I find the issue of reconciling freeways with dense urban cores fascinating. My feelings on St. Louis?s highways are as follows:



I think highway 70 is indispensable as it links the airport and downtown. There have been some good ideas elsewhere on the forum about how it could?ve been buried as it approached downtown to avoid isolating the landing.



Highway 64/40 likewise I think makes sense, it connects two of the largest business centers in the region, as well as Barnes-Jewish, and as it approaches downtown it follows what was mainly a transportation/industrial corridor already. I realize you can get into a chicken and egg argument over how much hwy 40 serves Clayton and how much Clayton was created by the highway ? but that?s for a different discussion.



Highways 44 and 55 account for a lot of my dissatisfaction with St. Louis, the phrase that comes to mind is ?opportunities lost?. 44 doesn?t seem to be that heavily traveled, and so much was sacrificed for it. As it exists now, it kind of dead-ends into a mass of interchanges and exit ramps near City Hospital, an area I like to refer to as the black hole for the life-sucking effect it has on the area. According to one history of the area I?ve read, something like 60 blocks of Bohemian Hill were sacrificed for this. 60! Could it not have dead-ended farther out from the city? Perhaps unloading onto a wide new boulevard that would lead into downtown? It still would have required some demolition, but certainly not as much and would?ve kept Lafayette square and Soulard knitted together.



Hwy 55 annoys me too. As you approach the brewery on northbound 55, it veers west and severs Benton Park from Soulard, and then veers back east. Anyone know why it didn?t go around the east side of the brewery? Possibly because it had to meet up with 44? I think this slicing and dicing of the near south side really keeps this area from becoming more nationally recognized, more like Boston?s north end.



My understanding is that it was Robert Moses in NY who first proposed that freeways cut right through city neighborhoods as part of slum clearance, as opposed to Eisenhower?s plan to build interstate highways between cities. Is Moses who I should be pissed-off at? What?s his email?



If anyone has any further thoughts on this or suggested reading, I?d appreciate it. I?m aware of Caro?s biography of Moses.

I would assume that because of all the business industrial east of the brewery along the river made 55 going east almost impossible. I use 44 almost exclusively, but that's because I work in Rock Hill and Webster Groves and live in Tower Grove. And 44 deadends into 55, they would have had to run the highway farther north, or farther south to avoid Bohemian Hill.



As for Clayton/64/40 vs. Chicken/Egg. I would think that because downtown Clayton is so offset from the highway that it really wasn't so much the highway as it was the city planners from Clayton, and the budding problems between the city and county that created downtown Clayton.



There are so many issues with the highways, that I think we could all go back and find better and more effective ways to create the interstate system within St. Louis. But seeing as how we've already been dealt that hand, we should just focus on what we can do to alleviate the problems, or perhaps cover them up.

It looks like the plan was to have what is now 44 break off of 40 rather than 55. This is from the 1947 comprehensive city plan. Note also the north-south distributor around downtown and the 8-lane street that was going to cut through Tower Grove Park. Thank goodness it didn't happen.



http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/ ... late19.GIF

Also notice on the 1947 graphic that an "expressway" (remember this is prior to Eisenhower's Interstates) was to be built along Boyle, Tower Grove and Morganford. This north-south highway, in addition to what was planned to become I-755 just west of Downtown, fortunately was never built.



But as the 1947 graphic shows, what would become 44 was originally planned to feed into Chouteau, as 40 first did as the Oakland Expressway.



As to why 55 goes west of the brewery is also likely due in part to the Third Street Expressway first going out to Gravois and Tucker. As such, the highways coming from downtown already went west of Soulard Market, and hence would continue west of Soulard, as both 55 (as shown in the graphic) and later 44 (changed to line up with 55).

That is correct sslider. Also, I heard I-70 followed it's path because of the concentration of parks and cemeteries in that part of N. City. This practice was halted more or less in the early 70s when residents near Overton Park halted construction of I-40 through Memphis with a lawsuit. This lawsuit helped pave the way(pun intended) for all those Environmental Impact Statements and Alternatives Analysis that must be done before any major project is started today.



BTW, I found this on the FHWA website some time ago, but it's pretty interesting to see the proposed paths of the interstates.

Interesting. I've never seen that particular map.

It's true that 44 was the last interstate to be built through the City, but where it went, the highway's path largely displaced white households.



Of these displacements, those getting the most media attention in the 1970s were those on The Hill and in Webster Groves, respectively a City neighborhood and older community each cut by 44. Businesses and residents on The Hill went so far as to raise money towards an additional bridge east of Macklind. Learning from 44, Webster Groves residents would later help stop the extension of 170 south of 40.

I know we don't like the land clearance caused by interstate construction, but a lack of transportation can be as detrimental to a city as the destruction caused by building it. Business leaders in Belleville succesfully fought against the construction of I-64 through the city in the 60's. It was unimaginable at the time that development would leave Belleville, because all there was to the north was farmland. Well, now Fairview Heights can attribute its very existance to that ill-fated decision, and O'Fallon's string of car dealerships also came at Belleville's expense.

Xing, I think in the long run you will be right. Belleville realizes now that transportation is key to its success, which is the reason why they jumped on Metrolink extension (and an airport, but that's another story). They are also trying to improve their connectivity with I-255 and St. Louis by developing IL-15 south of the city.



