The other day I noticed the next to the Edward Jones Dome that one traffic lane of the one-way south Broadway has been blocked off. The road is too wide so I don’t miss the lane, but I didn’t think it could possibly get any more hostile to pedestrians — but it did.
– Steve Patterson
Last week NFL owners approved Stan Kroenke’s bid to increase his ownership in the St. Louis Rams from 40% to 100%. The sale is not strictly about sports.
Speculation and rumors about the future of the Rams is swirling after Stan Kroenke was allowed to buy St. Louis’ football franchise.
Will they demand a new stadium? Will they threaten to leave town? Nothing is for sure, but Rams fans are crossing their fingers, getting out their rabbit’s feet and eating Lucky Charms: anything to swerve things in St. Louis’ favor. (Full Story: KMOV)
In the next couple of years decisions will be made that may profoundly change the area between St. Louis’ convention center (aka America’s Center) and the nearby Lumiere Hotel & Casino. In 2012 the process starts to bring the Edward Jones Dome into the top quarter of NFL facilities by 2015. If we don’t get the dome into the top quarter, the Rams are free to leave the dome for another facility.
Another facility might be elsewhere in the region or perhaps, back in Los Angeles. The message to us is clear, pony up some serious money to improve the dome or find the dome without a tenant. The third, but unlikely possibility, is the Rams stay put through the end of the 2025 lease without upgrades to get the dome into the top quarter. From the same KMOV story:
There probably won’t be a lot of new, taxpayer funded initiatives to lure the Rams away from St. Louis, but Kroenke is a developer. There has been speculation that he could push for a new stadium. That stadium could be in St. Louis county, near Earth City or even Illinois.
Sports economist Patrick Rishe said moving the stadium out of the city is not likely.
“I don’t think St. Louisans want to go to the suburbs to watch professional sports,” Rishe said. “I think we’re accustomed to watching it downtown, so I don’t think that’s an option. Geographically that’s an option, but logistically I don’t think it will be a reality.”
Rishe is right — if you are talking baseball.
The poll this week asks what you think Kroenke’s purchase of the rest of the team means for the City/Region, the Rams and the dome. City to River wants to replace the elevated lanes you see above that divide Laclede’s Landing (right) from the city to the left.
– Steve Patterson
The City+Arch+River competition has me thinking more and more about the future of St. Louis without the poorly placed highway slicing through downtown. I’m so thankful the planned downtown highway loop at 22nd Street never got built, but we still have to address the one that did get built.
If you are at the Old Courthouse and you want to get to the Arch the crossing of Memorial Drive and the highway lanes in a ditch are not that bad. But that is only one spot along a 1.4 mile stretch of highway City to River wants to replace with a boulevard.
Four out of five competition finalists mention highway removal in their narratives, noting a boulevard was not included into their designs because of the October 2015 deadline. The 50th anniversary of the Gateway Arch is Wednesday October 28, 2015.  So the question of timing is important.
There are several possible times to rip up the old depressed & elevated highway lanes.
Spring 2014:
Tearing out the highway in the Spring of 2014 makes a lot of sense. When the new I-70 bridge is built the interchange could be designed to transition from interstate to boulevard. Work on the connection to Tucker will be done along with the new bridge. The removal of the old I-70 lanes could be phased — part before the anniversary celebration and part after. For example, the elevated section and section at grade up to Cass could be done by the 10/2015 deadline and used with the existing depressed section. Or the reverse. Either way the opening of the new I-70 bridge is the perfect timing to go right into removing the old I-70.
Fall 2015:
This option waits until after the 50th anniversary celebration on October 28, 2015. Like the year before, everyone will be gathered together — this would be a great time to break ground on a new boulevard.
Either way, the traffic study needs to get started immediately. Various people and organizations have already agreed to fund the necessary traffic study but they were waiting to see what happened with the competition. I’d have started it months ago, but they were concerned the teams might be against highway removal. Well we know now they are not against removal. Why wait for the final selection, get the consultants busy figuring out how to best manage the flow of cars once the new I-70 bridge opens.
The poll is in the upper right hand corner. Please vote and add any additional thoughts you may have in the comments below.
– Steve Patterson
Transit needs to meet the needs of its customers. One need is to be able to reach the transit vehicle. In many parts of the city the sidewalk network is incomplete or so poor it is no longer passable. Metro, our local transit agency, has stepped up to do what it can do to fill in gaps here and there.
Ideally this intersection, N 14th & O’Fallon, would get new sidewalks when a new urban building is constructed. But that is years away, if ever. We can’t wait for new structures to get new sidewalks.
– Steve Patterson
I spent Tuesday morning at the Arch for the 9am press conference and then to review the boards of the five finalists in the St. Louis Arch International Design Competition. I immediately could see the competition produced so many great ideas — a far better than what we saw a few years ago from the Danforth Foundation (Prior post: We Can All Agree, St. Louis’ Riverfront Needs Help from 10/19/2007). The design competition is already a huge success before the winner is selected. The ultimate winner is all of us, including future generations.
For over five years I’ve been writing about highway removal, starting on July 1, 2005:
For me the biggest priority is not to make some pretty pattern on the ground as seen from the Arch. The best thing we can do is reconnect our downtown with the river. We have two major obstacles keeping the city and river apart. One is the Arch and grounds itself. The other is highway I-70. There has been some talk of a “lid” to better cover the “depressed” section between the Arch and Old Courthouse. I agree, let’s cover that puppy.
But perhaps more important than a lid over the highway in front of the Arch is to deal with the highway as it goes overhead from Washington Avenue North to just past Biddle. Here it would be highly challenging to bury the highway because the MetroLink line runs under Washington Avenue. Either the highway or the light rail would have to go deep. This is certainly much easier than Boston’s Big Dig project. I’d actually like to see us remove the interstate at this point and do a boulevard like San Francisco’s Embarcadero that was created after a raised highway collapsed in the 1989 earthquake.
And a month later, on August 2, 2005, I wrote:
I want to remove the existing I-70 between the current Poplar Street Bridge and the new bridge.
You read correct, I want to remove the existing highway between the bridges. This will collectively solve a number of issues.
St. Louis will not have any such natural disaster to convince us to remove the highway dividing us from our river. While this seems radical at first, it is logical if you think about it. I-64 traffic will continue to use the PSB. I-70 traffic can use the new bridge. Do we really need to connect the two together downtown?
So imagine the existing I-70 removed from the PSB to the new bridge (North of Laclede’s Landing & the proposed Bottle District). In its place a wide and grand boulevard lined with trees and shops. The adjacent street grid is reconnected at every block. Pedestrians can easily cross the boulevard not only at the Arch but anywhere along the distance between the bridges. Eads Bridge and the King Bridge both land cars onto the boulevard and into then dispersed into the street grid. The money it would take to cover I-70 for 3 blocks in front of the Arch can go much further not trying to cover an interstate highway. Joining the riverfront and Laclede’s Landing to the rest of downtown will naturally draw people down Washington Avenue to the riverfront.
In one bold decision we can take back our connection to the river that shaped our city. The decision must be made now. The interchange for the new bridge is being designed now – we’ve only got one chance to get it right. Similarly, the lid project in front of the Arch could shift to a removed I-70 and connecting boulevard design before we are too far along the current path.
Rather than spend hundreds of millions on rebuilding highway 40 (I-64 to the rest of the map reading world) we should just tear it out completely. Don’t look so confused, I’m totally serious. This is not a belated April fools joke.
Our highways in the middle of urban areas are relics to the cheap gas economy that is quickly coming to an end. In addition to removing highway 40, we should remove all the highways within our I-270/I-255 Loop: I-55, I-70, I-44, and I-170 # With I-70 gone from the river to past the airport a “lid” is no longer necessary to connect the Arch with the rest of the city.
- Washington Avenue flows easily into the Eads bridge.
- Old North St. Louis & Hyde Park are connected with the warehouses and river just to the east.
- Northside neighborhoods are able to reconnect around a new street where the highway used to exist. Transit along the route makes these neighborhoods more desirable.
- The airport limits development around I-70 & I-170 but this is a good place for some industrial uses. As airplane fuel is costly fewer people fly. Overnight shipping becomes unaffordable for most packages so less area is needed around the airport for these services. Transit brings those to the airport that are working & flying so less space is devoted to parking.
We are at a crossroads at this point with three major projects involving billions of dollars and affecting St. Louis for at least the next half century. Removing I-70 would, in twenty years, be seen as a pivotal decision. Will our government leaders have the courage to make such a decision?
I revisited the issue three years later on July 8, 2008:
The NPS is incorrectly focusing all their attention on connecting to downtown at one single point – in the center aligned with the Old Courthouse. A better connection to the Arch grounds and down to the river is more than a single bridge or even a 3-block “lid” can address.
The solution?
- I-70 needs to be removed from the equation (more on that further down).
- Memorial Drive needs to be reconstructed as a grand boulevard and renamed 3rd Street.
- Buildings fronting the existing Memorial need entrances facing the Arch.
The new Mississippi river bridge, when built, will become I-70. While some traffic uses this portion of I-70 as a pass through between North & South they can use my proposed 3rd Street Boulevard or other North-South streets on our street grid. I’d remove I-70 from the new bridge on the North all the way to I-44/I-55 on the South. This would permit a larger portion of the downtown and near downtown to begin to heal from the damage caused by the highway cutting off streets.
A little bridge or a lid over the highway just isn’t enough. Earlier generations dreamed big and it’s time we did too if we plan to fix their mistakes.
So I was thrilled when four of the five competition finalists affirmed the highway removal concept I’d been writing about and City to River has been tirelessly championing. For example:
From the MVVA team:
The Interstate 70 trench is now the most striking barrier between the Memorial and the city….We have proposed a one-block overpass, rather than an at-grade boulevard, because it is less expensive, easier to achieve by 2015, and would require fewer jurisdictional and regulatory negotiations. But the benefits of removing the highway altogether are clear, and we have purposely created a proposal that is compatible with either solution. [emphasis added]
The National Park Service will accept public comments for only a few more days, through Monday August 23, 2010. Everyone reading this post needs to submit a comment. My thoughts are:
I have to figure out how to put the above into the following format:
Topic Questions Instructions: Please number your responses to match the corresponding question below.
Topic Questions:
1. What do you value about the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial?
2. How do each of these designs respect what you value about the Memorial?
3. What concerns do you have about the future of the Memorial?
4. How do each of these designs address or alleviate your concerns?
5. Are there any other comments you would like to share with the National Park Service or the designers?
I’ll work on that this weekend. You, the reader, need to review the entries from the Behnisch team, MVVA team, PWP team, SOM team, and the Weiss team and submit a comment. To have only a week to review and comment is frustrating but I’ll deal with it.
Watch my videos of the press conference; welcome from Park Superintendent Tom Bradley, Mayor Francis Slay, Lynn McClure of the independent National Parks Conservation, and competition director Donald Stastny.
– Steve Patterson