urbanSTL

I like the ideas of D as Presented for the most part. I am worried that the design will be altered if chosen. What I really love is the return of the lake/pond and redevelopment of Chouteau's Landing. What is cool and new, but will need some slight tweaking is Turpin's Porch under the highway. It has tremendous potential but the fact that it is disconnected from the Cupples District bugs me. They are going to make it harder to get to it for workers and guests of the Cupples District. If anything, just the Downtown plan West of 22nd Street needs to happen. It has tremendous potential to really get Downtown South of the Interstate going.

The 22nd Street Interchange sounds fun and I want it to happen but a small road should be built to connect Clark to the other side of the park. From the rendering of the vision. it only appears to be 20 or so feet wide, just put some road in there, reopen the Union Station parking lot for vehicular traffic to access Clark and you have another great street connecting Downtown West to 4th Street. Beyond this, another MetroLink station doesn't seem like a bad idea but the fact it would be located right next door to the MetroLink workshop seems odd and out of place.

The area in Midtown needs to be looked at seriously by SLU and other nearby neighbors. The thought of connecting Market to Forest Park is great and then filling that area in with buildings is even better. Healing the grid here it appears. This should also happen ASAP to boost the area around this along with the City Foundry and Armory Development. Prospect Yards would take off and the area around it would become prime real estate.

The last portion of the project with the cool pathway in the middle of Forest Park Avenue is great but needs some tweaking and the bridges over Kingshighway are ridiculous. I understand Kingshighway is busy but having THREE bridges across Kingshighway seems overly excessive.

I think one of the things I like about C is that it envisions some very nice connections across both Mill Creek Valley and indeed the river. They have not only the best and most complete crossing at Spring street linking the Foundry to Forst Park and SLU, but they do that in phase 1. And I confess, I really like their bicycle deck across the MacArthur. That's more of a wishful thinking bit, but if kept light and inexpensive it's a neat idea. Further, they've got nice connections at Grand, Compton, and 22nd. And they have at the very least a wetland area in approximately the classic Chouteau's Pond spot.

And the Turpin's Porch in D is indeed very nice. It could do a lot to help connect Busch Stadium to the south. It could help to activate that area, which would be really useful. D too has a lot of great north south connection. It's really a quite laudable plan. It too features activation of the MacArthur Bridge, at least on a small scale. And that might be more achievable. And certainly it's quite optimistic about Chouteau's Landing, which is nice. But the closure of one block of Chestnut in front of Soldier's Memorial troubles me a bit. Right now Chestnut is a good through street between the arch ad Union Station. It could stand to be two way, maybe to slow it down, even though it's not too wide or fast as is. But why break that? Why is it necessary? What does it serve? Still, that's a fairly minor objection in the grand scheme of things.

C and D both seem to have a much more sensitive touch; more awareness of what's actually going on here and of local history. Which makes sense.

^Agreed for the most part on both concepts C and D. In my opinion, these two are the most well thought and comprehensive. The design of concept C is often bold and their equity focus is fantastic. The design of concept D is the most practical and often reintegrates the existing street grid/reconnects the city. I love the reuse of the MacArthur Bridge deck in concept C and I actually like the Spring Street crossing in concept D the most - it is direct and does not bother with pointless zig-zags. Both acknowledge Chouteau's Landing should be developed as a neighborhood but Concept D obviously expands on this idea more - for whatever that's worth.

One of the most crucial parts of this project is fixing the mess of streets (Market/FPP/64) by SLU. There are some creative ideas but the most sensible one is definitely concept D. Any option that looks to preserve every on/off ramp or replace them is a lost cause in my opinion. Concept D removes a number of ramps and creates the boulevard I'm sure we all want. Also, side note, if this connection between FPP and Market is created, SLU should look into continuing Josephine Baker Blvd south to this new boulevard. It could go through the east side of SLU's main campus and through Grand Center while providing a new N-S connector and breaking up some of the SLU super blocks. Unlikely but still worth considering, especially when considering the development of "the Hub" in Concept D.

