Not A Postcard View
Many seek out that photo of St. Louis that could be used to promote the city to tourists, businesses and conventions. A blue sky and Busch Stadium might even be in such a pic. The following has both but it wouldn’t be used by civic boosters.
Double deck highway (I-64/hwy 40), on/off ramps, surface parking just aren’t very appealing. This image is just as honest of a representation of downtown St. Louis, maybe more so, than that perfect shot of the Kiener Plaza fountain with the Old Courthouse & Arch in the background.
I point this out not to put the city down but to show we have many unpleasant areas that with planning and vision can be made less ugly over time.
— Steve Patterson
How do you make that view better? Put a plant in front of the window?
Your insinuation that there has been insufficient planning and vision to date IS a putdown.
Large public facilities need parking. Placing spaces under highway ramps ought to be ok.
Parking can be provided in more attractive ways. Of course that increases the cost which reduces demand. We’ve gone overboard with cheap surface parking and now downtown has b oversupply for the demand.
Parking is ugly and elevated freeways are ugly. Unless you are going to remove the freeway, putting parking under the freeway is the best solution.
If downtown has an oversupply, why are parking lot operators able to charge the fees they do? The price of parking, at any point in time, is a better indicator of supply and demand than its mere existence. And, what financial incentives exist to convert surface parking to something else? These property owners aren’t into aesthetics, they’re into making money from an investment, and that includes pricing their parking, keeping it “cheap” enough, to attract users to their brick-and-mortar operations. Yes, some users will choose to use public transit if downtown parking becomes “too expensive”, but many more will simply choose other options for their dining, shopping, working or partying choices – downtown ain’t the only game in town (except for pro sports).
Our parking is unbelievably cheap! The abundance of parking has devalued our central business district enormously.
The lack of demand for more commercial space of significant size for a downtown of respectable size is the issue not parking. I wish once you could admit JZ is right on this point. Downtown literally competes on a local level for office space and has been on the losing end as a big chunk of the bigger companies have chosen Clayton or suburban campuses over downtown, from Centene, Brown Shoe, Montsano, Express Scripts, Scottrade, Edward Jones and so forth. Half those companies locating downtown could create a lot of infill, create even more residential demand, more transit demand and reduce the amount of parking while making parking more expensive. Yet we go around arguing that parking is the problem. Not having enough workers and residents downtown is the problem!!
The idea that you ban parking and the central business district is valuable is nonsense just as the idea that abundance of parking devalues the Central Business District nor is it the reason why you still have a high vacancy rate for the cheapest space around.
Agree. Every downtown took a hit after WW II, and especially in the ’60’s and ’70’s, with urban renewal. “Successful”, “cool”, “desirable” downtowns have “bounced back” and have seen their surface parking lots replaced with new, dense construction, often with structured parking. It’s as simple (and complex) as people wanting to be someplace and willing to pay the “cost of admission”. Not being able to attract tenants to older buildings, even with inexpensive rents and cheap parking, makes it VERY difficult to justify building new structures that need higher rents to cover their construction costs. And, for long-term sustainability, you need to attract employers and residents – retail and entertainment don’t create the same intense, predictable, daily demand that people going to work does, especially for public transit.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When it comes to photography, composition is the key and can be used to convey many messages, both “good” and “bad”. I don’t have a problem with parking under the highway ramps, and I accept that highways are a part of our lives and landscape. I even find the geometry of the ramps, and the engineering behind them, to be intriguing. But, for the life of me, I don’t understand why the decision was made to build the new Busch 20′ away from the highway (which results in high noise levels inside the stadium). But if you want ideas for better solutions, check out what Louisville has accomplished, under their Spaghetti Junction, as in “make it a park”: http://www.louisvillewaterfront.com/documents/2011_park_map.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kennedy_Interchange_Photo_Diagram.JPG
The stadium location was based on the construction schedule for the new stadium.
By shifting it southward from the “old” stadium, construction on the “new” stadium could begin while games were still being played. By the end of the 2005 season, most of the new stadium was complete and only the Clark street side had to be built between October of 2005 and April of 2006.
Rebuilding the stadium in the same location as the old Busch would have required the Cardinals to play somewhere else for at least one, probably two, seasons
I understand the logistics, plus not wanting to buy more land, but I still think that it was a poor decision. The same thing could have been accomplished by going west, only that would’ve required demolishing and rebuilding the parking garage next to the highway (and we could never do that)!
You can find an honest photo of any downtown that is ugly. Why, because man for the most part can pragmatic, practical, or most likely finding ways to getting its most desireable mode of transporation, that being a car, from A to B that might require crossing a river or going into or around a downtown. In other words, trying to grasp the point other than it is obvious that this particular photo on a postcard won’t sell in the Arch Girft Shop.
I’ve driven into Vancouver from Seattle twice, as you approach the suburban ring the interstate becomes a boulevard.
Wouldn’t it be great if STL was more like Vancouver in this respect? Wouldn’t it be great if St. Louis could even have a conversation about highway removal beyond just “arch-to-river”? I think highway 44 would be a great first place to start. All of it either to the city limits or even to 270 could be converted into a boulevard. it’s largely redundant with 64/40 running parallel.
I guess Paul McKee is going to help you with that now? We will see how that works?