Consultants working on the latest plan to revitalize the failed Gateway Mall concept will be holding an open house from 6:30pm to 8:30pm in Room 208 of St. Louis’ City Hall on Tuesday 7/17/2007.
And for those who want to build on Gateway Mall, please don’t waste your time or the time of the consultants by showing up.
[SLP — Actually, those that shouldn’t show up are those that want to keep it boring and lifeless by continuing to have excessive amounts of useless open space.]
But building on it isn’t going to happen. That isn’t what these people were assigned to do. So you are wasting your time by suggesting it. Just like you would be wasting everyone’s time if you went to a forum on how to improve the Arch grounds and all you wanted to talk about your idea of tearing down the Arch.
[SLP — OK folks, per Reggie only those folks willing to kneel down and kiss the feet of the designers should bother to show up. If you don’t and you show up you need to nod yes to everything they say, don’t even think about anything different that what they’re suggesting which is similar to what the same firm suggested in the late 1990s.]
i love this idea that we’re “wasting their time.” THEY are being paid a lot of money to have their time “wasted,” so forgive me if i couldn’t care less about wasting their time.
[SLP — You are correct they are being paid a lot of money but that money is coming from the family behind the Gateway Foundation so what Reggie is correctly pointing out is we really don’t have a voice in the matter. This “open house” is simply a formality to make it look as though the common man has a say in what happens. The major decisions have all been made.]Â
Those of us who want to build on the Mall will be out in force. In 10 years when we do this all again I look forward to hearing your next load of cr@p about why we can’t build on a lifeless patch of grass.
What is this, kabuki pubic engagement? What is served by having a public forum and asking the famously opinionated public not to attend? At that point, why not just hire a few actors at scale for a couple of hours, get some good pics for the brochure or website, and call it a day? Last year, I chaired a rather controversial committee for my local non-profit CHDO. This involved holding public monthly meetings. Let me tell you, there was not a meeting that I did not *suffer* from the attendance of the opinionated public. And also, every time, learn something. So them’s the breaks of working in the public space. And ya know, I may not be paying for this private company doing work for this private foundation, but I am paying to keep the lights and HVAC working at City Hall, so if this is a private love-fest, are they paying us taxpayers to rent the room?
a donor has cash and wants to spruce up a central part of the city… I don’t understand what is so upsetting about a group trying to improve downtown. OK it’s not that hard to point to potential flaws in the plan. Gateway One already has made the mall permanently an underachiever but there is good that can still be achieved with the mall.
It’s amazing how many high school level posters are on this forum.
.
You most certainly should voice support or opposition to the plan, and add your own thoughts. But if you show up saying they should build condo towers, you are wasting your time, and the time of the people who are there to participate. It isn’t going to happen, and it’s not what these people were assigned to do. Try to keep up.
As the RFP/RFQ in November outlined, the consultants were bound by the City and its backers to not propose a “build on the mall” idea. So you are 100% correct that the consultants were not hired to consider such options.
Here is the problem with your logic. If the public attends these meetings and says “build on part of the Mall,” then what right did the Great White Fathers have in the first place to eliminate such an idea before the planning process was even started?
You see Reggie, this is the difference between an open public participation process and the sham public process that is occurring for this plan. In an ideal world, after the kick-off meeting the consultants would have been doing public meetings, visioning sessions and surveys with downtown residents, downtown workers, visitors, the public and the Great White Fathers.
Then, after a few weeks or a month to tally the results they would have publicly presented what folks wanted from the public involvement sessions and moved forward planning the Mall based on the public input.
Instead, the Gateway Foundation told the public where a sculpture garden was going and the first public meeting was conducted after most of the framework for planning the Mall had been done behind the scenes.
You see the difference Reggie?
One process engages the public and ensures a “buy in” for the Mall design from those who will actually use the mall. (PS. Let me know the next time you see Ms. Pulitzer or other Gateway Foundation members out using the Mall.)
One process alienates the public and ensures that residents could care less what happens to the Mall because they played no role in planning it.
Remember:
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. – Alexander Hamilton
This comment is not mean to be pro or anti-building on the Gateway Mall. But, wouldn’t building on the Mall require a City-wide referendum per the new ordinance on building on park lan? Or is the Gateway mall not park land?
