Forest Park Forever Seeks to Alter Government Hill…Forever
You may not know the name Government Hill but you know the view, look up toward the World’s Fair Pavilion. Classical cascading terraces and a couple of fountains. It has been a favorite St. Louis backdrop picture for decades. Forest Park Forever, wants to “obliterate” the existing landscape design and do something “fresh.” Last night they sought approval from the Preservation Board.
The Preservation Board’s role in the parks is strictly that as an advisor, they do not have any veto power over projects. The board seemed to like the new design but not in place of the old design. Kate Shea, director of Cultural Resources, read from the Forest Park Master Plan about intentions around repair and restoration and grand park facilities. Indeed, much of the park has been restored and maybe embellished. Areas like the grand basin were not recreated into something entirely different from the original. The Preservation Board deferred a decision and asked Forest Park Forever to reconsider.
In testimony it was discovered the costs of restoring the classical features would be roughly the same as the new proposal. Part of the issue is making the hill accessible (aka ADA ramps). Forest Park Forever has a plan for adding ADA accessible ramps on the outer edges of the existing classical layout but they seem too smitten by their new zig-zag scheme.
For pictures of the existing and proposed look through the Preservation Board agenda on this item.
I testified briefly to raise functional concerns. I’ve attended events at the World’s Fair Pavilion where the first terrace down the hill was used in conjunction with events in the Pavilion. The new scheme places terraces much further down the hill. I also said that whatever plan was built, the materials need to last 90 years, the length of the proposed new BJC lease of part of Forest Park in exchange for a maintenance trust fund.
The next step in the process is a Forest Park Advisory Committee meeting on July 20, 2006.
– Steve
If it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it! I’m no classicist, but this strikes me as way too trendy and unlikely to wear well over time. Plus, if the only issue is accessible access to to the mid-upper plaza, just fix that problem and leave the grand stairs in place . . .
I’m sorry but this proposal is ugly, and defiles the wonderful greespace with ugly concrete.
If someone is unable to walk up the stairs, then drive around behind the hill, and park on top.
There is nothing wrong with the existing structure, and we do not need to modify this historical site.
My scholarly and sophisticated response to the proposed design is “Ick.”
Are they turning Government Hill into a strip mine? ‘Cause that’s what it looks like.
All they need to do in those graphics is replace the ghost people (how appropriate) with one of those big terra-hauler dump trucks and there you go.
I think the first 2 paragraphs of the comments section of the agenda (page 67) sums up my thoughts:
“The existing walks, stairs, and fountain were carefully designed as a large scale formal
landscape reflecting the City Beautiful movement of the turn of the 19th century, and
were planned to provide a panoramic vista to and from the WorldÂ’s Fair Pavilion. The
Classic Revival elements of the stairs and plazas, and the symmetrical arrangement of the
walks are characteristic of the period and complementary to the PavilionÂ’s architectural
character.
“While repair of individual elements is obviously necessary, the feasibility of restoring the
existing elements has not been clarified. In addition, while there is currently no universal
access up Government Hill, provision could be provided in gentle, curving walks at either
or both sides of the site.”
And from my co-worker: “It looks like a glorified wheelchair ramp. I wish they would at least design something more organic.”
Oh GOD. Who designed this?? And I use the word “designed” in the loosest sense possible. It looks like it was done with a sledgehammer. No sense of scale or detail, let alone context.
The proposal be called “Regrading and Redesign of Government Hill In Order to Totally Ignore the World’s Fair Pavillion”.
Anyway, how many people actually arrive at the Pavillion from the north?
