urbanSTL

A lot of aesthetically cold storefronts filled with professional offices (at street level! - how silly) and a few upscale restaurants and boutique shops.

Washington Avenue is coming along now. This doesn't happen overnight. When Flamingo Bowl opens as well as several other missing gaps are filled in, this area will continue to improve and become an even stronger retail street. I don't know how Roseman Architects was allowed to fill in that first floor space tbo. That was a HUGE mistake, but luckily it was only a small one. Just wait a few more years. I certainly don't think the store fronts are COLD either. This is not a completed project. Does anyone else remember how recently half of the loop didn't even exist?

4.) We add cool lighting to existing bridges.

Bingo! Why in the **** do we not have light on this bridge at night??? As I stated in another thread, aside from the Arch, the Eads is probably one of the most notable structures to span the Mississippi. But then again, we just started lighting the Arch at night, what, 4 years ago? Now that we have the Arch, and Lumiere, A modern structure and a contemporary structure, it's a no-brainer that we highlight what is in between, seeing as it was the Eads that allowed rapid growth of the railroad in St. Louis.....

Magnatron wrote:

4.) We add cool lighting to existing bridges.

Bingo! Why in the **** do we not have light on this bridge at night??? As I stated in another thread, aside from the Arch, the Eads is probably one of the most notable structures to span the Mississippi. But then again, we just started lighting the Arch at night, what, 4 years ago? Now that we have the Arch, and Lumiere, A modern structure and a contemporary structure, it's a no-brainer that we highlight what is in between, seeing as it was the Eads that allowed rapid growth of the railroad in St. Louis.....

I'm sure if you offer to pay the electric bill and the start-up costs, then the city/state would be happy to light the bridge.

Urban Elitist wrote:

Magnatron wrote:

4.) We add cool lighting to existing bridges.

Bingo! Why in the **** do we not have light on this bridge at night??? As I stated in another thread, aside from the Arch, the Eads is probably one of the most notable structures to span the Mississippi. But then again, we just started lighting the Arch at night, what, 4 years ago? Now that we have the Arch, and Lumiere, A modern structure and a contemporary structure, it's a no-brainer that we highlight what is in between, seeing as it was the Eads that allowed rapid growth of the railroad in St. Louis.....

I'm sure if you offer to pay the electric bill and the start-up costs, then the city/state would be happy to light the bridge.

I do. It's called city/state taxes. Were you one of the people against lighting up the arch at night too?

Typical. You pay 1/100,000th of what it would cost actually to this so you claim to "fund" it.



It's called finite city resouces and soaring energy costs. I'm all for lighting the Arch as it is a national monument and a city icon known worldwide. I however am not for wasting tax dollars lighting non-descript bridges.



Weren't you one of the ones advocating eliminateing the earnigs tax? If so, why inflate the city budget with another pork project?

The illumination of the Arch and civil courts building was funded by the Gateway Foundation, which is probably how the lighting of the Eads would have to be funded as well.



However, I think we've discussed here before that when the Eads was illuminated in the past, it caused problems for barge/boat operators at night.

^As long as it's privately funded, I'm all for lighting anything up. I'm not some enviornmental cook, I just don't want taxes wasted on lights that people don't need to see where they are going.

^ Since we are on the matter of opinions here, I think you are being a little hard on lighting matters. Lighting can add an incredible amount of beauty to a city, which in turn can change overall perceptions. I think lighting the bridges would make the approach into StL all that much more beautiful, and would allow for much better marketing of the city. To me, this is worth the small (in relative terms) cost to light these structures. It's not always about now. There is such a thing as vision.

Think outside the box. LED lighting whose power requirements are offset by a solar photovoltaic system. Economical, efficient, long-lasting, environmentally friendly.



http://www.ledtronics.com/product_news/ ... 070105.htm





160 LED light fixtures light up the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles. During the day a solar photovoltaic system offsets the power needed for the project.

^ Things aren't as simple as they may seem. When you get older you'll understand.

innov8ion wrote:Think outside the box. LED lighting whose power requirements are offset by a solar photovoltaic system. Economical, efficient, long-lasting, environmentally friendly.



http://www.ledtronics.com/product_news/ ... 070105.htm





160 LED light fixtures light up the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles. During the day a solar photovoltaic system offsets the power needed for the project.

What are the startup costs for 160 solar cells? Installation costs? Maintenence? Foot that bill without tax dollars and you've got my supprt. I may even make a donation.