[SLP — You are correct, it would require a city-wide vote. Right now we are seeing pretty drawings that don’t have a chance of getting built because we have no money. I advocate selling some of the blocks to 1) raise money to improve the remaining and 2) to reduce the amount of space we need to improve and occupy.]
“If the public attends these meetings and says “build on part of the Mall,†then what right did the Great White Fathers have in the first place to eliminate such an idea before the planning process was even started?
”
.
They wpn an election. That’s what gave them the “right” to make that decision.
per the city charter, the people retain the right at all times to legislate through Initiative (i.e. petition and ballot) and to overturn through Referendum (i.e. petition and ballot) legislation enacted by the representatives of the people, including the aldermen and mayor.
I like Steve’s idea of selling or leasing city land to raise money for other city projects, like we did on the BJC lease deal. Really, when you get right down to it, what’s the difference between all those city-owned, LRA lots and the vacant Gateway Mall? Not much.
“reginald, per the city charter, the people retain the right at all times to legislate through Initiative (i.e. petition and ballot) and to overturn through Referendum (i.e. petition and ballot) legislation enacted by the representatives of the people, including the aldermen and mayor.”
.
Then you better commence legislating, because tonight was the final meeting. The design will be finalized in the next month or two, and the mayor is hot to get going on it.
try to keep up. i did not oppose the downtown mall plan. i’m also not convinced it’s the best use of the land. unfortunately i’m not living in saint louis at the moment so i could not attend the meeting. i AM opposed to your comment that elections give our representatives the “right” to legislate without any further public input. there is no such right. talk about high school level posts…
I think anything they do with the mall will be a failure unless they get some development there. However, it seems to me that development downtown is saturated. You’ve got the new casino, ballpark village, the bottle district, all the new condos on Washington, and it seems like every building south of Washington and west of 6th street is being developed.
“i AM opposed to your comment that elections give our representatives the “right†to legislate without any further public input. there is no such right. talk about high school level posts… ”
.
Please provide a comprehensive list of which government decisions require public input and which do not. If an alderman proposes a stop sign at the corner of X and Y, does that require public input? How about if the want to move a dumpster from one side of the alley to the other? Does “public input” take the form of meetings? Or does each decision require an election? Are you (like most people) under the mistaken notion that the US is a democracy?
RP3 …. curious about your posting monniker, I googled it and found a reference to The Remarkable Mr. Pennypacker, a 1959 film about a sausage manufacturer (Horace, played by Clifton Webb) whose two wives (in different cities) discovered his dual life.
Somehow I don’t think this is the root of the name, but I found it interesting because often our elected officials seem to forget they also have two wives–the general public as well as wealthy campaign donors/developers. This may not be a democracy, but for large-scale, long-term decisions about the use of public land and money (the topic of this post) …. a process should be more about listening and working together to create a common vision and less about presenting a fait accompli.
Reginald you are either a hack for the mayor and the government or extremely naive. Creating a list of decisions that need public input is ridiculous, although even stop signs, can cause public outcry for or against.
It would take a major dissertation to explain how democracy should work. Briefly a major project along the Gateway Mall should fit into a larger city plan. The mall has been and is a failure to date. Surely there is no debate about this.
I have studied activities in many cities, both historical and current and the best results come from a city plan that is comprehensive, flexible and has meaning to all of the citizens. Most successful cities I have looked at have a process that includes citizens in the decision making right from the beginning. Thus there is an urban plan citizens have already have had a voice and the sculpture park for the mall would not be a surprise.
A technique of vetting public input often used, especially in European cites, is using architectural or urban planning competitions. These bring many new ideas forth and allow integration of new development into the larger city. (I have found some cities utilize this tool to an extreme degree, clearly concerned about the best decisions available)
In the case of this sculpture park etc for the Gateway Mall, it is more of the same predetermined decisions that are the hall mark of city politics. It is why the city has struggled and leads the world in percentage of population lost over the last 50 years.
What the Gateway Foundation should be doing with their money is sponsoring an architectural/urban planning competition for the mall. This would open debate about connections and meanings of the space for the city and get the help of best thinkers in the world.
I would remind you that the arch was an architectural competition, and although I feel the arch grounds are a failure (another discussion) the arch as a symbol and reality is a valued addition to the St. Louis landscape.
In fact if the Gateway Foundation was to stage an architectural competition I think they would find their sculpture park would fall down in the standings, to the extent that it would not even be considered. It is a poor idea that is a poor use of this central urban space.
