I can't fathom the criticism of the Gateway Foundation. The fact is that the Citygarden has vastly improved the attractiveness of a previously crappy Mall... it is hard to dispute that it is not a home run for the city, has made the greatest contribution of public space downtown in decades and elevates the bar for future mall projects. It really is poor form to criticize a private foundation that has given us such a great gift.
- 11K
I love City Garden, but I agree with Doug on this one. There's a very paternalistic process going on here. It's an independent foundation saying that what downtown "really" needs is a sculpture park. Well, it didn't "need" a sculpture park in the sense that City Garden isn't going to lead a renaissance of downtown. I don't believe that parks do that. We'll see in a decade or so: will the adjacent office buildings no longer be vacant? Will more housing be built/renovated nearby?
Here's the blog post about this very issue: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=18
Here's the blog post about this very issue: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=18
- 453
I think the question is do we want to have a crappy mall that has no life -- and that is what we'll always have without private money -- or do we want to encourage potential funders like the Gateway Foundation to contribute their money, including the creation of an endowment to ensure maintanence, to give hope to an underperforming public park. The Gateway Foundation could have chosen not to do anything and we would have had nothing... I think we should thank them for investing in the mall rather than say "We don't want your stinking money!"
Now whether this translates into office buildings, etc. is another question (but again, it can't hurt compared to the lifeless prior realm), and the issue of transparancy is always a concern, but it really is hard to find fault with the Foundation with a mission of enhancing the city's public spaces for making this contribution to our city.
Now whether this translates into office buildings, etc. is another question (but again, it can't hurt compared to the lifeless prior realm), and the issue of transparancy is always a concern, but it really is hard to find fault with the Foundation with a mission of enhancing the city's public spaces for making this contribution to our city.
- 11K
What I (and others) are saying is that $40M could have been spent better somewhere else. That investment could have done more to make St. Louis better. We're not proposing to tear up City Garden, again, I love it and I go there often, but $40 could have gone a long way towards rehabbing empty buildings, creating an entrepreneurship incubator downtown, etc. etc. etc.
- 453
Well that is a different argument than saying the Gateway Foundation shouldn't have funded Citygarden. It is a private foundation with a specific mission and its mission is to fund projects that enhance public spaces and not the creation of incubators and rehabbing buildings. The latter are very worthy but others hopefully will have their focus on those issues. Let's acknowledge what the purpose of the Gateway Foundation is, celebrate its successes (like you did in your blog post) and not pull a Golterman by criticizing worthy projects that don't address what may be our own priority.
- 6,775
I think you'll see the Sun Theater addressed in the next few years. The Admiral is done. What Turnverien? There's only one left in active use, and it's far from historic. A few of the old halls now have other uses. Most are gone.Doug wrote:The Sun Theater, Mullanphy, Turnverein, and Admiral desperately need attention.
Getting that screen working would be huge, IMO. You could show movies/sports/etc every night. Folks could just stroll by and sit and watch, even if it was only 10 minutes. Or, I would not be opposed to a continuous loop of videos or even commercials. Something to create some color and movement.Alex Ihnen wrote:Very, very true. It's incredible that we continue to let the same people guide our city's future. I mean, the Convention Center and dome didn't work out as they said it would. Laclede's Landing is a disaster, the Gateway Mall isn't much better, jobs are leaving downtown. It truly is time for someone else to start making decisions. How much worse could they do?
Regarding OPO - so much of a park's or any open space's success is do to programming. This is the area that needs to be focused on. I like OPO because it shows that we were planning for the future downtown (when hopefully it's more densely populated and there are more jobs). It's also great to see something other than the gateway that can serve as a civic living room. OPO's been imperfect so far, but we'll see.
It's not Ed Golterman to criticize the affluent who have money and spent it in ways which do not maximize the potential of our City. If I am Ed Golterman then so is Ray Hartmann or Joe Bonwich when the RFT, and some at the PD, tore the City and Company a new one over Real Estate Row. The fact is that the opportunity for City Garden only occurred, as with OPO, through demolitions that had no business happening. And now were told in press that City Garden is bringing a revitalization to our City. Well the steps for this "revitalization" were made possible when the City planned its own destruction -- and many of these decisions occurred at the behest of affluent business owners such as those who currently define City Hall policy today. Does history repeat itself? They said the exact same thing about the Gateway Mall since the 1970's when blocks were being planned for demolition. The few critics who suggested rehabilitation were ostracized or ignored by City Hall and their friends. Public debate never occurred, and when people protesting Real Estate Row wanted it put to the public through a vote this was cast out by a judge. Why? Their proposals conflicted with the backroom agenda. They knew what the City needed. The outcome affiliated our downtown and make it possible for this Orwellian "revitalization." I'm sorry but a lid over the highway or a park/plaza where once amazing buildings stood happens to be far less that what our City deserves and needs. I'm sorry if I cling to the past like a redneck clings to his guns and religion. Historic buildings give me comfort in a City which places higher value on catering to suburban preference through plazas and garages.Roger Wyoming wrote:Well that is a different argument than saying the Gateway Foundation shouldn't have funded Citygarden. It is a private foundation with a specific mission and its mission is to fund projects that enhance public spaces and not the creation of incubators and rehabbing buildings. The latter are very worthy but others hopefully will have their focus on those issues. Let's acknowledge what the purpose of the Gateway Foundation is, celebrate its successes (like you did in your blog post) and not pull a Golterman by criticizing worthy projects that don't address what may be our own priority.
Plazas wouldn't need programming if sufficient demand already existed. I'm sorry but farmers markets and movies are all well and good, but we shouldn't build more plazas when such activities could easily occur in other areas such as Kiener, Lucas Park, or any number of other empty city blocks on the Gateway Mall. This plaza was simply about selling lofts. Again if we expect that people will only move here for a public space every few blocks then that's as dangerous the proliferation of parking garages. This is not a Garden City.
- 11K
That's not really true. There are dead parks in NYC, SFO, CHI, etc.Plazas wouldn't need programming if sufficient demand already existed.
I feel the city as a whole has spent a lot on architectural renovations in the past years. From the perspective of a visitor driving to bush stadium, City Garden is remembered much more than the Wainwright building. Exterior improvements are well worth the investment in my opinion. The plazas and green spaces improve the perception of the city which increases tourism and hopefully draws people and businesses to downtown. I feel like green space creates the first impression of a city or home, it's the first thing you see walking to the door.Alex Ihnen wrote:What I (and others) are saying is that $40M could have been spent better somewhere else. That investment could have done more to make St. Louis better. We're not proposing to tear up City Garden, again, I love it and I go there often, but $40 could have gone a long way towards rehabbing empty buildings, creating an entrepreneurship incubator downtown, etc. etc. etc.
- 11K
^ That's a good reasoning for focusing on a few signature moments - City Garden is a good one - and not the entire Gateway Mall, and Arch grounds, and OPO Plaza, and....
We desperately need new sidewalks, streetlights, traffic lights, urban furniture. Downtown's infrastructure is tired. Very tired.Alex Ihnen wrote:What I (and others) are saying is that $40M could have been spent better somewhere else. That investment could have done more to make St. Louis better.
- 10K
BTW, the trees at the plaza are sycamores, the same trees at NYC's Bryant Park. They'll look dynamite when they get taller.
I'm not sure how much of an impression green spaces make when you have to walk on crumbling sidewalks to get there.I feel like green space creates the first impression of a city or home, it's the first thing you see walking to the door.
I agree with shadrach, infrastructure should be a DT priority
- 729
So was walking my dog over to the plaza yesterday evening like I always do as it is the easiest and quickest place to take him. Except this time I got stopped by two security guards saying that I could not take my dog into the plaza anymore. They go on to tell me that the plaza has now been completely taken over by the Robert's Brothers who have hired private security to keep everyone out, at least for now, from 6:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. Anyone know if this is true? I really hope the Downtown Partnership is still involved in running this thing.
Absolutely ridiculous if true. Hopefully it's just security guards believing they have more power than they actually do.
- 6,775
I have no problem with this. Maybe the DP has turned it over to the Roberts Bros?irocktheparty2000 wrote:So was walking my dog over to the plaza yesterday evening like I always do as it is the easiest and quickest place to take him. Except this time I got stopped by two security guards saying that I could not take my dog into the plaza anymore. They go on to tell me that the plaza has now been completely taken over by the Robert's Brothers who have hired private security to keep everyone out, at least for now, from 6:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. Anyone know if this is true? I really hope the Downtown Partnership is still involved in running this thing.
^Agreed.
Who in the long run is going to take better care of the space...a company/building whose very livelihood in part depends DIRECTLY on the condition and 'feel' of the plaza or a government/quasi-gov't entity who will exist even after there is no more money left to borrow...
Maybe a good idea to keep the plaza open a little later, but it gets cold and dark pretty quick...The doorman at my building (Blu Cityspaces) keeps foot traffic moving on our side of 17th, but theres not much we can do about the folks who from time to time just SIT across the street...really wish there was someone to enfore the loitering laws there...
Who in the long run is going to take better care of the space...a company/building whose very livelihood in part depends DIRECTLY on the condition and 'feel' of the plaza or a government/quasi-gov't entity who will exist even after there is no more money left to borrow...
Maybe a good idea to keep the plaza open a little later, but it gets cold and dark pretty quick...The doorman at my building (Blu Cityspaces) keeps foot traffic moving on our side of 17th, but theres not much we can do about the folks who from time to time just SIT across the street...really wish there was someone to enfore the loitering laws there...
- 729
Depends on who the company is. The Downtown Partnership's interest is to better our downtown as an entire community and to attract new business as well as new residents. Can you say the same about the Robert's companies? The Partnership is interested in the greater cause which can be seen by their actions. Let me ask, do you think the Roberts have done a good job with the utilization of the Orpheum? Strike one. Do you think they have done a good job with their marketing efforts of the new tower? Strike two. Let's not make the plaza strike three. This plaza is an asset to all of downtown and especially to the people who live and work right around these blocks. I'd hate to see it privatized to the point where it only becomes a selling point for the people who live either in the tower or in the Robert's Lofts.RobbyD wrote:^Agreed.
Who in the long run is going to take better care of the space...a company/building whose very livelihood in part depends DIRECTLY on the condition and 'feel' of the plaza or a government/quasi-gov't entity who will exist even after there is no more money left to borrow...
Maybe a good idea to keep the plaza open a little later, but it gets cold and dark pretty quick...The doorman at my building (Blu Cityspaces) keeps foot traffic moving on our side of 17th, but theres not much we can do about the folks who from time to time just SIT across the street...really wish there was someone to enfore the loitering laws there...
I was/am hoping the exact same thing. I have sent an E-mail off to the Partnership to see if they can verify any of this information.MattnSTL wrote:Absolutely ridiculous if true. Hopefully it's just security guards believing they have more power than they actually do.
Um, in as much as they have built a residential tower...yes? I'm sure the goal (and correct me if I'm wrong) is to sell the residential units and attract new residents?irocktheparty2000 wrote:The Downtown Partnership's interest is to better our downtown as an entire community and to attract new business as well as new residents. Can you say the same about the Robert's companies?
Obviously, public events at the theater have been lacking. I really have no idea if this is because the Roberts brothers are incapable of managing the property (which I doubt) or if other factors are at work (Pageant seems to be a must stop in the Lou, previous complaints that rock show patrons take a toll on the theater's appearance, Roberts vision for the theater).irocktheparty2000 wrote:Let me ask, do you think the Roberts have done a good job with the utilization of the Orpheum?
I'm not sure they have even started marketing the Tower. The exterior is finished, but I don't think its move-in yet? And given the price points of the condos, I'm not looking for ads in the back of the RFT or anywhere else I might look.irocktheparty2000 wrote:Do you think they have done a good job with their marketing efforts of the new tower?
IMO, maintaining the landscaping and appearance in addition to providing security for the Plaza is probably something the brothers' company can handle.
Is that a realistic outcome here? I didn't think the Roberts Tower owned the land.irocktheparty2000 wrote:This plaza is an asset to all of downtown and especially to the people who live and work right around these blocks. I'd hate to see it privatized to the point where it only becomes a selling point for the people who live either in the tower or in the Robert's Lofts.
I guess it may depend a lot on what the expectations for the Plaza are, but yes, I think the Roberts Brothers Cos. have much to gain from an attractive Plaza and therefore would do a good job of maintaining it.
...The long response is more of a function of boredom here in Afghanistan than anything else...I am a fan of both the Downtown Partnership and the Roberts brothers. IMO the brothers are to be commended for their efforts in their hometown. They certainly have not been required to do anything for downtown St. Louis, but have chosen to. Good for them.
- 729
Just got word from the Partnership. The Roberts do not own the plaza. They only lease space from the plaza where Shula's will have tables set up outside. I have been told that my dog and I are more than welcome to visit the plaza. The security guards were just a bit overzealous. Excellent news.
^Super...and (tho they need some training) I like that the security guards are there...
- 11K
I've been told that Downtown NOW still owns the OPO Plaza. It's private land for public use - so to speak. The 6pm curfew is overreaching by an overly enthusiastic security guard and is not/will not be the closing time.