Home » Downtown »Featured »Planning & Design » Currently Reading:

Poll: Optimistic or Pessimistic About The City+Arch+River Project?

October 28, 2012 Downtown, Featured, Planning & Design 21 Comments

By now work was to be underway remaking Kiener Plaza, but you may have noticed nothing is happening there. Work on designs and trying to secure funding has been ongoing though.

So far, around $57 million (the bulk of it is federal and state money) has been set aside to construct the lid in time for the Arch’s 50th anniversary in 2015. (KMOV)

We should see this “lid” work begin next year.

ABOVE: This should be the view three years from today with a park over I-70 and the entrance to an expanded underground museum now facing the city. Image: City+Arch+River, click to view website

Three years from today a big party will be held to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Arch, but the question in many minds is how much of the ambitious plans will be completed?

The poll question this week is are you optimistic or pessimistic about the project? This might mean are you optimistic it’ll get funded, that most will get built?     The poll is in the right sidebar, mobile readers need to switch to the full layout to see the sidebar.

– Steve Patterson

  • dylanized

    This project is a mess, trying to rebuild stuff that works just fine (Keiner Plaza, the levee, Leonor Sullivan Drive) while ignoring the real problem (I-70). All the stakeholder organizations blame each other and say they don’t have authority to make decisions. Sure wish our mayor would provide some leadership!

    #buildtheblvd

  • JZ71

    This is a regional asset and a federal facility located in a city with few discretionary resources and even less support from suburban interests or from those from across the river. Add in the reality that it doesn’t really look “broken”, so it’s hard for people who aren’t urbanistas or history buffs to understand why we need to raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on what is essentially a static tourist attraction – where is the compelling public argument? Put me down as extremely pessimistic.

    • Jim Saracini

      Congratulations! You have defined in 6 lines the thinking that has destroyed what once was a promising city on the rise. Don’t know what happened, but when the river traffic died from railroads (although we were one of the perfect railroad transport points from each of the coasts) it appears that everyone just gave up hope. We’ll always have baseball … here’s looking at you kid.

      • JZ71

        Want to know what happened? One, the rise of the automobile. Two, empowering the African-American community in the middle of the last century (and scaring many white folks to embrace white flight – not saying it was a good or bad thing, just that it fundamentally changed the dynamic). Three, being “stuck” with the inflexible city limits that resulted from the city seceding from St. Louis County in the 19th Century – can’t grow the city as the region sprawls. Four, a focus on (and being labeled by) small communities (ward, parish, high school, suburban “cities”, etc.) instead of viewing oneself as being from/a part of the whole city/region. Five, an institutional distrust of “outsiders”. And six, unions – workers like ‘em and employers don’t (and voted with their feet).

        • Jim Saracini

          Excellent response. Agree with you.

        • Jim Saracini

          … oh, and by the way, the complete lack of positive leadership. The only guy I recall that had visions of what St. Louis could and should be was Mayor Cervantes.

  • RyleyinSTL

    While the current configuration might “work” to me it is very uninviting and does have a very broken appearance. Ultimately removing I70 and building a blvd would be ideal but considering that isn’t going to happen I support the above vision. That said, considering I have yet to see any visual evidence that this project has begun, I’m pessimistic about it being completed by the 50th anniversary date.

  • Luftmensch

    The real problem is not the highway. Nobody lets Lake Shore Drive in Chicago stand in the way of crossing from their lakefront to downtown. The problem in St. Louis is that residents have no reason to visit the Archgrounds, while tourists have no reason to visit downtown (or at least not the part of it they consider to be within “walking distance” of the arch). Sell off the parcels of land near the Old Cathedral for development. Put in a school or a pottery shop. Same thing for the north end of the archgrounds. Build a playground or a skateboard park under the arch. Encourage street-level retail in the old KMOX building. Put in some traffic-calming measures for the streets surrounding the Old Courthouse. Program more events at the Old Courthouse. Then we might be getting somewhere. Otherwise we’re just reassembling pretty pictures.

    • moe

      Nobody lets Lake Shore Drive stand in the way because they aren’t going for retail….they go for the lake or the museums. I’m sorry but I don’t think selling off land for more retail is the answer. Now perhaps if we could for once develop the waterway and move a museum or two instead of a darn casino…..

  • GMichaud

    I do think that the highway and other roads are self made barriers. I also still believe the city should be reintroduced on the arch grounds with roads on the north and south fringe and maybe on the west, making the Old Cathedral part of the city again. If you look at the Eiffel Tower in Paris you see many similarities as far as site planning and the relationship to a major river. The difference is the Eiffel Tower arises within the city and is part of its fabric.