Finally, anything other than TOD development at the 22nd street interchange is a loss. There is already so much park space downtown and no need for more at that spot. It's right next to Union Station and TOD studies have already been completed for this area.

I feel like the Chestnut Park concept is actually very solid. It can serve as the anchor feature of redevelopment on all sides, which you can see sketched in. It's the magnet that will attract residents that will push development out in all directions. I like concept C a lot, but I'm not sure what fills all the buildings they envision in the 22nd street corridor. It might work, but it's less clear. How does the communication flow? What's the draw? They label it TOD, but everyone has to flow across Union Station to get to the stop. I love the sunken park and surrounding arcade concept, but it has a slightly more pie-in-the-sky quality to it, and I'm curious if it would fare better than the sunken park (which I liked) that we just eliminated at the other end of the mall. The D concept makes more immediate sense. I can feel how it would work, how people flow through. There's nothing about it that looks earth shatteringly complicated to build. I can see how the park would draw people into new apartments on the west side of 22nd, how it would spur redevelopment of the parking lots on the east, and maybe higher density and more pedestrian friendly uses further west replacing Grainger and the FBI. I can understand how people will enjoy passing through on trips or just wandering around on visits. With a park there all of that will be ripe for redevelopment. With solid pedestrian connections to areas beyond the immediate environs that could easily be transit oriented.

This is a well situated and well connected park, even if its small. The water will help to keep it from becoming absurdly hot during the summer. The depression should keep a little wind off in the spring and fall. (Moreso with the break provided by the building wall they hope for.) The sunken park in C might not fare quite so well. Market is so broad it could well serve to funnel wind down into it no matter how deep it is, and the long axis exposes more of the park's area to that wind, since less will be in the shadow of the wall. The ramps on the east side would almost certainly be prone to windiness. Witness how the wind whips down Lindell near SLU on a gusty day, but how much the street wall on Grand helps to break it up on the west side immediately to the north. (And more as you get away from the lawn void in front of SLU.) But you have to go further south to get the same benefit, since the church has more space around it and sits in line with the wind rather than across it. Even though it's quite large it acts like a ship sailing in the direction of the predominant wind and thus offers virtually no protection at all save right at the door. In concept D the windbreaks run north to south, as they should. Even at Chestnut, the tree break and the gentle fall of the hill away from the west end will help to shelter that a bit better. With C the east side could well be rising up into winds dropping into the hole. (And yes the wind changes direction from time to time, but if you look at the airport noise studies you'll see that there's a more usual and a less usual direction. Most of the time it comes out of the NW.)

On top of everything else, the proposed Chestnut Park is just plain pretty. That thing looks special to me, like another gem in the local system. It's a heck of a lot bigger than City Garden. The topography is more favorable. It could create a real node right where one is needed. It could activate the west end of the mall. It could connect downtown west to Lafayette Square. (Notice that there are roads there in the maps.) It should positively nail the Mall together with the Greenway along Mill Creek Valley, which could really help to put some energy into the the hole between the highway and the rail yards, which will help the Armory and, oddly, I think also Foundry, as the connections fall into place. Actually, that's probably exactly why the Metrolink station should be at Ewing. That's precisely in the middle of that hole. That's where you put some serious TOD, since it's otherwise so isolated from everything else. And with new bridges across the rail yards at Ewing and 22nd (both of which were there at one time, I believe) you could maybe begin to reconnect north to south in a big way. But that works best when you have development right there, so that the no-mans land between rails and highway isn't contributing to the problem.

I think I'm getting on board with D. (Except for the closure of Chestnut in front of Soldier's Memorial.) It feels engaged, respectful, thoughtful, and best of all, achievable. It feels realistic. C has a lot of neat bells and whistles, but how many of them can actually happen: of the fancy bridges, tunnels, and special connections? I think I'm officially pulling for D. Which . . . you know, who drove this RFP in the first place? Fifteen Years ago? Why lookie! She's a major partner in D. Yeah. Stands to reason. They've been thinking about this a long time. Further, with the (quiet but real) connection to the ecosystems surrounding HOK you get some built in development synergy there. D could make sparks (and concrete) fly fast. I think I like it.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... c30ef.html

The momentous task of connecting Forest Park and the Gateway Arch — and potentially transforming a main swath of St. Louis — now rests in the hands of Stoss Landscape Urbanism, a firm unanimously chosen Wednesday to spearhead the design of a proposed pedestrian and cycling path called the Chouteau Greenway.