But the major failure of city government is the inability to utilize the creative energy of the people. It is a leadership that lacks the foresight and understanding of how to establish an inclusive government that reflects the voices of the citizens.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
And for those who want to build on Gateway Mall, please don’t waste your time or the time of the consultants by showing up.
But building on it isn’t going to happen. That isn’t what these people were assigned to do. So you are wasting your time by suggesting it. Just like you would be wasting everyone’s time if you went to a forum on how to improve the Arch grounds and all you wanted to talk about your idea of tearing down the Arch.
i love this idea that we’re “wasting their time.” THEY are being paid a lot of money to have their time “wasted,” so forgive me if i couldn’t care less about wasting their time.
Reggie,
Those of us who want to build on the Mall will be out in force. In 10 years when we do this all again I look forward to hearing your next load of cr@p about why we can’t build on a lifeless patch of grass.
What is this, kabuki pubic engagement? What is served by having a public forum and asking the famously opinionated public not to attend? At that point, why not just hire a few actors at scale for a couple of hours, get some good pics for the brochure or website, and call it a day? Last year, I chaired a rather controversial committee for my local non-profit CHDO. This involved holding public monthly meetings. Let me tell you, there was not a meeting that I did not *suffer* from the attendance of the opinionated public. And also, every time, learn something. So them’s the breaks of working in the public space. And ya know, I may not be paying for this private company doing work for this private foundation, but I am paying to keep the lights and HVAC working at City Hall, so if this is a private love-fest, are they paying us taxpayers to rent the room?
Again there will be a lunchtime open house at 1015 Locust.
a donor has cash and wants to spruce up a central part of the city… I don’t understand what is so upsetting about a group trying to improve downtown. OK it’s not that hard to point to potential flaws in the plan. Gateway One already has made the mall permanently an underachiever but there is good that can still be achieved with the mall.
It’s amazing how many high school level posters are on this forum.
.
You most certainly should voice support or opposition to the plan, and add your own thoughts. But if you show up saying they should build condo towers, you are wasting your time, and the time of the people who are there to participate. It isn’t going to happen, and it’s not what these people were assigned to do. Try to keep up.
Oh Reggie…
As the RFP/RFQ in November outlined, the consultants were bound by the City and its backers to not propose a “build on the mall” idea. So you are 100% correct that the consultants were not hired to consider such options.
Here is the problem with your logic. If the public attends these meetings and says “build on part of the Mall,” then what right did the Great White Fathers have in the first place to eliminate such an idea before the planning process was even started?
You see Reggie, this is the difference between an open public participation process and the sham public process that is occurring for this plan. In an ideal world, after the kick-off meeting the consultants would have been doing public meetings, visioning sessions and surveys with downtown residents, downtown workers, visitors, the public and the Great White Fathers.
Then, after a few weeks or a month to tally the results they would have publicly presented what folks wanted from the public involvement sessions and moved forward planning the Mall based on the public input.
Instead, the Gateway Foundation told the public where a sculpture garden was going and the first public meeting was conducted after most of the framework for planning the Mall had been done behind the scenes.
You see the difference Reggie?
One process engages the public and ensures a “buy in” for the Mall design from those who will actually use the mall. (PS. Let me know the next time you see Ms. Pulitzer or other Gateway Foundation members out using the Mall.)
One process alienates the public and ensures that residents could care less what happens to the Mall because they played no role in planning it.
Remember:
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. – Alexander Hamilton
This comment is not mean to be pro or anti-building on the Gateway Mall. But, wouldn’t building on the Mall require a City-wide referendum per the new ordinance on building on park lan? Or is the Gateway mall not park land?
“If the public attends these meetings and says “build on part of the Mall,†then what right did the Great White Fathers have in the first place to eliminate such an idea before the planning process was even started?
”
.
They wpn an election. That’s what gave them the “right” to make that decision.
reginald,
per the city charter, the people retain the right at all times to legislate through Initiative (i.e. petition and ballot) and to overturn through Referendum (i.e. petition and ballot) legislation enacted by the representatives of the people, including the aldermen and mayor.
Adam-
Are you a lawyer?
I like Steve’s idea of selling or leasing city land to raise money for other city projects, like we did on the BJC lease deal. Really, when you get right down to it, what’s the difference between all those city-owned, LRA lots and the vacant Gateway Mall? Not much.