    Steven Holl, an internationally acclaimed architect from America, years ago suggeted that the Arch should have arisen from the existing warehouse district. Of course that district was gone by the time of Saarinen’s Arch design and later Holl’s proposal.

    In the book Space Time and Architecture the author Gideon cited the cast iron architecture on this same St. Louls waterfront the some of the most significant in the world.

    I have been to the various Arch proposals surrounding this project, in general I feel they fail to integrate the city with the arch grounds. The current proposal is only more of the politically correct thinking that dominates and fails America now.

    As far as I’m concerned the whole thing is the usual waste of money unless the Arch grounds are fully integraed into the city proper. Again, check out the Eiffel Tower to see how city planning is really done.

  • tpekren

    I’m of the believe that a rebuilt Kiener plaza, lid and most importantly a new entrance with expanded westward museum is not a bad proposition. As I think a new entrance to the arch /westward museum is truly needed. Some of the initial renderings had this big expansive entrance to a bigger and better westward museum. I thought that was right on and first and foremost the most valuable improvement you could give visitors.
    My fear is that you will get the latest and greatest coming out of the design team and what Steve has posted, a smallish inclusive entrance that isn’t much better than what you have now. An entrance that underwhelms you, with a museum expansion that underwehlms you and leaves visitor with one more place to stand outside during a hot muggy summer day. Anybody who comes with their families and kids understand what I’m saying, You get five minutes of wow on top, ten to fifteen minutes of interesting between the ride up and video. Everything else convinces you to do something else or hope that the next relative in town is an adult who wants to take the brewery tour instead.
    Beyond that, The immediate failure or lack of progress in my opinion is just north of the Arch Grounds. The city should be pushing for a blvd between Wash Ave and the new Mississippi Bridge to connect downtown, convention center/dome, bottle works development with Pinnacle Casino and Lacledes. It can be done without interference to the current lid plan and money spent tearing down the raise section is worth a lot more then building new on/off ramps for Wash Ave. More importantly, the Dome/Rams discussion gives a big opportunity to think bigger instead of smaller for the near north side. Until then, Laclede’s Landing will continue to falter and none of the development seen on Wash Ave will extend to the river. Just as West Downtown/Union Station will continue to struggle with the meaningless 22nd interchange as it is currently configured. In other words, I think the city can gains a lot more by focusing on infrastructure outside of the Arch Grounds instead of focusing within the boundaries of the grounds.

    • JZ71

      As someone who didn’t grow up here, I’ve had the perspective of the out-of-town tourist, and I agree with your description of the current “experience”. Unfortunately, I don’t think that a “better” museum will make much of a difference. Most NPS sites include interpretative displays and most visitors spend a few minutes looking at them. But the reality is that most people on cross-country road trips are more interested in checking something off their itineraries (be it the arch, Mount Rushmore, the Liberty Bell or the Washington Monument) than they are in lingering at the site, itself. Whether they linger in the surrounding areas depends on the (usually limited) time they have available and what else may attract and hold their interest. Around here, the brewery tour, Ted Drewe’s and the zoo rank up on the list, but what really holds most people’s attention is usually their ultimate destination, be it family, Branson, Colorado, Memphis, Chicago, Gatlinburg or “the beach”. Expecting our fair city to be (or become) a major tourist destination is a long shot, a fantasy. We’re a stop along the way, just like that giant ball of string or Wall Drug.

  • http://twitter.com/YASTLBlog Kevin Barbeau

    Taking the merits of City to River’s #buildtheblvd plan off the table (for now!), there are several things to like and dislike with the project as it currently exists. Much of this is, of course, my opinion, so take it with a salt grain. But I have given it a lot of thought.

    1) Kiener Plaza — I think the western half of Kiener Plaza is fine as is right now. The new plan removes the tiered amphitheater, making it another boring surface-level pavilion. By carving the bowl out a bit to the surrounding sidewalks, you could open up to street level drivers/pedestrians a bit, removing some of that so-called “fear” of entering it. More programming — summer jazz trios, kids events (puppeteers!), etc. — are needed. The eastern half is underused. I’m somewhat okay with removing the fountain, but feel there’s a better location for a carousel (see: Chouteau’s Landing).

    2) The Lid — The lid is fine as a way to briefly mitigate the perceived problems with speed and noise coming from the depressed I-70 lanes. However, I DO NOT CONDONE the closure of Memorial Drive in each direction. It should continue to exist as a N-S route and multi-point entry into downtown St. Louis, but MODot and City+Arch+River want it closed because it’s somehow now “dangerous” for people to — gasp! — walk across two-directional traffic at signaled crosswalks.

