ULI Competition Finalists Selected, Posted Online
ULI has announced the finalists in their national competition. Here is a look at each of the four final teams:
Jury Summary:
Team 2105’s proposal introduces a skywalk system that connects Saint Louis University’s Frost campus with its health sciences center. The skywalk allows pedestrians to move from one end of the university campus to the other without interfering with vehicular and freight traffic, and draws student activities into the project area, where they can be shared by the academic and medical communities. At the landscape level, environmental strategies create open and green spaces, and site edges blend discreetly into the surrounding community.
I had to check my calendar after seeing this project, making sure it was not 1960. I also had recollections of the tragic I.M. Pei plan to “modernize” my hometown of Oklahoma City — razing old buildings, creating large “super blocks” and putting pedestrians in underground tunnels or in tubes over the sidewalks. In short, everything a city is not.
If pedestrians cannot walk along the street then change the conditions of the street. Safety must be a concern and removing people from the watchful eye of others is just foolish. The SLU campus already creates a situation where outsiders are not welcomed, we don’t need to create more of that. The Columbia project serves best as an example of what we should not do to this area. How it got to be a finalist is beyond me.
Jury Summary:
“Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing” leverages the east-west intracity connections made possible by Chouteau Greenway by creating a north-south “academic spine” along Grand Boulevard bridge. An urban northern edge and a biotech-oriented southern edge unites the Saint Louis University campus around a mixed-use node where academics, biotechnology, transit, recreation, commercial, and residential activities can concentrate.
Like so many of the proposals, this concept shortens the length of the Grand viaduct and adds buildings up to the sidewalk. Who was it that suggested this a month ago? Oh yeah, that would be me. It is nice to see others came to the same conclusion I did about the importance of urbanizing Grand.
This team left the Del Taco & Union Council Plaza buildings with a note, “streetscape to be improved.” I don’t think enough patterned sidewalk or landscaping will make this area urban enough. I’ve been known to spin through Del Taco’s drive-thru late at night (ok, early morning) but I think it needs to go.
Jury Summary:
“Aurora” creates a biotech research, development, and entrepreneurial center that represents Saint Louis University’s interface with the local biotech industry. It accepts the commercial corridors of Grand Boulevard, Chouteau Avenue, and Forest Park Boulevard, fills the interior of the blocks with appropriate uses, and establishes a symbiotic relationship with the Greenway.
This is a very nice proposal, with Grand getting a shorter bridge and urban makeover. This concept includes an intersection at Papin (the block north of Chouteau), as well as a new intersection, called Campus Drive, just south of the highway. A new bridge at Theresa Street will help connect areas on each side of the valley.
On the negative side their building massing is rather blocky. I would have liked to have seen more street grid between Grand and Spring on both the north & south areas. They also seemed to simply delete on & off ramps from I-64, something I wouldn’t mind so much but in realty not very practical.
But, I love that Grand from Chouteau to Forest Park is faced with a variety of buildings.
Jury Summary:
“Weave” proposes an urban prototype for St. Louis that rejects the creation of a specific-use redevelopment district and instead introduces explicit north-south connections throughout the site that weaves it into the communities to its north and south. While the Greenway is the major east-west cross-weave, smaller strips of green space weave through the site, eventually connecting with the Greenway. Reinforcing the vision of a community developed around transit and other urban amenities is a magnet school in close proximity to SLU and the Armory, redeveloped as a performing arts center.
The University of California at Berkeley project impresses me on multiple levels. In addition to making Grand a proper urban street they are seeking to “weave” areas together with four additional north-south bridges over Mill Creek Valley! More street grid is a good thing, especially in this case.
Like other finalists, this team created an intersection south of I-64. Unlike other teams, this one provided on & off ramps at Grand. Between the shorter bridge and Chouteau this team has two intersections.
Their proposal includes a large variety of building sizes, including a number of small scale buildings unseen on other proposals. This is especially important along Grand where they are using a number of smaller buildings to create an intimate walking environment.
I liked part of the text from their presentation on the urban form:
“Create strong north-south connections, explicitly rejecting current redevelopment plans (CORTEX EAST) in order to use bio-tech/university influx as a catalyst for weaving and knitting communities.“
This is one smart team, rejecting the big CORTEX generic redevelopment plan and creating a pedestrian-friendly street grid. For my money this team from Berkeley should get first place.
Seven teams received honorable mentions. A team from Texas included a streetcar line along Grand to connect the theatre district near the Fox to the SLU medical campus — a good idea that can be expanded north and south. I also liked some of the housing they showed on their proposal.
Representatives from each of the four finalists will be in town on the 10th to actually view the site, they will be given a chance to revise their proposals. The winner will be announced on March 31st. I’m rooting for the team from Berkeley.
– Steve
I pretty much agree with everything you posted Steve. The plan from Berkely is definately best, and who is teaching that team from Columbia?
The Berkeley team definitely thinks big! Adding four north-south bridges over Mill Creek Valley would be an extremely useful project in a city with too few north-south routes over that valley. The rejection of CORTEX shows that they are thinking strongly of the context of their proposal area and ways to make the entire midtown area function more urbanistically. The other teams seem a bit too focused on SLU to get it in the big way that the Berkeley team does. I hope that they win.
I disagree that Del Taco should go, though. It has a modern architectural sensitivity that, while not strictly urban, is extremely rewarding to the pedestrian eye. It’s interesting in an area where nearly every other building is humdrum, including the rest of Council Plaza. Now that Del Taco is listed on the National Register as part of Council Plaza (originally it was a gas station), perhaps someone could give it a tax-credits restoration, even — what fun that project would be!
[REPLY – I love the brick mural that is falling off the east side of Council Plaza. And I agree the other buildings are hum-drum. The Del Taco might be pleasing to the eye and I even like the simple modernism of the Council Plaza but urbanistically speaking the area is horrible. Someone will have to prove to me the area can be urbanized while keeping those structures in place. – SLP]
Technically, the only skywalk shown in the Columbia proposal is over Forest Park Avenue between the Laclede Garage and Reinert Hall. However, the proposed infill development shown does create a parallel north-south pedestrian mall to the west of Grand, between Forest Park and Chouteau Avenues. Thus, Grand would remain a largely vehicles-only environment, hardly what you want for urban streets.
Looking over each, I’d agree that UC-Berkeley’s is the most ambitious. However, I think Harvard #1015 is the most realistic, improving upon current plans, instead of completely rejecting them.
Of course, Biondi has his plans, and Great Rivers Greenway has theirs. While a dynamic proposal like Berkeley’s is highly creative, a plan that actually respects past plans, yet still dramatically improves them, would have greater chance at being implemented by real-life parties, such as SLU and GRG.
[REPLY – Columbia’s site section shows considerable elevated pedestrian skywalks. They may not be enclosed tubes but they are isolated walkways. A very poor idea.
I disagree about the feasibility of Berkeley’s concept vs. the Harvard 1015. If you look at Harvard’s proposal they too reject the idea that the area is solely bio-tech with their Grand Village East area. Berkeley’s concept is actually quite realistic with additional development sites offsetting infrastructure costs for additional bridges. It would, by a long shot, create the best environment for students, staff, faculty, researchers and visitors. – SLP]
I agree with your general assessments of those plans, except that I like the Council Plaza towers and I reeeeally like the Del Taco building. They leave something to be desired in terms of their relationship to the street, but they’re interesting landmarks that give the streetscape some personality, not to mention noteable examples of modern architecture. If more drive thrus looked like that Del Taco, I might not hate drive thrus quite as much.
The Columbia project sounds awful. And familiar. I, too, had to check my calendar to make sure it was 2006.
The place where I attended college, the University of Illinois at Chicago, was originally built by Skidmore, Owings, and Merill in 1965 with a system of walkways and tubes similar to the one Columbia proposes. The UIC Cirlce Campus is often praised as an architectural experiment, as something designed around the students’ needs. To me it is pretty plain that Mayor Daley (the first) had just built a giant college campus between Little Italy and a number of public housing developments (including ABLA and the Henry Horner Homes), and they were terrified of the students interacting with the city. From the time students showed up in the morning to the time they left, they never had to walk around outside on street level. No windows open in the buildings and most of the furniture is bolted down. It seems to me like the campus was designed more with thoughts of riotproofing than learning in mind. Even with most of the walkways now demolished, it still looks a lot like a fortress. Hm, wonder how that looks to the neighborhoods surrounding it, hm?
Part of the reason that the walkways and tubes were demolished is that they didn’t work. They created numerous “traffic” jams, which many students circumvented by walking on top of the roofs of the walkways. Several fell off trying to do so. Also quite noteable was that the space underneath the walkways was not at all safe. The University had a hard time keeping it properly lit. The dark spaces there became known popularly as “The Crypts.” The Crypts were a consistent crime problem on campus–quite a few people were mugged or were the victims of violence there.
Not such a good idea for SLU, I think.
Historic images of the Circle Campus:
Fuzzy overhead view: http://www.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/classes/ah111/som-uic.jpg
Historic summary, complete with an image of the architect standing atop his creation: http://www.uic.edu/portfolio/campus/circle.html
I was told last year that the old medical/union complex in front of Council Plaza was sold and those buildings would be torn down for student housing. The woman who told me this works at the complex and her office was supposed to move last winter, but she’s still there. She said SLU is not the owner/developer, but the development would be geared to SLU students. She can’t tell me why the delay, or if the whole thing is off.
Does anyone know if this is just a myth?
Since the various owners of Council Plaza collaborated on a successful National Register listing with a tax credits rehab project in mind, I doubt that any part of the complex will be demolished.
As I said earlier, I am impressed with the hardwork and abilities of each of the teams. My favorite, however, is Harvard #1015. There’s makes the most sense from a development standpoint, with the first phase being a retail/entertainment complex between Grand and the Armory. This first phase would help to jumpstart development and create a neighborhood focus/identity.
Berkeley’s bridging proposal is rather redundant. Who would actually use each of these pedestrian bridges enough to justify their costs and/or maintain a sense of security on them? If this Chouteau Greenway gets developed as planned, the bridges will destroy the beauty of it. Will we have bridges (or ‘weaves’) at every block down the greenway? Who wants to walk or recreate under all those bridges? Let’s focus the attention and development on Grand, like #1015.
[REPLY – Berkeley’s bridges are not pedestrian-only. They are for vehicles, bikes, scooters and pedestrians. You know, like a city street grid. These are narrow enough so they would not be a hindrance to the green below. In fact, these bridges will create more access points to the neighborhood fronting the green. – SLP]
Mulptiple bridges would deter the beauty of the greenway. Springfield’s Jordan Valley Park has a trail that passes underneath a four lane bridge. The underneath is high above the ground and two murals on pillars face the trail making it welcoming to the pedestrian. However, in the summer homeless people sleep in cardboard boxes behind the pillars. It does not bother the trail users too much, but their presence can ward off trail users. Multiple bridges would have more of an effect in being new homes for the homeless. I do not know what should be the balance unless well-lighted restrooms and other facilities should be located under the bridges.
I want a research about del taco. concept, IT project, strategies, managing system of it project.
plz i want it as soon as possible…
thanx