This seems to be an ongoing trend for the city of St. Louis: Let’s take some beautiful historic houses/structures/monuments and dump a bunch of money into knocking them down or making them look really ugly instead of restoring them to their proper state. Then we can all marvel at how ‘urban’ or ‘edgy’ or ‘modern’ is and then 15-20 years from now when we come to our senses, we can all smack our foreheads and say ‘ugh, what were they (I would use ‘we’, but nobody has the stones to take credit for development debacles) thinking!’
ditto Zavist’s comment, to which I add, it rates exactly zero in relationship to the architecture of the pavilion and 90% of the rest of the park as well.
if they change this over accessibility issues (and I’m all in favor of ADA guidelines and universal access but no expert) if one makes the argument that the stairs are what they are – circulation from top to bottom with elaborate landings – and as Duckworth pointed out, both the top and the bottom are vehicle accessible then I believe it’s ADA compliant. if the middle terrace is to be considered a destination space, and has an “occupancy” of less than 50, then I think it may still be exempt.
my memory is weak, mostly went there during high school in the 80’s at night to listen to punk rock and drink beer with friends…
While this may make the space more accessible to all, everyone better watch out for the skateboards that will probably be racing donw the ramps!
I attended the meeting last night and the designer is from HOK. His side comments made for anyone to hear were that the current design was boring and he did not want the designs circulated to the public. ( I wonder why). Maybe we can help. Anyone have mass media connections. We should tell them not to report this story.
Actually, the whole park is designed with sweeping curves. This design is very angular. Reminds me of the mark of Zorro on a hillside.
The point was also made that there are no steps for public review of this design. They do have to get a building permit though.
HOK? figures, look what they did to what used to be that Deco tile building across from Union Station.
I know, it’s almost 20 years later and I still hold a grudge…
Exactly what usage patterns have they observed would support this new path configuration?
My scholarly and sophisticated response to this design is: this design is a piece of shit!
HOK, how much more of your half-ass architecture will we have to put up with in St. Louis?! You can pull off some good buildings in other locales, but the very people in your city, home of your World Headquarters, are faced with the worst architecture in your portfolio!
Sorry, for the foul post but this design is terrible. You’re building a glorified ramp to take you to a anit-climatic end, the world’s fair pavilion. What I’m trying to say is that the zig-zag doesn’t fit in your concept. Make it an organic ramp for crying out loud.
If you keep the ramp demolish the WFP and build something new there or go with an organic ramp and compliment the site you’re building on – DUH!
Concerned.
I can sum it up in my first thought at seeing the sketches:
What the F%&#?
Let’s stay with the original.
HOK has very little experience with historic architecture. All their architects know how to do is build new things. It’s no wonder that they cannot come up with a design that complements a great old building like the World’s Fair Pavilion.
This is pretty serious stuff. We’re talking about DEMOLITION of an important park feature.
Jimmy, why is the World’s Fair Pavilion “Great”? Can the demolition of the “important park feature” (I’m assuming the fountain) be sacrificed and replaced with something even better?!! Can you see it?
St. Louisans hate change in the built environment. Cities adapt, cities evolve, cities renew, they always have they always will. Maurice says firmly “let’s stay with the original”. The key is to advance! Good heavens. While I don’t mind demolition of the “important park feature”, as you say, I want a noteworthy replacement to fill its’ spot until ITS’ replacement hundreds or whatever years from now.
The problem is the overall design – don’t try to make it into a “save the fountain” circus.
How’s about we don’t demolish anything at all instead?
Government Hill is a dignified, beautiful, striking ensemble. It does not need to be redesigned or obliterated. It just needs some TLC, and maybe… *maybe*, if the codes and/or necessity call for it.. some kind of ramp system off to one side.
(Well, maybe a LOT of TLC, aheh.)
Bigger picture, if we really want to make the park accessible, let’s get out the bulldozers and earthmovers and flatten the whole damn thing!
Reality folks – we should make all the major activity centers accessible, but there’s no requirement (or reason) to make every path, trail or stairway wheelchair-friendly. People with disabilities will arrive in the park in a vehicle, and the vehicle can get them close to where they want or need to be. No one in their right mind* with limited mobility will (choose to) get dropped off at the bottom of Government Hill and (try to) roll to the top IF they can be dropped off at the top – provide accessibility where it’s needed! And if there’s truly a need to connect the top and bottom with a gently-sloping path, create a loop through the trees on one side or the other, not a sun-baked slash through the formal lawn area.