^This was option C correct? It seems a bit more ambitious than D, which I think could be good

^Option B I believe actually. Overall I like it but it would be great if the Chouteau Lake was included instead of just grass.

^Option B. The one with Chouteau sticking his . . . ahem . . . out over the river.

Here's the jury's report, including strengths and weaknesses of each proposal:

http://greatriversgreenway.org/wp-conte ... t-May1.pdf

Do this. Put the rest of the money into lowering taxes. Problem solved.

^ Where is that?

cgeenen wrote: ↑

May 03, 2018

^ Where is that?

My guess is a pool barge. Looks like they literally outfitted a barge with a pool which in some respects seems like a really cool idea to me for a hot summer muggy day in St. Louis in addition to something other then another look out. I thought a water park at Union Station was a good idea but thinking water park on Chouteau Landing with a few pool barges in the river itself. Keep the slides on land but have sun bathing platforms over the water with a pool in the river itself.

The one difference I can see for liability purposes is a glass wall built around exterior to keep jumpers or a young kid from trying to test out big muddy waters themselves

cgeenen wrote: ↑

May 03, 2018

^ Where is that?

It's in Berlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badeschiff

^ That would be awesome to have with a developed Chouteau's Landing. Throw in an urban beach, food trucks, and some kayaks and you've got a really vibrant waterfront.

Copenhagen has a similar one.

Heavy reliance on space beneath overpasses? They don't like the basketball courts, I just know it.

ETA : I didn't know a winner was already announced. I do like the Basketball Court at Vandeventer, and Stoss was my 2nd favorite so all isn't lost. Unless, of course they rip out the court for being too close to IKEA.

The jury report (linked above) is definitely worth a read for anyone interested in this project. Not surprisingly, the dramatic stuff in the renderings seems to be what they want taken out of the plan.

Regarding the river path, they want the plan to be refined to "Make a realistic river connection. Find ways to make the connection without touching the MacArthur Bridge or river levees. Also, reaching south of the Arch grounds is laudable, but this location and particular solution is not a priority."

Regarding the land bridge with a hole in it: "There are concerns about the return on investment of the land bridge to Forest Park."

9ine Runner wrote: ↑

May 03, 2018

Heavy reliance on space beneath overpasses? They don't like the basketball courts, I just know it.

ETA : I didn't know a winner was already announced. I do like the Basketball Court at Vandeventer, and Stoss was my 2nd favorite so all isn't lost. Unless, of course they rip out the court for being too close to IKEA.

I thought it was strange that was a criticism as it would be a brilliant use of space. I was in Tokyo a couple of years ago and there is a big elevated highway slicing through the Kameido district, but the space beneath it isn't wasted. There was even a row of small astroturf soccer fields (suitable for 3 aside or 4 aside matches), all of them completely enclosed by netting to protect nearby homes and businesses, and when I walked by they were being fully utilized. (Looked like a ton of fun and I considered asking to join a game but I got the sense that it was a league rather than pick-up. )

The chouteau's lookout was a silly idea. What are people going to look at? The Cargill plant in Illinois? I guess there's another view of the Arch from the South. But I think we have enough of those. (Also kind of a copycat of the one at gateway fountain).

The hole over Kingshighway is kind of the same deal. Very dramatic with little purpose. Views down into rush hour traffic? It doesn't show any true circulation either.

While I think a pool in the river would be awesome, it would be incredibly expensive and difficult to do from an engineering standpoint. There's probably a way to do it.

But the river can change in elevation as much as 50 feet in a given year. Not many other cities have to deal with a river that dynamic.