urbanSTL

rbb wrote: ↑

May 11, 2017

Add a lake with a stable shore and you could have lunch on a pier over the water, etc. That's another reason you don't see residential or offices right up against the water (the stillborn NFL stadium would have been the first, so it is possible).

All of these things would be much more practical to do on a lake. And presumably they won't turn the thing into an open sewer this time.

All that said, while I love the idea I'm not holding my breath that we'll see a recreation of Chouteau's pond any time soon.

-RBB

Very good point. This could be much more like Forest Park's Boathouse experience or OKC's or Indy's canals.
Sidebar, just got back from Copenhagen and Helsinki, both cities had large lakes that attracted walkers, runners quite well. Not an unrealistic proposal at all. I will reiterate: this was once a natural lake that was drained by 19th Century "engineers" because humans believed that nature was inferior and needed to be "improved."

aprice wrote: ↑

May 11, 2017

I will reiterate: this was once a natural lake that was drained by 19th Century "engineers" because humans believed that nature was inferior and needed to be "improved."

Not quite right,actually. Chouteau's Pond was formed by damming Mill Creek. Natural in the sense that there was a flowing creek that provided the water source, but it wasn't a lake until humans intervened. By the time it was drained it was a cesspool and one of the sources of the Cholera Epidemics that rolled over the City more than once. Still more natural at its creation than a recreation would be, but I'd be fine with a man-made and man-filled lake there now.

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑

May 11, 2017

stlokc wrote: ↑

May 11, 2017

I never understood the Chouteau's Lake proposal. Why in the world would we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build an artificial lake six blocks away from one of the greatest, most historic natural waterways in the country? St. Louis needs to find ways to engage with our existing riverfront rather than creating something new.

Well you cant really use the Mississippi for anything fun honestly. Too big, too powerful, too fast. Every time I go home to Milwaukee, I am incredibly jealous of the Milwaukee river. Small, slow river they spent a lot of money to clean up that cuts through what would basically be like tucker Ave in STL. Now people take boats on it every night, kayak, canoe, have a riverwalk, tons of restaurants in several neighborhoods looking over the water. Pricey condos looking over the river. I know people who Kayak to work!

You can't have any of that with the Mississippi.

But you could with the RdP, if it were filled.

General overlay:



View south from 8th and Clark, circa 1850:

framer wrote:General overlay:


[/img]

"Stop looking at me SWAN"

framer wrote: ↑

May 11, 2017

General overlay:



View south from 8th and Clark, circa 1850:

Wow is that actually what River Des Peres looked like? What a massive mistake to put that underground.

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑

May 11, 2017

Wow is that actually what River Des Peres looked like? What a massive mistake to put that underground.

The furtherest East River Des Peres runs in Kingshighway. I'm assuming this was the damming on Mill Creek to form the original pond.

Which, btw, I never said that this pond is natural, I said that this was naturally a wetland, which is true.

Guys it's Choteau's Pond


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Original plans for the new Shriner's Hospital in The City. Unfortunately, the recession caused them to re-think and downsize their plans.

framer wrote: ↑

May 23, 2017

Laclede's Landing ferris wheel:

There's still a TIF ordinance on the books for this one (never activated). They theoretically could resurrect it at some point, though thankfully I don't think that will happen. The obsession with "observation wheels" by developers in this City is fascinating.

Here's one of several facade designs that had been considered for The Standard at Forest Park Pkwy. and Vandeventer. Even though the hip roofs are rather ridiculous, I think most of us would agree that this would have been much better than what they actually built.

So you know Lambert has two terminals. Did you know that there was at one point plans for a third?

This is totally stolen from here, for the record. In it, he shows that the W1W airport expansion built not because of a projected increase in flights, but because of the "crippling effect of bad weather on Lambert operations".

However, they did believe passenger volume was likely to increase. They projected a high-growth scenario, a low-growth scenario (wherein Lambert is de-hubbed, but some other airline eventually steps in to replace some or all of the volume) and a middle ground with some growth. They ultimately based expansion plans off of the middle projection. It explains:

Before the expansion project began, Lambert had 89 aircraft gate positions and about 1.5 million square feet of terminal space. The projected future need (in 2015 with the middle forecast) was about 110 total gates. In order to accommodate these new gates, one option was to relocate the Missouri Air National Guard from its location just west of the main terminal to a site on the east side of the airfield, and to build another concourse to the west of the main terminal.

Another option considered was to build a new midfield terminal. This option allowed for more gates (more than the projected need) and thus allowed for easier future expansion. The satellite terminal would have been located between the new runway and runway 12R-30L, as shown below.

This new midfield terminal would have accommodated an additional 150 gates.

Interestingly, as of the penning of this this report in 2007, the plan hadn't actually been completely discarded, only delayed until volume again justifies considering it:

However, although the option still exists to develop this site, no construction has started on this terminal. Since the demand levels are so far below what was forecasted in 1994, there is no need or justification for the new terminal building. Thus, the terminal expansion plans have been delayed until the passenger demand levels actually require a new terminal building.

Perhaps some day in the (distant) future it will be considered again? One can dream...

-RBB

I do indeed remember some of that. One of the (several) terminal concepts was floated as a replacement for the main terminal. I was . . . absolutely mortified at the idea the terminal might be demolished. (It's been one of my favorite buildings from my earliest childhood memories.) But, many is it nice seeing it in print again so I know I'm not crazy. Thank you. Bring back some memories. Will have to give the whole paper a read. It looks quite intriguing.

I bet most of you youngsters have never even heard of the Meramec Dam proposal.

Back in the 1970s, the Corp of Engineers had actually started construction of a 180' high dam at Sullivan, which would have created a 23,000 acre lake less than an hour away from St. Louis. It would have prevented the kind of flooding that effected the Meramec in the St. Louis area recently. It would have also destroyed the Meramec's free-flowing river system and flooded thousands of acres of beautiful land (including such areas as Meramec State Park and Onondoga Cave).

In 1978, voters in a non-binding referendum rejected the plan by a 2 to 1 margin. The dam was officially de-authorized in 1981.



https://www.rollanet.org/~conorw/cwome/ ... mbined.htm

https://sierraclub.org/missouri/eastern ... 1_25_years

Here are some I have thought of...
1. Every single Chemical Building restoration concept.
2. The Townhomes at 10th and Olive
3. The whole 900 block of Olive Redevelopment plans from the past
4. The Fairfield Inn at the former Soccer Stadium site.

It seems that the MoPac Building was originally meant to be 10 stories taller, but the depression caused them to cut back. That's also why the east facade appears unfinished.

Image taken from a Facebook Group post:

framer wrote: ↑

Aug 30, 2017

It seems that the MoPac Building was originally meant to be 10 stories taller, but the depression caused them to cut back. That's also why the east facade appears unfinished.

Image taken from a Facebook Group post:

I always thought they demolished the half along Tucker. I just wish that one day a developer can be kind enough to demolish the garage they built and build the other half.

If you look closely you will see that the picture shows the west facade as it was intended. You can see the Civil Courts building behind it and to the right, just as you see it from the west now. The rendering doesn't look any deeper at all than the building actually is. And the setbacks, details, and floor counts match exactly to casual observation right up until they don't. Do you have a rendering of the east side? My guess is that the east side was left plain since it didn't take up the entire block. Even though there doesn't appear to have been anything substantial on the eastern half of the block (that would still have been the west edge of downtown in 1930) they might have assumed that something would be built there quickly. Even the Southwestern Bell building isn't nearly so impressive on the south, where it ends midblock, as it is on the north where it fronts the street. Though Ma Bell may have had an idea that there would never be all that much there, since the sliver is pretty small, so at least they spent the cash on a nicer finish. That said, if you've got a rendering of the east facade as it was intended to be I'd love to see it.

Anyway . . . wow is that a truncation job. I always thought the MoP building looked rather squat. That explains it.

Sorry, I don't have any more images. I stole this one from the Facebook Group St. Louis Missouri, History Landmarks and Vintage Photos. Who knows; maybe the structure was engineered for the extra floors, and they could still be added.

It's interesting to note that the SW Bell building's south facade was still bare brick until sometime around the 1980s or 90s, when they finally covered it with limestone.

Interesting. I guess it is unbuilt St. Louis.