*not being of sound mind is another class of disability, but a ramp won’t help much there . . .
This is a masterful design, making a bold 21st century statement. And it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. We need more cubism in our cityscape to balance all the curvilinear stuff in the Park.
Congrats to HOK and FPF.
No offense to my friends who work at HOK . . . but this isn’t even vaguely responsive to the context of the site. It’s not about accessibility–Jim’s point is good, but accessible need not equal inappropriate. I like modern, and I think the design itself is cool . . . if it were on a hillside with nothing around it . . . but I don’t think it belongs in this location.
The Master Plan calls for the design of the renovated Government Hill–which desperately needs renovation, as do many other areas of the park–to respect and complement the existing major axis of the park connecting the Grand Basin, Post-Dispatch Lake, and the World’s Fair Pavilion. It would be difficult to convince me that the proposed design does that in any way.
The bigger point: this is further proof that the systems developed in the Master Plan for safeguarding the character and future of Forest Park have gone by the wayside.
I was talking to a friend who sits on the Advisory Board this morning. The last three major issues presented to the Forest Park Advisory Board–the BJC deal, the installation of the (very cool) temporary (6 months) sculptures around the Grand Basin, and now this–have been presented to them to approve in one meeting, with no chance to review, comment, or build concensus. For the sake of comparison, the renovation of the Lindell Pavilion for the Visitor’s Center took months, including formation of a special subcommittee to work with concerned neighbors and park users. A similar process happened with the Boathouse project.
The best thing we can do is send the pdf to everyone we know who might be concerned about the issue . . . and begin the hard work of making the process center around the Park and its users again.
This ludicrous ramp is accessibility run amuck. Did anyone even do a study to see how many wheelchair bound people actually desire to go from the road to the pavilion? I doubt it. I doubt someone in a wheelchair would go up that imposing ramp even if it was built. Whoever designed this silliness needs to be taken by the collar and thrown out of town before they propose more silly ideas.
Accessability??? Come now, be serious. That ramp would not be wheelchair friendly. I agree with the Jim- a meandering path towards the top off to one side.
Has anyone that has designed handicapped spaces actually tried them out?
If the Park (and I’m a big fan of what they have done) want to make things handicapped friendly – Target the MUNY. I was just there tonight seeing Aida (GREAT show) and it’s amazing the number of seniors in walkers and such that go…and those two ramps are a joke. Many of the teenagers they have working as ushers even have trouble pushing a wheelchair up those ramps.
To clearify, the HOK designer said the ramps were for general access, not ADA access. His point was that only the top and bottom of the hill were being used and that even general population did not use the mid slope much. It is ironic that he showed a path in Italy. It went up a hillside, was undilating, and had curving returns where the path switched back and it followed the hills contours. Not a single straight angle, but then it was not invented here (HOK). The same problem the current design has.
even so, I don’t think (lack of) usage of the middle part of the slope really has anything to do with its accessability, but rather how people use parks – either to run or drive through or for a destination feature such as a pavilion, picnic shelter, zoo, sports field etc. Shaw’s idea at TG of a strolling park works there, but FP is just too big for most to see and use it that way.
we should regrade the whole world to a 1/12 slope.
Just Say “NO!”
To The BJC Proposal to
Amputate
Forest Park
(OUR PARK) Clayton & Euclid
Join with others to oppose taking
beautiful public park land
SOUVENIRS FOR THE FIRST 500
Saturday and Sunday
July 8th & 9th
Speak Out
3:00pm to 6:00pm
Everyone “Just Say “NO”!!” at 5:00pm
Wear Green
Bring a picnic, chairs, blankets and umbrellas (sun shield). Entertainment welcomes (musicians, magicians, all street theater). Celebrate our unity in opposing this proposal. Together we will just say “NO!” at 5:00 pm
Forest Park Forever Always. Majesty is Government Hill. It was designed to be that way. It should be glorified. Ask the brides.
