Four Flavors for the St. Louis Riverfront

Tuesday night St. Louisans got a first glimpse at four concepts for remaking the drab riverfront. It was a long meeting with much information to take in. My first plan was to run home and write a late night post. Instead, i decided to see if my initial reactions would still hold true after thinking about them for a couple of days. Most did.

The design team has posted a 7.9mb PDF version of Tuesday’s presentation. Throughout this post I will make references to page numbers in this doccument. Before getting into the specific proposals I want to discuss some background and basic assumptions of the design team. First is a prior post of mine from July – click here to read my earlier thoughts.

The National Park Service owns the Arch and grounds and is not open to changes. This leaves Lenore K. Sullivan Blvd at the base of the grounds and the cobblestone bank as areas open for redesign. The peaceful beauty of the Arch and its grounds is a big draw — roughly 4 million visitors per year. Yet the lack of anything either contemplative or dynamic on the actual riverfront means the area remains dead unless a special event is planned such as Fair St. Louis on the 4th of July weekend.

The four concepts are (p52):

#1 – Promenade (p53)

#2 – Serrated Edge (p58)

#3 – Banks and Islands (p66)

#4 – Terraces and Islands (p72)

Let’s take a look at each concept in more detail:

Flavor #1 – Promenade: One scoop of vanilla in a paper cup.

The Promenade is the most simple and least expensive of the concepts. This design calls for replacing the street, Lenore K. Sullivan Blvd., with a “pedestrian mall.” Yes, the presentation board actually used the dated phrase pedestrian mall. In areas with high density a pedestrian mall is a wonderful mix of people and vendor carts but in the U.S. with our low densities a pedestrian mall is usually lacking enough people to feel safe. I’ve driven by the Arch before just to see it — sometimes alone and other times with guests. Rollin Stanley, St. Louis’ director of Urban Planning & Design, said at first he was in favor of closing the street to traffic but he has changed his mind and now favors keeping the street open.

Several citizens at the presentation said they didn’t the area open to cars. One misunderstood lead designer Diana Balmori’s comment that pedestrian streets don’t work in the US. This guy took that to mean the “car is kind” when in fact she is accepting the reality we need vehicles as an activity in such areas. Balmori is correct to argue in favor of keeping traffic not because we are dependent upon cars but because it works for pedicabs, horse-drawn carriages, tour buses and yes cars. I’ll take it one step further – I’ve argued in favor of on-street parking in other places and this is no exception. Line both sides of the street with parking leaving only pedestrian crossings and the area in front of the grand steps as off limits to parking.

Normally this proposal would have been discarded by the design team but they needed a boring plan to make the others more favorable to the public.

Flavor #2 – Serrated Edge: Vanilla, Chocolate and Strawberry in a whole wheat waffle cone

Predictable with a twist. This proposal leaves the street intact but pulls it away from the oppressive concrete walls at either end of the grounds (p18). Pretty plain concept with the twist being the in and out action along the waterfront. Looks a bit contrived to me but the needed functions are there along with the unneeded function of a swimming pool. Let me repeat that, this concept includes a swimming pool. The two concepts that follow also include a pool. I discuss the pool idea in more detail later.

This is probably my favorite of the four, sans the pool. I’d lose the serrated edge and simply give the users more but conventional space between the street and water.

Flavor #3 – Banks and Islands: Too many flavors to decide which to have

Here is where the team loses me. I’ll give them credit that floating island to create more space is pretty clever and it does create space for several restaurants and kiosks. Will we have enough people using the space to ensure the restaurants & kiosk vendors stay open? Will this become a maintenance nightmare 20 years later?

Sure, the flashy drawings are impressive but I’m not convinced on the merit of such a concept.

Flavor #4 – Terraces and Islands: A costly desert with more variety than Baskin-Robbins complete with sprinkles, nuts and syrup.

Some things look better on the menu but once it is in front of you that “I can’t eat all that” feeling takes over. The drawings are pretty as most architectural renderings are. A great graphic artist can make a new Walgreen’s look like real architecture. Don’t be fooled here. This is akin to a chef throwing every dish he makes onto one big plate with a price tag to match.

If you ever wondered what Walt Disney would do for a riverfront theme park this is it — something for all ages packed into an unusually small area. Every square inch of land and water is “done” to the max. It actually works well with the Arch grounds that razed any sense of the river town that was St. Louis. Why not do the same for the riverfront by erasing all evidence that we had a thriving river port at one time.

