component.

I'm serious. I was there a few weeks ago and there adult and student members of a school group complaining about the fish smell emanating from the aquarium. Passenger rail is not dead. It is dormant. I'm not saying that Amtrak alone could bring back the station, but making it a major transportation hub makes perfect sense to me.

^ To be fair, it is somewhat gross. When you're climbing through not-so-clean tunnels there's nothing like humid fish smell to complete the experience. As an aquarium it's not very well ventilated.

TGE-ATW wrote: Passenger rail is not dead. It is dormant. I'm not saying that Amtrak alone could bring back the station, but making it a major transportation hub makes perfect sense to me.

25 years ago, maybe. But I assume you're not suggesting they simply tear down the multimillion-dollar "multimodal" station already in process.

Why do you guys think that rail is dead? I firmly believe that the future is rail. Ever been to a little place called Europe. I think it is east of here. Anyway. Rail is economically practical. Environmentally friendlier (than cars). Reduces sprawl in the ex-urbs and increases density in cities. While not at fast as flying, it can be significantly faster than driving. While Union Station may never be re-born as a train station, rail will play a larger role in the future of the United States than it does now. And yes..........I was advocating tearing down the multi modal center. I don't even want a Modal center, let alone a multi modal center. I hate mods.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

TGE-ATW wrote:Why do you guys think that rail is dead? I firmly believe that the future is rail. Ever been to a little place called Europe. I think it is east of here. Anyway. Rail is economically practical. Environmentally friendlier (than cars). Reduces sprawl in the ex-urbs and increases density in cities. While not at fast as flying, it can be significantly faster than driving. While Union Station may never be re-born as a train station, rail will play a larger role in the future of the United States than it does now. And yes..........I was advocating tearing down the multi modal center. I don't even want a Modal center, let alone a multi modal center. I hate mods.

Yes, I've been to Europe numerous times. The problem is, rail over there never went away. So it never had to come back.

And in addition, much of the rail infrastructure in Europe -- or at least France, Germany, Austria, and BeNeLux -- was rebuilt in the late 1940s and through the 1950s. Our rail infrastructure is simply older and not in the condition for high speed travel, and the greater distances make the investment in upgrades that much more expensive. I'm not saying it's not a good idea. (Deterioration of the air travel experience makes it all the better an idea.) It's just something that, so far, no-one has ponyed up the $$ for.

I know what you guys are saying, but think about it. I am talking about the future. I think that environmental issues such as automobile emissions and sprawl, geopolitical issues related to oil, traffic problems that only get bigger when we expand the roads, and parking issues in metropolitan areas (to name a few) all point to the increased reliance on rail in the future. Also, though our rail infrastructure would need to be completely overhauled, we have already done much of the heavy lifting. The right of ways across the country and through the cities already exist. The grades have already been constructed. The tunnels through entire mountains, and in the case of St. Louis, under the city, have already been cut. Its not like we need to bore the Moffat tunnel again. sh*t, the tracks still go to Union Station, they just aren't used. I just think that completely abandoning the idea of using one of the most beautiful train stations in the country....... as a train station, is squandering an opportunity.

It's sad that talking about rail transit is actually an off topic convseration for a Union Station thread...

^



I do think that rail will make a comback - but maybe not before much of the infrastructure is torn up. Unfortunately I think that we're in for another round of highway building before anything changes (think I-70 eight lanes 'cross Missoura and a new MSR Bridge without rail consideration). But I believe that in my lifetime I will see highway removal. Of course this has happened in some city centers, but I think I'll see a time when lanes are removed due to the amazingly high cost of maintenance. We are already struggling to maintain the bridges and roadways we have and no one seems eager to pay for it.

I've been lurking for months and havn't had time to post but now that I'm sure where I'm going to college(Georgetown, but I'm going to be sad to leave STL ), I think I'll have time again .



I think we'd all love for US to be a train station again, especially like some of the combined subway/metro, commuter, and amtrak uses on the east coast such as New York, Washington, Philadelphia, and Baltimore(I could only say for sure for Washington, but the tracks terminate there too, as in they have to back in and out. but don't they have engines on both ends so it's not really that much of a problem?) But realistically with the construction of the multimodal center (at least a significant step in the right direction), this isn't going to happen to US anytime soon. Besides, the traffic that would go through it isn't yet large enough for such an expensive undertaking, but maybe [-o< as our system expands, this will happen. If it gets to anything like those in the Northeast, the multimodal doesn't look big enough.



Anyways, because of this reality I like the idea for a temporary overhaul into a new purpose since I agree with others that a mall isn't exactly the best fit. The Musee d'Orsay in Paris used to be a train station. Musee d'Orsay



I've often read discussion on here about a possible architecture museum downtown. I think US would be the perfect fit for such a museum.

Well, since you brought the museum up, allow me to revive one of my long-ago pet ideas. They ought to move the National Museum of Transport down to Union Station and the nearby unused space adjoining the Chestnut ramp. It's a very cool museum that would be a lot cooler if it were visible and accessible, which it is relatively neither out on Barrett Station Road.



Not real likely, though.

I only wish they would do that.