    3) The Museum — Super smart idea putting in a western-facing entrance. Original plans called for a wide, curved entrance, and the newest plan reduces that somewhat. Unfortunate, but okay, as long as the multi-leveled expansion continues within. There’s an opportunity here for expanded programming and exhibits; I’d go one step further and re-brand the Museum of Westward Expansion as the “Museum of Exploration and Discovery” and talk about the nations — since it is a federal park — role in exploration, with a special emphasis on St. Louis (Lewis/Clark, Lindbergh, Boeing, etc.).

    4) Leonor K. Sullivan Drive — A great example of smart infrastructure upgrades. Raising the street level a mere two feet, from flood gate to flood gate, decreases street flooding by a fairly high percentage (can’t remember the numbers exactly), allowing for more consistent access and activity. I miss the photovoltaic river gauges from early plans that would have lined the riverfront. They would have provided a nice (and pretty!) sense of place while also serving a as a teaching tool.

    5) North Archgrounds/Washington Avenue — I’m fine with removing the North parking garage, but fear that an ugly concrete/brick garage would replace it on Laclede’s Landing — which would just visually destroy the little nine-block district. Closing Washington Avenue is a travesty and one that should be fought. Why, oh why, would you destroy the strongest riverfront connection in favor of a slightly less-confusing 3rd Street intersection. Oh right, because of the needs of the new I-70 ramp system (Sidenote: the current access ramps are fine north and south of downtown — why spend money switching over what currently works just fine getting people to the same locations?)

    6) South Archgrounds/Chouteau’s Landing — It is unfortunate that, after all the ideas and attention given for this area by the designers, that the final design basically ignores it. It’s a tough nut to crack as there are lots of moving pieces, individual owners/stakeholders and existing businesses in the district. This will only come about when Chivvis (or whatever business is now leading the efforts) gets some meaningful development underway (see: the Chouteau’s Landing Arts Center at Powell Square). A success like that is just the sort of thing that can activate a new riverfront district — a sister to Laclede’s Landing to the north — and bookend the Archgrounds with activity and personality. It could become a perfect “Under the Highway” location for quirky activities/sights — such as the vintage carousel proposed for Kiener Plaza. I’ve laid out some of my thoughts on Chouteau’s Landing in a couple of my blog posts (“The Mississippi 1.2 Mile — Part 1” and “Clang! Clang! Clang! Goes The Trolley“).

    7) Miscellaneous — The river tram is a corny idea that, I think, should never have gotten past the idea stage. Id’ love to see increased activity/connection on the Illinois side (river ferry!), but that will first require significant investment in East St. Louis as a place to live and visit — a much-needed step that can only make us stronger neighbors and partners. For now, increased access to the geyser park/lookout from Eads Bridge is our best bet.

    Add all this up and I take the pessimistic view. City+Arch+River is messing with things that currently work, adding things that are either unnecessary or superfluous, and overlooking potential connections and improvements. There are some worthwhile, level-headed additions that work individually, but the project doesn’t — as currently proposed, anyway — come out to a worthwhile whole.

  • Urban Reason

    Luftmensch said it best: “residents have no reason to visit the Archgrounds, while tourists have no reason to visit downtown.”

    Personally, I’ve always felt what the archgrounds need is (in order of importance)

    1) a selection of restaurant/shops ON the archgrounds, making the grounds attractive to locals and giving tourists a reason to stay there

    2) removal of 70 barrier to make it accessible to residents from all sides

    3) greater density in the surrounding area to make the green-space attractive for regular use

    But to me, I’ve always felt #1 was the most important. If locals had a reason to go there (restaurants/nightlife), the arch grounds would be much more alive. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is a step in the right direction – but there are so many missed opportunities without restaurants/retail/nightlife. Without that, the arch grounds will always be the most boring place any local could go.

    • http://twitter.com/YASTLBlog Kevin Barbeau

      That’s really where the practical potential of City to River’s I-70 removal comes into play. By removing I-70 and adjusting Memorial Drive to serve as a street-level boulevard, there is an opportunity for neighboring buildings (Mansion House, Drury, Hyatt Regency, One Memorial, Millennium, etc.) which currently have no east-facing activity to use the space. There will also be opportunities for new construction in front of these buildings.

      Suddenly, there’s the potential for blocks of new street-level (and 2nd, 3rd, 4th floor, etc) businesses with displays/patios/entrances facing or reflecting the Archgrounds. Suddenly, you have multiple reasons to visit the Archgrounds and the surrounding area.

