All night long crowds gathered to watch the last of Busch Stadium fall.
One thing occurred to me, I have never seen so many people on these sidewalks on a non-game day. It was nice.
Then it happened…
… Continue Reading
Following my post on Sunday entitled ‘Festivus vs. Rams’ I had a very good face-to-face conversation with a friend of mine that happened to have a different take than I did on the benefit of the dome on downtown. In short, he argued the early 1990s dome and convention center expansion was positive.
Again, he is a friend and I value his opinions. It was a good conversation, one that you can’t get from short blog posts and the subsequent comments. What I got from our conversation was a much different view on things than I have but also a better understanding of how someone might conclude this makes a positive contribution.
His view in favor of the dome went something like this:
Before the dome was built the area was a dump.
Tony’s restaurant was isolated.
The bus station wasn’t attractive.
Much of the area was just surface parking lots.
The dome & expansion cleaned up the area and gave it some physical form beyond random buildings and surface lots.
Without the possibility of football the city never would have done anything with the area.
The last bit is the key to our different perspective. I’ve been arguing what could have been instead of an expanded convention center & football stadium while others, like my friend, are of the belief that if we didn’t build what we have now we never would have done anything with the area. So at the very least the dome is positive in that it was something. Both perspectives are valid, neither is right or wrong.
Yes, had the convention center and dome site been left as-is the downtown area wouldn’t be the same, or as positive. And I’ll even go along with the idea the area could very well be sitting there the same (or worse) today had we not expanded the convention center and built the dome. If that were indeed the case then the loft district and other improvements in downtown would not be where they are today.
But, this is all assuming A) the convention center and dome were the only alternatives for the area and B) that nothing else would have gotten built in the last 15 years.
So bear with me oh great Rams fans. Step back to the mid to late 80’s when Bill Bidwell wanted his own stadium or he’d pull the football Cardinals from St. Louis (as it in fact did). What if we would have built a stadium on the Pruitt-Igoe site then? What if we had put the football Cardinals in Metro East along what was then a future MetroLink route?
Stay with me on this…
With a football stadium added to the region near downtown the current convention center & dome site in the early 90’s would still have been a mess with Tony’s the only ray of hope. But we wouldn’t have spent a few extra hundred million losing a team and then spending eight years trying to get one back. That time lost and effort spent was costly. Not that it would have actually happened but humor me and wonder if the convention/dome area had been remade into a vibrant part of downtown — keep street grid, new shops & retail, new residential buildings, more restaurants to compliment Tony’s.
What’s done is done. We have the dome and convention center already. It is better than the nearly vacant mess that was there because it adds people to the area. But, I still think, in hindsight, the area could have made a much greater contribution to downtown. The purpose of this exercise is not to beat up the people that made the decisions in the 50’s-70’s to raze buildings for parking or to make those that enjoy a Rams game to feel guilty about the area. No, the purpose is to learn what have we done in the past and why. What can we learn from this to help us in future decisions?
I want us to expand our thinking when it comes to new projects.
In many respects I believe we are still in a 1950’s “urban renewal” mode of thinking — that everything must be located downtown; that we must create neat & tidy districts of narrowly defined uses; that everything needs parking; and that a few big events or venues is better than blocks and blocks of smaller activities.
St. Louis, prior to the 50’s, had shopping, entertainment and workplaces spread throughout the city. These were connected both by streetcars and roads for cars. Downtown was the center of activity but it wasn’t where everything had to be.
The fact we placed the symphony hall on Grand rather than downtown in 1968 is a very good thing. But trying to build an arts and entertainment district around it and the Fox is a bad thing. We should have art, entertainment, sports, retail, restaurants, residences, and workplaces everywhere — not just in districts. But I’m getting off track, I’ll have to come back to this another time.
My main thought is when I post about a project not being the best or most urban it is on the assumption that we could have done better. I now know that some of you will have the assumption that as least we did something. Maybe I’m being too optimistic (or naive)? But just maybe some of you are not giving the region enough credit for being able to rebuilt the core into a world class city.
– Steve
Yesterday’s CBD Traffic Study presentation is now available online (2.8mb PDF). The team is asking for feedback this week as they will be meeting next week to make final recommendations.
My thoughts from the meeting can be found here.
– Steve
I attended the presentation today on the downtown traffic study. Here are my initial thoughts:
I asked at the end of the meeting about Cole street being abel to take some of the traffic off Washington Avenue. Shatto did indicate that if Washington Avenue was restricted from four lanes to two lanes through drivers would likely alter their route and use the nearly vacant Cole. Another factor that may reduce some traffic on Washington Avenue is people going around the block due to one-way streets. They are recommending changing 8th & 11th from one-way to two-way (more later).
– Steve
The City of St. Louis and the U.S. Census Bureau agree on the population of St. Louis at 350,705 as of July 2004. But something is very wrong. Not that they agree, but that the East-West Gateway Council of Governments has failed to recognized these figures in their estimates affecting transportation spending.
Last year the mayor’s office successfully challenged the census bureau’s figures to show the 2003 population at just over 348,000. So why is it that when East-West Gateway accepted their new transportation study earlier this year they based it on the outdated estimates shown at left? With new housing downtown and throughout the city their numbers are a good 25,000 less than those used by the city and the census bureau.
From MayorSlay.com
Housing production in the City is still accelerating. In the first nine months of this year, the production of new housing units has already doubled last year’s output.
Downtown is coming alive — and staying awake later. Neighborhoods like the CWE and Lafayette Square have become the best places to live in the entire region. Other neighborhoods that have not seen new investment in a very long time are being rebuilt and repopulated.
With new residents are coming new retail – and new employers. It is impossible to overcome 50 years of decline in a short period of time. But, we have come a long way already.
People are noticing.
We are in the early stages of the long reversal of the last half century. I think the next 15-20 years we will see St. Louis regain population. We’ll never again reach the 850,000+ of the mid 50’s, nor should we. The city was over crowed then and we’ve taken so much land since then for highways and big box retail that we simply don’t have the land for that many people. I’d be happy with a city population of 500,000.
But look again at the chart. The major multi-jurisdictional planning agency for the region says our population is less than it actually is and is on the decline for the next five years. They estimate we’ll have a slow climb back up to a number less than what we currently have. This is the very model that says we need to have a new $1 billion dollar bridge over the Mississippi River.
The mayor’s office is quick to challenge the census bureau on population figures but they don’t seem so inclined to do so when it is the agency that hands out federal money. I also think if the real figures were used in the model and they showed the population increasing in the city East-West Gateway would have a harder time trying to justify the new bridge — which the mayor’s office supports. I think those population figures are being allowed to kept low until funding for the bridge is secured and suddenly we’ll see a correction.
The bigger question is not who has what number now but what number should we be striving for and by when?
– Steve