Agree that ONSL is experiencing good, organic growth. I don't think throwing $27 million at 14th Street was a wise idea. That money could have been put to better use elsewhere - in the neighborhood, even.
- 712
I'm not proposing an aquarium at all. I'm trying to make a case for not creating a new one separate from what we already have.
- 6,775
Except we don't really already have one. The City Museum's pales in comparison to a real aquarium.DaronDierkes wrote:I'm not proposing an aquarium at all. I'm trying to make a case for not creating a new one separate from what we already have.
THIS is an aquarium:
![]()
An aquarium (even remotely) like this on the Ballpark Village site, funded in a similar fashion, would in my opinion be far more preferable than any "bar mall" like The Power & Light District in KC.From Wiki:
In November 2001, Bernard Marcus (Home Depot founder) announced his idea to build an aquarium as a present to Atlanta, Georgia that would encourage both education and economic growth.
Marcus and his wife Billi visited 56 aquariums in 13 countries to research and design a structure, and finally donated $250 million toward Georgia Aquarium’s construction.[3] An additional $40 million dollars in financial contributions was donated by major corporations including the Coca-Cola Company, Turner Broadcasting, Home Depot, UPS, AirTran Airways, AT&T, Georgia-Pacific, Time Warner, SunTrust and Southern Company.[3] The corporate donations allowed the aquarium to open debt free.
The Georgia Aquarium welcomed its three millionth guest on August 24, 2006, its five millionth on May 23, 2007, and its ten millionth guest on June 25, 2009.[7]
- 11K
I'm not really a fan of an aquarium downtown, but by all means if someone puts up $250M and can raise another $50M then it would be an incredible destination.
- 712
Exactly, the City Museum's setup is depressing. If you created a real aquarium somewhere else, then the city museum would still be small and depressing. There would be even less incentive to fix what's wrong with it then.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Except we don't really already have one. The City Museum's pales in comparison to a real aquarium.DaronDierkes wrote:I'm not proposing an aquarium at all. I'm trying to make a case for not creating a new one separate from what we already have.
- 6,775
I'm not sure anything is "wrong" with it. The City Museum really isn't in the aquarium business.DaronDierkes wrote:Exactly, the City Museum's setup is depressing. If you created a real aquarium somewhere else, then the city museum would still be small and depressing. There would be even less incentive to fix what's wrong with it then.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Except we don't really already have one. The City Museum's pales in comparison to a real aquarium.DaronDierkes wrote:I'm not proposing an aquarium at all. I'm trying to make a case for not creating a new one separate from what we already have.
I can still remember the aquarium in Hanley industrial court before moving over to city museum, believe that is the same individual/group. A cheap half hour distraction but my kids still got something out of it.
However, the last time my family entertained the aquarium at city museum it was very short lived. I believe they charge on top of the city museum ticket that is required. We paid for the city museum ticket and never gave aquarium a second thought. Maybe it has changed, maybe not.
However, the last time my family entertained the aquarium at city museum it was very short lived. I believe they charge on top of the city museum ticket that is required. We paid for the city museum ticket and never gave aquarium a second thought. Maybe it has changed, maybe not.
- 712
Towards the end of this video you can hear,The Central Scrutinizer wrote:The City Museum really isn't in the aquarium business.
I know you don't like to look things up C. Scruty, but somewhere I read a huge interview with Cassilly in the first year or two of the City Museum and he was talking about making it an aquarium. The turtle tank with the puking pig was central to the idea.The aquarium idea is not a new one. In fact, it was the original idea, and that's why there's a marine theme on the first floor for no apparent reason. The aquarium though went somewhere else, and Cassilly turned what he had into the City Museum. Now the aquarium will relocate from its current location at Hanley Industrial Court...
Obviously over time things got a little crazy, but the original idea is still a major part of the first two floors.
Watch this video on the mosaics and at the 3:30 mark hear the strange words, "This is an aquarium, so let's put some fish into it." Then there's talk about oyster shells.
Walrus? Seals? A ray hanging from the ceiling? The whale must not be a giveaway.
The City Museum is clearly in the aquarium business, but that's not the only business. The aquarium isn't very big, but it is still an aquarium that we have already invested a few millon in. Rather than building a brand new one in ballpark village, it be better to just expand the one we already have.
- 6,775
Then they aren't in the aquarium business very well. If you think that qualifies as an aquarium, then you've never been to a real one.DaronDierkes wrote:The City Museum is clearly in the aquarium business, but that's not the only business. The aquarium isn't very big, but it is still an aquarium that we have already invested a few millon in. Rather than building a brand new one in ballpark village, it be better to just expand the one we already have.
- 11K
^ Now that's true. It will be great to see the additions at the zoo. The sea lion tunnel and polar bear swim tank will be some nice touches. Of course it's not as though they're going to make the zoo into an aquarium.