My overall point is that development follows transportation, whether it's rails, riverboats, airplanes, or yes, even cars. While highway development is painful for a city (as I'm watching cars on 44 while writing this) a lack thereof is not always desirable.

Thanks for all the info, the maps are especially interesting. They kind of hit on one of the things I wanted to get at in this thread, which is: If you could go back in time and design St. Louis?s freeway system knowing what we know now, how would it be different? Maybe it would be a little closer to the FHWA map.

Bellevegas wrote: a lack of transportation can be as detrimental to a city as the destruction caused by building it.

Xing wrote:Belleville, at the time, made some very liberal decisions to reject the freeway and the mall? I bet it will see the benefits in due time.

Good points both, which brings me to another issue. Obviously we live in the 21st century and highways are part of our lives - so where do you strike the balance between making sure people can get from A to B quickly, and disrupting existing neighborhoods? This seems especially pertinent in light of the expansion of highway 64/40. I think many would agree that most American cities erred on the side of highway construction.



I remember listening to Rollin Stanley give a talk and he said that Toronto, his former hometown, had one highway going through the city, whereas St. Louis has what, 4? Just a different way of looking at things.



I also have seen drawings from the 1940?s that show freeways with high-speed trains running down the center of them. The argument was that cities were acquiring land anyway for the highways, why not acquire a little more and lay tracks for the trains? But it was deemed too expensive. It makes you wonder how businesses and residences may have clustered more closely around freeway exits if it had happened.

Rail with highways was put to death first by Robert Moses leaving a legacy of not mixing the two.



I wouldn't mind removing I-44 from City limits and turning it into a boulevard while I-55 could be stopped north of Carondelet and turned into a boulevard, both would converge and give up plenty of land to new development and Metro could be installed to make up for the transportation need with density around stations.

stl555 wrote:I also have seen drawings from the 1940?s that show freeways with high-speed trains running down the center of them. The argument was that cities were acquiring land anyway for the highways, why not acquire a little more and lay tracks for the trains? But it was deemed too expensive. It makes you wonder how businesses and residences may have clustered more closely around freeway exits if it had happened.

I seem to remember that one option for the St Clair Metro extension was for the trains, or a dedicated bus lane, to run in the median of I-64. They obviously didn't choose it though.

stl555 wrote:Highways 44 and 55 account for a lot of my dissatisfaction with St. Louis, the phrase that comes to mind is ?opportunities lost?. 44 doesn?t seem to be that heavily traveled, and so much was sacrificed for it. As it exists now, it kind of dead-ends into a mass of interchanges and exit ramps near City Hospital, an area I like to refer to as the black hole for the life-sucking effect it has on the area. According to one history of the area I?ve read, something like 60 blocks of Bohemian Hill were sacrificed for this. 60! Could it not have dead-ended farther out from the city?

One thing I think is very interesting about the placement of 44/55 on the south side is what they didn't tear down. Particularly with churches, you can see St. Mary of Victories, St Vincent de Paul and Immaculate Conception/St Henry immediately next to the highway. It's almost as though they adjusted the highway to save these buildings. Similar cases would be found with the old cathedral and Bissell Mansion. Of course, the downside is that they all have an interstate for a neighbor now.



If you want to look into the past and see the former street grid pre-highway, go to http://stlcin.missouri.org/citydata and look at an aerial photo with parcel boundaries on. Bohemian Hill is particularly eerie.

I think the exodus still would've happened but maybe not so far out. The growth of the suburbs had a lot to do with the introduction of chain stores and branch banks, and of course the whole "house in the country" ideal, all of which were well underway by the time of highway construction. But I imagine the highways made it a hell of a lot easier to live in Crestwood as opposed to, say, U-city.

Really good stuff sc4! I think it would also be beneficial to show the existing satellite photos for a side-by-side comparison. I think that Market/ FP Ave could afford to lose some lanes for a bike lane or BRT. I really enjoy the concepts. Keep it up!

I like the ideas @sc4mayor 

Two things...

1. Regarding the 64/Vandeventer improvements, I feel like the best option is what you have. The highway exit ramp to Vandeventer presently feels like where the highway should end. The improvements you have brainstormed are reasonable though. By removing that exit/entrance ramp, lots of space for development is opened up. Although, I wonder how much MODOT would keep at a Right of Way in the event they ever needed to rebuild it. 
2. The 64/FPA/Compton idea is about how I imagined it could all look. One critique here is that I wouldn't include the exit ramp next to the Icon/Council Plaza or the spur exit down to near the Armory. The entrance ramp to Westbound 64 from Grand could be removed as well. In my mind, beginning at Spring, Forest Park Avenue could be reduced to two driving lanes in each direction with turn lanes only at Spring, Grand and Compton. Under this configuration and idea, I could see a modestly sized apartment building rising on the parking lot North of Council Towers and East of Starbucks/Chipotle. A parking garage could be built along that parcel that you have highlighted in green to the East of Council Tower. And of course, I see you did it there, make Forest Park at Grand an at grade intersection. That would open up the Circle K gas station there for development. 

I think that looks great! Although I believe that baseball field on the campus of HSSU has historical significance. Didn’t the St. Louis Stars (negro league) play there? I would hate to see that field removed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk