urbanSTL

dredger wrote:Poplar Street doesn't offer much beyond pilings/columns to attached something too.

Which, IIRC, was the plan.

We certainly don't want anything slapped on the side of the Eads Bridge!

The point of contention, for me at least, is the idea of a point to point gondola being represented as a form of transportation infrastructure. It could be if it connected to Metrolink stations, had a couple extra stops, and let people on with a Metro pass. In that case people would be likely to ride it more than once in their life. This is not the Roosevelt Island cable car we're talking about though. It's more of a stretched out London Eye.

If it is designed as it was presented previously, then it would be an attraction. It would be tourism infrastructure, not transportation infrastructure. There is certainly value in that, and I don't mean to diminish that, only to express the fear that this flashy thing will cost a bit of money to put up and the budget is only so big.

Judging by the current state of fundraising, I think seeing projects in an either/or light is prudent, and I hope to hear a lot tonight about sidewalks and bike racks.

^^^^^^^^^^Is that a giant brat on top of that building in Singapore?

I'm withholding opinions until the big reveal...I will say that I will have a lot of trust in the judgments of the very successful and professional team of MVVA...

This could be very, very exciting if the team is able to give everyone something and still maintain the wonder of the Arch experience...

RobbyD wrote:I will say that I will have a lot of trust in the judgments of the very successful and professional team of MVVA...

Of course, but what we see (and what we get) won't be purely from the imaginations of MVVA. The resulting plan is very, very heavily influenced by potential funding (someone wants to pay for something, we're likely to see it), and the many restrictions placed on changes to a national park, a working/flooding waterway and Interstate and street infrastructure.

I still wish the mounds and Indian sculptures on the Illinois side that SOM Hargreaves proposed could be part of the MVVA plan

Alex Ihnen wrote:

RobbyD wrote:I will say that I will have a lot of trust in the judgments of the very successful and professional team of MVVA...

Of course, but what we see (and what we get) won't be purely from the imaginations of MVVA. The resulting plan is very, very heavily influenced by potential funding (someone wants to pay for something, we're likely to see it), and the many restrictions placed on changes to a national park, a working/flooding waterway and Interstate and street infrastructure.

Yup. And I really hope everyone realizes that. I actually had something similar to those thoughts in mind when giving props to the MVVA. My hunch is that they're going to be as good as anyone in pulling something off that is both designed at a high level and answers the many influencing elemetns on the Arch Grounds.

lukethedrifter wrote:

RobbyD wrote:^^^^^^^^^^Is that a giant brat on top of that building in Singapore?

Looks more like a footlong.

That's the sky deck of the Marina Bay Sands. I really thought from the renderings that it'd be a lot flatter. It has a great overlook though and pools that go right up to the ledge. You can swim and see the whole island.

lukethedrifter wrote:Well, will this thing get done?

From the modest presentation given tonight, I'd say this is very possible. We're not aiming that high. I'm more curious about the endowment, future TransRiver Authority under Bi-State, and the post-2015 options.

Regarding the gondolas it was suggested that people might take their bikes on board, but that each would only be big enough for 'two small families.' It was suggested that it'd be a connection we'd use often. Then it was suggested it'd be self-sustaining (ie expensive) and paid for with bonds. That kind of indicates that they're not clear yet on how that would work.