“reginald, per the city charter, the people retain the right at all times to legislate through Initiative (i.e. petition and ballot) and to overturn through Referendum (i.e. petition and ballot) legislation enacted by the representatives of the people, including the aldermen and mayor.”
.
Then you better commence legislating, because tonight was the final meeting. The design will be finalized in the next month or two, and the mayor is hot to get going on it.
transit,
no, i’m not a lawyer.
reginald,
try to keep up. i did not oppose the downtown mall plan. i’m also not convinced it’s the best use of the land. unfortunately i’m not living in saint louis at the moment so i could not attend the meeting. i AM opposed to your comment that elections give our representatives the “right” to legislate without any further public input. there is no such right. talk about high school level posts…
I think anything they do with the mall will be a failure unless they get some development there. However, it seems to me that development downtown is saturated. You’ve got the new casino, ballpark village, the bottle district, all the new condos on Washington, and it seems like every building south of Washington and west of 6th street is being developed.
“i AM opposed to your comment that elections give our representatives the “right†to legislate without any further public input. there is no such right. talk about high school level posts… ”
.
Please provide a comprehensive list of which government decisions require public input and which do not. If an alderman proposes a stop sign at the corner of X and Y, does that require public input? How about if the want to move a dumpster from one side of the alley to the other? Does “public input” take the form of meetings? Or does each decision require an election? Are you (like most people) under the mistaken notion that the US is a democracy?
RP3 …. curious about your posting monniker, I googled it and found a reference to The Remarkable Mr. Pennypacker, a 1959 film about a sausage manufacturer (Horace, played by Clifton Webb) whose two wives (in different cities) discovered his dual life.
Somehow I don’t think this is the root of the name, but I found it interesting because often our elected officials seem to forget they also have two wives–the general public as well as wealthy campaign donors/developers. This may not be a democracy, but for large-scale, long-term decisions about the use of public land and money (the topic of this post) …. a process should be more about listening and working together to create a common vision and less about presenting a fait accompli.
“Please provide a comprehensive list of which government decisions require public input and which do not.”
– the list contains whatever issues motivate the public to petition/vote.
“If an alderman proposes a stop sign at the corner of X and Y …”
– yes, it “requires” public input if enough people want it moved. same with the dumpster.
“Does ‘public input’ take the form of meetings? Or does each decision require an election?”
– public input = petition/vote. decision = petition/vote.
“Are you (like most people) under the mistaken notion that the US is a democracy?”
– so should we resort to mob rule?
Reginald you are either a hack for the mayor and the government or extremely naive. Creating a list of decisions that need public input is ridiculous, although even stop signs, can cause public outcry for or against.
It would take a major dissertation to explain how democracy should work. Briefly a major project along the Gateway Mall should fit into a larger city plan. The mall has been and is a failure to date. Surely there is no debate about this.
I have studied activities in many cities, both historical and current and the best results come from a city plan that is comprehensive, flexible and has meaning to all of the citizens. Most successful cities I have looked at have a process that includes citizens in the decision making right from the beginning. Thus there is an urban plan citizens have already have had a voice and the sculpture park for the mall would not be a surprise.
A technique of vetting public input often used, especially in European cites, is using architectural or urban planning competitions. These bring many new ideas forth and allow integration of new development into the larger city. (I have found some cities utilize this tool to an extreme degree, clearly concerned about the best decisions available)
In the case of this sculpture park etc for the Gateway Mall, it is more of the same predetermined decisions that are the hall mark of city politics. It is why the city has struggled and leads the world in percentage of population lost over the last 50 years.
What the Gateway Foundation should be doing with their money is sponsoring an architectural/urban planning competition for the mall. This would open debate about connections and meanings of the space for the city and get the help of best thinkers in the world.
I would remind you that the arch was an architectural competition, and although I feel the arch grounds are a failure (another discussion) the arch as a symbol and reality is a valued addition to the St. Louis landscape.
In fact if the Gateway Foundation was to stage an architectural competition I think they would find their sculpture park would fall down in the standings, to the extent that it would not even be considered. It is a poor idea that is a poor use of this central urban space.
But the major failure of city government is the inability to utilize the creative energy of the people. It is a leadership that lacks the foresight and understanding of how to establish an inclusive government that reflects the voices of the citizens.