^ Well they are about to spend our tax dollars on body guards for city officials , which is down right idiotic..... maybe they wouldn't get death threats if they did their damn jobs. Anyway I would rather have money spent on a bridge lighting than on are worthless city official. Maybe we should get Pinnacle to sponsor the bridge, now that would be a "Lumiere" Bridge, with cheesy advertisements hanging on the side . I don't know how they would get it done, but I do agree that downtown (including the bridges and Arch) should be lit at night, it just looks more inviting.

^Those body guards are a stupid waste of money as well but just because we spend money on one stupid thing doesn't justify doing it again. The "We are about to spend money on bodyguards so it's ok for us to spend money on X" argument works for anything.



For what it's worth if I were forced to pick between the bodyguards and the lighting, I'd pick the lighting as well. I'm just really tired of wasted tax dollars. Tax dollars should be for public services first and foremost.



IF we had extra tax $$$ coming out of the nose to waste(which we do not), then that doesn't mean start lighting bridge trusses, it means lower taxes to attract businesses....

^ There are other considerations to increased investment and development besides merely tax incentives (Not saying that isn't one of the largest factors), which was the entire point of my above post. m-a-r-k-e-t-i-n-g and appearance is actually very important. I believe many on this board have similar thoughts.



Taxes should also be used to enhance the image of the city. Innovation, extremely good post once again.

Urban Elitist wrote:Typical. You pay 1/100,000th of what it would cost actually to this so you claim to "fund" it.



It's called finite city resouces and soaring energy costs. I'm all for lighting the Arch as it is a national monument and a city icon known worldwide. I however am not for wasting tax dollars lighting non-descript bridges.



Weren't you one of the ones advocating eliminateing the earnigs tax? If so, why inflate the city budget with another pork project?

No I dont claim to fund it, I claim to be a tax paying citizen. And when did I ever say anything about earnings tax? It is in our best interest to highlight our architecture. And to call the Eads a "non-descript bridge" is sort of like saying Wainright is a non-descript brick building. This bridge is the reason Saint Louis became an industrial leader. I agree that our resources should not be wasted, but this is a gesture that can go a LONG way. I am not looking for a laser light show. A simple up light above flood range on each of the stone legs would go quite far. LED technology = Low energy cost. A moderately priced upgrade of this nature makes a HUGE impact on the view for anyone crossing the river into our city. Lets embrace the riverfront....Bolting 6 light fixtures to a stone wall is a short term, attainable upgrade. I am just thinking out of the box here.



Actually this is a rather established idea utilized by many great cities around the world.... But who am I to suggest such pork projects? I am sorry, I'll go back in the box now.

newstl2020 wrote:^ There are other considerations to increased investment and development besides merely tax incentives (Not saying that isn't one of the largest factors), which was the entire point of my above post. m-a-r-k-e-t-i-n-g and appearance is actually very important. I believe many on this board have similar thoughts.



Taxes should also be used to enhance the image of the city. Innovation, extremely good post once again.

Agree 100%.

Again, I am not against lighting up the bridge; just do not waste public dollars doing so. We have numerous other things that would be better "marketing" projects than lighting up this bridge. So many of our city departments are under funded and Metro, the mass transit we need to keep pace with similar sized cities, is deep in the red. Wouldn't spending this money subsidizing new small business enterprise throughout the city and balancing the city budget be a better use of funds than lights not used to see? I would think a robust service industry of small businesses and lower taxes is much better marketing than a pretty bridge, but that is just my opinion. I don't think many corporate headquarters make their decisions on where to locate based on the esthetics of the city's bridges.

phoaddict wrote:(lights causing barge problems??? What? so i guess every major city with lighted waterways and bridges should turn their's off due to dumbass barge drivers not being able to see. shanghai? long beach? LA? chicago? nyc? Cincinatti? Kansas City???) more evidence of stl civil retardation...

I'd trust the guys who actually operate the barges. The lights that used to line the arches of the Eads apparently would reflect off the water. Perhaps with advances in technology, there's a way to do it today, but I don't know enough about that kind of thing. The old lights looked really sweet though.



Why not take up the issue with a local foundation like the Gateway Foundation, talk to an alderman about it, etc. instead of just complaining about civil retardation. Make your mark.



The lights on the bridge in the picture that innov8tion posted are much different than what the Eads used to have. The bridge in the picture looks awesome.

I think that bridge in Los Angeles looks great. I loved it when the Eads Bridge was illuminated. I'd like to see the city or a group like the Gateway Foundation look into the possibility to using LEDs to light it up again. Not only would it be more environmentally friendly and cost efficient, I would also think that the glow emitted from the LED lighting wouldn't be as much of an issue for barge traffic (although I can't say for sure).

So if they light-up Eads with LEDs, would it be LEED certified?