- 712
Right, tile fish are not the same as real fish. If we had a 'real one' then the City Museum's aquarium would be even more of a joke. They're kind of too heavily invested to change directions now.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Then they aren't in the aquarium business very well. If you think that qualifies as an aquarium, then you've never been to a real one.DaronDierkes wrote:The City Museum is clearly in the aquarium business, but that's not the only business. The aquarium isn't very big, but it is still an aquarium that we have already invested a few millon in. Rather than building a brand new one in ballpark village, it be better to just expand the one we already have.
I just think it makes more sense to try to improve the semi-aquarium that we have and stop the constant call for someone to invest $300 million in a brand new tax subsidized facility somewhere else. Rehab, don't shop around for a new site.
- 11K
City Museum isn't so invested that they couldn't walk away from their aquarium. I think the theme is still great for a cavernous part of the building and my bet would be that the aquarium is the most expensive part to maintain and likely loses money. I've been to CM a number of times and not once to the aquarium.
I wasn't aware of the fact that there is a constant call for this. Where did you find this information?DaronDierkes wrote: I just think it makes more sense to try to improve the semi-aquarium that we have and stop the constant call for someone to invest $300 million in a brand new tax subsidized facility somewhere else.
Let me explain why I would prefer an aquarium over a bar mall at BPV:
A bar mall would mostly cater to Cards fans and visitors that are already downtown for other reasons. This would hurt the revenue of the independent businesses on Washington Ave and in the Central Business District.
A (large) aquarium would draw visitors from within and outside the region, likely even nationwide. It would be a year-round destination. It would draw visitors to downtown on those dreary winter Sundays and could possibly entice business owners to stay open on Sunday. It would help the hotels fill rooms on days without conventions.
It would bring a lot of money that otherwise would not have been spend in downtown St. Louis. A bar mall will not accomplish this, it will only hurt the existing businesses downtown.
Note: Earlier in the thread I used the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta as an example. This is the largest aquarium in the world that was built without tax-incentives, at a cost of about $ 300 million. I am not saying this is viable here or that it is exactly what should be built at BPV.
- 2,386
An aquarium on the BPV land? Worst idea ever. I usually agree with you Count, but this may be the worst statement that I have ever heard floated for BPV. A world-class aquarium would be cool at another location. This is a collection of prime lots in the heart of downtown and deserves nothing less than multiple whole-block, extremely tall towers.
^That may not happen, but it doesn't negate the importance of the land and the plans that should be considered for it. Fine idea, downright single worst possible proposed location.
^That may not happen, but it doesn't negate the importance of the land and the plans that should be considered for it. Fine idea, downright single worst possible proposed location.
- 712
BPV is extremely obvious to me. Residential towers, baseball museum, sports bars, and all sorts of integrated viewing decks. Some office space maybe, if Rawlings steps up, but otherwise games don't happen between 9 and 5. The windows in the towers will need people looking out of them, not fish. Office workers go home, residents can relax and stay to enjoy the show.
Baseball and fish seem like an absurd combination. We have Cardinals, not Marlins.
I don't think more residential condos would take away from Wash Ave at all, it would be an enhancement. More residents means more amenitites and more retail demand.
There isn't a constant call for an aquarium, but it sure does come up a lot. Your idea to put it in BPV is an example of that.
The arch design teams are going to give us their proposals quite soon. Does anybody expect an aquarium?
Baseball and fish seem like an absurd combination. We have Cardinals, not Marlins.
I don't think more residential condos would take away from Wash Ave at all, it would be an enhancement. More residents means more amenitites and more retail demand.
There isn't a constant call for an aquarium, but it sure does come up a lot. Your idea to put it in BPV is an example of that.
They probably do lose money on it. It's depressing, I won't pay for it. It should be a non-profit venture paying rent to the museum, not a toxic asset. Letting the zoo take it over seems sensible to me. If they did walk away from it, I'd be happy to stop harping on this. If they insist on keeping it and developing the aquatic theme, then we ought to start calling it 'the St. Louis Aquarium' and treat it as if it is one (even though it's a far cry from what we imagine).Alex Ihnen wrote:City Museum isn't so invested that they couldn't walk away from their aquarium. I think the theme is still great for a cavernous part of the building and my bet would be that the aquarium is the most expensive part to maintain and likely loses money. I've been to CM a number of times and not once to the aquarium.
The arch design teams are going to give us their proposals quite soon. Does anybody expect an aquarium?
- 8,923
Who says you can't have an aquarium AND tall towers? I still think an aquarium would be really cool and a good anchor for the village.
If we want to be realistic about a real aquarium, we need a location other than the city museum. It might've been the original intention, but that place is its own awesome world, and I personally think a real aquarium there would mess it up. Furthermore, where would you even put a real aquarium in the City Museum? The first floor is pretty much filled, and there's no way you could throw a bunch of thousand gallon aquariums on the upper floors without doing some SERIOUS structural changes to the lower levels (ruining many of the attractions on said levels).
BPV is an interesting idea, but I also don't think it mixes well with baseball. I think we should do as New Orleans did and put it on the river (assuming I-70 is removed). It'd be a great way to revitalize the riverfront, and it would actually make sense to put an aquarium next to a big body of water.
BPV is an interesting idea, but I also don't think it mixes well with baseball. I think we should do as New Orleans did and put it on the river (assuming I-70 is removed). It'd be a great way to revitalize the riverfront, and it would actually make sense to put an aquarium next to a big body of water.
- 712
Where? Note the map posted earlier on this thread. Next to the City Museum along 14th Street. Nothing in the current building other than what's there currently. Natrually a tunnel/bridge would connect them. It's not that hard to imagine.
^ That works, but I was talking more in response to ideas that the current CM building could handle it.
I still like the riverfront though, as it'd be a good anchor to get people down there. Plus, a good aquarium will probably turn over a huge amount of water, and I imagine it'd be much more cost effective to just pull it from the river rather than pay for utilities/new pipes underground.
Of course, if the CM can handle it, go for it!
I still like the riverfront though, as it'd be a good anchor to get people down there. Plus, a good aquarium will probably turn over a huge amount of water, and I imagine it'd be much more cost effective to just pull it from the river rather than pay for utilities/new pipes underground.
Of course, if the CM can handle it, go for it!
- 11K
I'm envisioning a fan deck inside a shark tunnel on the 13rd floor of a new corporate headquarters office tower with my condo on the 42nd...Moorlander wrote:Who says you can't have an aquarium AND tall towers? I still think an aquarium would be really cool and a good anchor for the village.
DaronDierkes wrote:BPV is extremely obvious to me. Residential towers, baseball museum, sports bars, and all sorts of integrated viewing decks. Some office space maybe, if Rawlings steps up, but otherwise games don't happen between 9 and 5. The windows in the towers will need people looking out of them, not fish. Office workers go home, residents can relax and stay to enjoy the show.
Unfortunately, the only elements of BPV that are now being planned are a 14-story office tower (Stifel Nicolaus) and a restaurant/bar.
Why?Baseball and fish seem like an absurd combination. We have Cardinals, not Marlins.
I don't think more residential condos would take away from Wash Ave at all, it would be an enhancement. More residents means more amenitites and more retail demand.
I agree. That's why I said: I'd prefer an aquarium at BPV over a bar mall. (Think P&L in KC.)
Fair enough.There isn't a constant call for an aquarium, but it sure does come up a lot. Your idea to put it in BPV is an example of that.
I don't.The arch design teams are going to give us their proposals quite soon. Does anybody expect an aquarium?
Again, I don't care where this aquarium would be located, as long as it's downtown. Maybe somewhere on the Landing or the Bottle District site. The fact is that right now, BPV is nowhere close to happening as initially proposed. Maybe, maybe, we'll get a decent office tower and a restaurant. No residential is planned at this time.
Also, I don't see why BPV would be a bad location for an aquarium. Large lot, easy access, plenty of parking. First, let's get Arcade, Alexa and Jefferson Arms developed before building new residential. Second, there is plenty of space downtown for new residential infill.
But in an ideal world with plenty of financing available I could see an aquarium, baseball museum, (tall!) office towers, (tall!) residential towers, restaurants mix at BPV as well.
- 339
As much as I don't really care about an Aquarium, if were to be built at BPV, it would bring visitors to the south side of downtown during the baseball offseason. It would make a nice parallel to the City Museum, and if done correctly, a major public attraction anchor to downtown (rather than an outdoor mall/bars/restaurants).
- 712
My big complaint is that small aquariums are horrible places. Penguins shouldn't be held in 10 gallon tanks. Leatherback turtles should be able to turn around if they want. Big fish like sharks and dolphins need a lot of space. The city museum's setup is small and not all of their exhibits are so great for the animals. If you put an aquarium at the base of a tall tower, you're essentially locking it into a certain amount of floorspace without anywhere to expand to. 63 SeaWorld is a horrible aquarium with a 63 storey office building on top of it. The aquarium is small and unsuitable for the species that live there, but there's little room for it to expand unless it starts taking over restaurants and food courts.Moorlander wrote:Who says you can't have an aquarium AND tall towers? I still think an aquarium would be really cool and a good anchor for the village.
If the World Aquarium closed in conjunction with a larger aquarium opening somewhere else, then I'd be fine with it. Otherwise we have two downtown aquariums and duplicated effort. This isn't like a Fox vs. Kiel thing. We're not exactly close to the ocean. Do we really have the pool of resources and talent to support two saltwater aquaria? If one sucks, and the other is ok, wouldn't it be better to just put them together and have one that is great?
The bigger issue is the idea of abandoning what you already have in order to build something brand new. I thought you guys were all about historic preservation. Isn't restoring and expanding existing structures and projects more sensible than blazing ahead on a different site?