Please join us in our efforts to preserve our park.
I’m going to join to chorus as say that the new design looks terrible.
I consider HOK a very fine design organization, within certain boundaries. But I’m not inclined to dignify the design with a response, because…
IT AIN’T NEEDED!
Whenever an unnecessary agenda like this crops up, with little to no citizen involvement, there is often a hidden agenda that benefits contractors and/or politicians – but not the people. Contracts are promised, egos are stoked, and a juggernaut action plan drafted in a vacuum, pumped up with vapid marketing. By the time the people get wind it is most certainly a done-deal. The People might as well just lie back and let the nice bureaucrats have their way with them.
Utter Stalinist Big-Lie Bull-Crap! Forest Park *Forever* my achin’ butt! We’re constantly getting screwed by someone with too much influence, money and ego. I for one would rather choose the way I am screwed – some ways are fun – cultural rape ain’t one of them.
It’s effete butt-wipes like these folks who give us Liberals a bad name. Leave our cultural heritage alone and go find a vacant lot somewhere to erect your testament to your most sublime coolness!
the answer is in the pavillion now. Look at the historic photo. plants, lighting, etc. It looks incredible.
The City’s Preservation Board approved FPF’s second plan for Government Hill, an improvement over the first. I attended the Board’s July 31 meeting and left wondering about several details (including which of several details brought up by members of the board and public remain under negotiation between the Board and FPF), a wonder only increased by subsequent Post-Dispatch coverage.
Those who addressed the proposal to replace the “cotton-rock” cascade with smooth limestone steps spoke, I believe, uniformly against it; yet it is not a priority, Director Shea says, for her.
The proposed new fountain was said to “mimic” the original one (which I gather flowed with more force decades ago, as well as being lit), with its outer veil, inner gouts, and central spire; but the picture in the P-D adds the excrescence of a circle of exterior loops that appear in no pictures past/present/future presented July 31 of the fountain.
I heard from some participants that the “drum” at the base of the present fountain would be gone, but hear now from FPF that it will be kept, just lowered. A grate is slated to cover it, but how do the water spires pass through a grate intact?
Paving will be redone, but in what colors or textures of material is not clear.
Clearly, new features of the Hill are being rushed into design and even approval. After all, the current plan approved on July 31 was crafted (?)over just a month’s time.
Isn’t the question still, does this hasty and expensive project by whatever plan need to go forward? Has it been shown that treasured features could not be repaired for much less and not sacrificed for simpler detailing? Cultural Resources Director Kate Shea has underscored above that the Master Plan calls for “repair and restoration” not arbitrary replacement. I’m not sure the Board has kept carefully to that mandate.
Before this summer’s two plans was a spring meeting of the Advisory Board where, I am told by Bill Reininger of FPF that information was presented as follows: “A study was done by a fountain company and an engineer to assess the
current condition of the fountain structure, vault under the fountain, and the ‘works’ of the fountain. They determined that the fountain is at the end of its useful life and that its design doesn’t lend itself to repairs or partial replacement.” Which company and which engineer?
May the public see those reports?
Is there a budget for the plan? Are there vendors to be presented?
The Balloon Glow is invoked as an impetus to work on the Hill. I enjoy that event, but neither it nor other partially private occasions should determine, or rush, changes in a public treasure.
Will the Advisory Board review this planning in the fall with these questions in mind?
Thanks to all working on a plan and a site that must be as important to individual as to public interests.
Nanora Sweet
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy Polos,
ed hardy board shorts ， ed hardy men T-shirt,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing
through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value
and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed
hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction.
If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here
is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t
let you down.