I don't think Harris Stowe would like that very much, seeing that they just spent close to $3 million on upgrades to that complex. Not sure how you could go around the existing boundaries, though.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021^ You are correct...the stadium has long since been demolished (and I thought it was closer to the corner of Compton and Market originally). I would just move the infield slightly north which would still preserve the field...even if it’s not in the exact location (I thought about marking that and didn’t...guess I should have haha!)
The program text for highway removal/mitigation describes an 80% maximum federal contribution and the requirement for economically distressed or minority populations along the highway. Not sure how much/any downtown stuff would qualify.dredger wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2021Between CVC expansion & NOW District to west, Laclede Landing development to east and Dems desire to push for funding the removal of urban freeways as well as a infrastructure bill talk about a time for city or major civic group to take a lead and make a major push to get some basic transportation studies and preliminary engineering done for removing the raised section of freeway from Wash Ave to the merge coming off Stan M bridge & replace with BLVD.
I think converting the section from Wash Ave to I-70 would easily meet the requirement for economically distressed or minority populations, most of the project would be between the Columbus Square and Near North Riverfront neighborhoodsldai_phs wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2021The program text for highway removal/mitigation describes an 80% maximum federal contribution and the requirement for economically distressed or minority populations along the highway. Not sure how much/any downtown stuff would qualify.dredger wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2021Between CVC expansion & NOW District to west, Laclede Landing development to east and Dems desire to push for funding the removal of urban freeways as well as a infrastructure bill talk about a time for city or major civic group to take a lead and make a major push to get some basic transportation studies and preliminary engineering done for removing the raised section of freeway from Wash Ave to the merge coming off Stan M bridge & replace with BLVD.
Yep. Much of the worst part of I-44 between the Stan Musial bridge and the Dome would probably qualify if I had to guess. The part south of Wash Ave may not, but with additional mitigation (like further capping) it might not be totally necessary to remove the depressed section. Considering the City's overall position, I don't think it would be difficult for them to make a case one way or the other (it's not like the area around the dome is exactly full of high rent, wealthy apartments either, and I wouldn't exactly say Laclede's Landing has roared back yet). Should be interesting to see how it shakes out. 44 between Stan Musial and at least Washington is low hanging fruit for a program like this._nomad_ wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2021I think converting the section from Wash Ave to I-70 would easily meet the requirement for economically distressed or minority populations, most of the project would be between the Columbus Square and Near North Riverfront neighborhoodsldai_phs wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2021The program text for highway removal/mitigation describes an 80% maximum federal contribution and the requirement for economically distressed or minority populations along the highway. Not sure how much/any downtown stuff would qualify.dredger wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2021Between CVC expansion & NOW District to west, Laclede Landing development to east and Dems desire to push for funding the removal of urban freeways as well as a infrastructure bill talk about a time for city or major civic group to take a lead and make a major push to get some basic transportation studies and preliminary engineering done for removing the raised section of freeway from Wash Ave to the merge coming off Stan M bridge & replace with BLVD.