  • Chris S

    It will be built and it will be a vast improvement. The Arch is our front door to the City and its high time we reconnect our front door with the rest of the city. The lid looks great and will provide that connection. Raising the riverfront by two feet is again a very smart investment for the money, as noted by one of the comments. Both the new musuem entrance and old Cathedral will become more connected to the City by the park over highway lid. I agree about the need to eventually remove the elevated lanes to the north, but that is not in the scope of the arch grounds and is a project for another day.

    • tpeken

      Yes and no, the current configuration for the lid also calls for MoDOT to build on and off ramps onto Washington Ave. You are literally going to see a interstate interchange built in the heart of downtown. This is really where you see a lack of vision come throught for the region’s leaders. The highway interchange will be built and the mentality for the next two decades is why ruin a perfectly good interchange by knocking down the raised section of the freeway. In the meantime, any hope of piggy backing Laclede’s Landing development onto the Arch Grounds is pretty much squashed. Laclede’s Landing won’t be developed because of the arch grounds. It will get developed when it becomes part of the downtown grid/fabric.

  • Ryan

    I think the plan is great. First off, I am relatively new to St. Louis. Some of the natives or long time St. Louisians might disagree with me, or use my neophyte status to discredit my opinion, however, I think it rather offers a more accurate view of how the city is perceived by newcomers and visitors alike. The arch, for better of for worse (I think for better) is the main attraction in St. Louis. Hands down. The first time I came here was on a cross-country road trip. I went to the arch, took a picture and continued to the atlantic coast. Now that I live here, I have found so many more amazing things to see and do, and they are so close to the arch. The park over the Highway or lid or whatever people call it, is a really cool (safe too but honestly mostly cool in my opinion) way to bring arch visitors into the downtown area where many of the other great aspects of St. Louis exist – places like the Busch Stadium, and that 360 restaurant with an incredible view of the city, arch and river, the City Museum, and awesome restaurants like Baileys Range, Rooster, and Local harvest that all serve regionally produced food keeping in touch with the local vibe. It is one thing to say that people aren’t scared to cross a street, or to say that people who visit the arch aren’t going for retail, but when the park extends into downtown, and a leisurely walk through the park leads you unknowingly over a busy highway and into a vibrant downtown then what is there to lose? I know from first hand experience that busy roads are mental and often subconscious boundaries to a pedestrian. Perhaps that is the reason why when I visited the arch in 2009, I didn’t go into the city, and then when I moved into the city, I rarely visited to arch (at first anyways).

    So all I have left to say is that every project of this magnitude will have opposition. Often time this opposition is merely for contrarian purposes or from people who have felt excluded from the creative process. One way to reduce this sort of negative perception is to include people in the creative process, or at least be very transparent and open to suggestions. Another type of opposition is caused by people who’s goals are the same, but mechanisms of achieving them are different – this category is for those who want the see the depressed lanes gone. To them, I hope that they see that this project is just another great idea for reducing the stress for downtown visitors and allowing a more free-flowing route between its main attraction and main businesses.

    If people put aside their differences and see the common goal and enthusiasm that both “sides” are expressing for a renovation of the arch and downtown area, I think that a lot of great things will be accomplished!

    • JZ71

      I think there is general agreement on the various design elements and components. The problem is funding. Where is the money coming from? The federal government / congress? Doubtful, beyond what’s already budgeted. A regional tax? The state legislature? Illinois? Doubtful, times three. A local (city) sales tax? Even more doubtful. Private donations? Corporate sponsors? Individual donors? Who knows? Who’s out twisting arms? In the immortal words of Jerry Maguire: “Show me the money!”

    • http://www.facebook.com/CallieJean1947 Carolyn Patton

      Great comment. I could not have said it better.unfortunately, too many native St. Louis like to complain about what is happening, but they have nothing to offer themselves. I’ve lived here all of my life, and I am so excited about what is happening to downtown St. Louis. The renovation of the Arch grounds will be icing on the cake. Now, if we can get the Bottle District and Ballpark Village completed, I will be a happy camper. I also think they need to do somethin about those building surronding the casino. Those building are an embassament to the entire area.

  • Aaanonymous1

    Drop this project. Tearing down the Arch Parking Garage will cause the loss of a great many parking places for the tourists and Laclede’s Landing employees. Already, employers on the Landing are planning to move out of the City because of this.
    The tourists don’t need the street changes to get around, they do fine now.

Advertisement


Weekly Poll (new 8am each Sunday)



Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

National Partner



Archives

Categories