Agreed, it does work. But the block looks like a dog compared to Citygarden. Extend the hallway, replace the other sidewalks, and make it so the entrance points aren’t mud holes and people will see ‘Twain’ in a new way. We just need the wealthy to open their purses and pay for a few simple improvements.

To delve deeper into artistic BS, wouldn’t extending the Hallway further compromise the precious context this piece / artist claims is critical to its understanding and appreciation?  Or, do you envision just more concrete and no trees, unlike the granite pavers and layers of landscaping that define and enhance the Citygarden blocks?  You can’t have it both ways – concrete ain’t grass.

Bigger picture, I have a problem with the assumption that “we just need the wealthy to open their purses and pay for a few simple improvements”.  Doing so creates the assumption that art is both elitist and a discretionary element in the city budget.  This is public property and if we want to maintain public acess, we all need to pay for its maintenance and improvements.  Once we privatize investments in public infrastructure, we open the door to limited access – donations rarely come with no strings attached.

I’ve always found it interesting that the negative attacks and controversy don’t even seem to touch Serra’s “Joe” at the Pulitzer.  Must be the private funding, private site maintenance (the gravel prevents drainage problems from foot traffic…and someone actually picks up any trash that might accumulate), and the different expectations and tastes of Pulitzer Foundation patrons.  I love the spatial effects and scale of his work, and I hope something can be done, perhaps with Serra’s consultation, to engage “Twain’s” site.
Also, he should’ve stuck with “Quadrilateral.”

I disagree, the problem with the block is not the art.

I think the hallway theme to link the entire Gateway Mall is a good idea, should be pursued and happen if donors are willing to make it happen.  I actually think that civic donors who have embraced City Garden, Post Office Plaza, Forest Park, etc will pick up on Mall improvements in time.  Which is good because it frees up taxpayer dollars for nuts and bolts of keeping city infrastructure from collapsing as JZ alludes too.

More importantly, I think the Twain piece and city garden are out of sync.  Especially with the three blocks booked end.  In other words, I didn’t think they went far enough with the original City Garden.  So why not emphasize all three blocks as the city garden if the original donors want to expand upon it and relocate the piece to another part of the mall? What would be unreasonable about that?

Already can picture some of the landscapes of Missouri Botanical Garden being worked into the third block with a second BofA tower to complete the urban canyon feeling.

B.S.  Both the site and the context have changed significantly over thirty years.  The highrise AT&T center was constructed to the northeast, the parking and old brick buildings to the east were replaced by Citygarden and this block went from treeless to forested.  Adding the current Gateway Mall design vocabulary would further degrade the original context.  Moving this piece (instead of destroying it, as other Serra pieces have been) to someplace like Laumeier Sculpture Park or the SLU campus WOULD change its current context, but it wouldn’t “destroy” it anymore than all the other interventions that have occured over the past three decades.

I’ll repeat, even great artists create mediocre pieces.  If this were a significant piece, wouldn’t it be listed on Richard Serra’s wikipedia entry?  Wouldn’t it pop up in Google searches?  Denver went through a similar struggle with their Skyline Park, designed by noted landscape architect Lawrence Halpern, and completed at about the same time as this Serra piece.  Times changed, context changed, people’s expectations changed, and the park changed.  And while no artist is going to say their work is no longer relevent, sometimes change needs to happen.  To argue that this piece is untouchable is to buy into an artist’s inflated ego.  It may not be perfect, but it is better than a vacant lot or surface parking lot.  I just wouldn’t let this one piece be an impediment to a larger, better vision.

Steve, I have to agree with JZ comments that the area has changed significantly as well as the context in which the piece was presented.  Whether you like the art or not, think its good or not, even whether its the artists best piece or not.  At the end of the day I still think the best thing is relocate Twain piece

Serra and Emily Pulitzer did not fail with the installation of Twain. The CITY failed to follow through on the original plans of what was to frame it. Why City Garden did not originally site a couple blocks west to incorporate it is still a mystery. But a City Garden expansion also provides the solution.

I don’t disagree that the new design elements should be extended – I like the feel they give the Citygarden blocks and they would be a great way to unify, and hopefully energize, the multiple blocks that make up the Gateway Mall.  My two points of disagreement are the assertion that the context of the Serra block has remained constant for 30 years – it hasn’t – and that we should expect private donors to pay for the improvements.

The Serra piece is a brutal piece that was placed on a barren block, likely with the expectation that some type of monchromatic ground covering would be added, be it grass, gravel or concrete.  I doubt that the artist anticipated or would have approved of adding the traditional, park-like grove of trees that now soften and partially obscure his piece and the views out of it.  The challenge with extending the new design elements to this block are that they would both introduce a regular grid to a piece that is asymmetrical and would again change how the piece is perceived by the public, bringing them closer to the piece.  You can’t have it both ways, arguing that the piece can’t be moved because it’s site specific, then messing with the site!

My second point is that if we want to be considered to be a world class city we need to spend more money, more tax dollars, investing in our parks and public art.  The problem with private donors is simply the golden rule – they’re writing the checks, so they get to decide what gets built, acquired or placed and where.  While it’s great to have a concentration of modern art downtown, why should it be limited to the CBD?  Why not in Fairgrounds Park or O’Fallon Park?  Public funding “spreads the wealth” . . . .

With the proper landscaping, I don’t think Twain is out of sync with City Garden’s at all. City Gardens is a sculpture part after all.  If the same curving granite benches and paths were extended to Twain’s square, the sculpture would the centerpiece of City Gardens.  I had thought it would be nice to build a path labyrinth leading around and through the center of the sculpture, which would make it more kinetic, but the imposed pattern may limit the self discovery of certain vistas. Still, it would make the idea of walking around and through the sculpture and viewing the city through the openings more accessible to people.