Bridging the Riverfront Retail Gap

Each of the four proposals includes retail in some of the empty vaults under the Eads bridge – a superb idea! The team showed NYC’s 59th Street Bridge as an example (see page 95). I’ve been to the 59th Street bridge and it is spectacular. Of course the NYC bridge is surrounded by dense neighborhoods to support the retail on a regular basis. I’m not convinced we’ll have the foot traffic to sustain business under the bridge but it is worth a try. They can always do a Starbucks, they seem to succeed everywhere.

Extreme Sports

The vacant area under the highway is being designated as an extreme sports area. Skating and rock climbing are all the rage, therefore we must have them. I like the idea of making use of the space under the highway but I’m not sure this is where I’d place them. With lots of open land along the river both North and South along with many vacant lots and underutilized city parks I think we can spread out the amenities a bit.

Separate but Equal

Plans 3 & 4 call for these sweeping ramps and floating sidewalks for pedestrians and bicyclists. It looks great in the drawings with people walking and bicycling from one level to the next. But recently I experienced conflicts between these two camps on the Brooklyn Bridge — pedestrians would stand in the bike lane to take pictures and cyclists would attain dangerously high speeds on descents. Pedestrians yelled at cyclists to slow down while cyclists yelled a pedestrians to get out of their way. We may be building conflict zones here.

The drawings presented Tuesday show pedestrians and bicyclists on the same ramps, (p45, p79 & p83). During the Q&A I asked how these conflicts would be resolved and the answer from Diana Balmori was separation. The reality is you simply cannot have some ramps only for cyclists and others only for pedestrians. If I’m bicycling through the area I’m not going to not go to the river simply because a sign says not to. Other riverfronts I’ve seen don’t discriminate. But other riverfronts also don’t have curing ramps to change levels. The curves will only compound conflicts as people tent to cut across corners rather than stay on their side. I see problems with this direction.

Bike Station

All four proposals include a bike station near the Poplar Street Bridge, well under it. The design team showed a picture of the new bike station at Chicago’s Millennium Park (p93) as an example. I’ve been to Chicago’s bike station and it is an awesome facility complete with a bike rental area, indoor bike parking, a bike repair shop and a locker rooms complete with showers. Many cities are building bike stations to encourage bike commuting — giving cyclists a way to shower and change clothes before heading into the office. Chicago’s Millennium Park bike station has been criticized as being too far away from their business district. Chicago’s will seem downright close compared to us having a bike station under the PSB.

St. Louis needs a good bike station but the riverfront is not the right location. Somewhere in or near the Central Business District makes the most sense. Who is going to bike to work and then shower and then walk a mile or so to the office? Nobody. Good locations for a bike station do exist — one of the vacant blocks of the failed Gateway Mall or even the location of the pocket park on the Old Post Office Square.

As previously mentioned the idea behind the central ticketing area is to retain people that are waiting 3 hours to go up in the Arch. So we are going to have them walk a mile South to rent a bike? This is a prescription for failure. Bike rental needs to be more visible — perhaps under the Eads bridge.

Riverfront Streetcar

A citizen at the Q&A asked about having streetcars along the riverfront. Good question I thought. However, the answer was typical anti-transit. Bill Burke from HOK mentioned a loop system in downtown Memphis and that is was primarily for tourists. He went on to say that it didn’t pay for itself. Basically, he dismissed the idea. The irony is amazing. We are sitting at a meeting talking about huge expenditures — none of which will pay for itself — to help retain 4 million tourists along the riverfront and a good idea is dismissed because it is transportation. Will the various floating islands pay for themselves? No. Since when does a public amenity have to pay for itself? And since when is making it easier for tourists to get from destination to destination a bad thing?

Yes, we have MetroLink which serves much of the area but people are typically willing to walk a quarter mile, maybe a half mile. A streetcar looping along the riverfront, through Laclede’s Landing, Chouteau’s Landing and back up through the future Ballpark Village and other areas in downtown might be well used. Sadly our “leaders” can look at spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure and call it an “investment” and talk about how it will generate many times over in economic development and then look at streetcars and not draw the same conclusion. Does a floating swimming pool or elevated bike ramp hold some economic development magic that a streetcar line does not?

One difference between building the riverfront and a streetcar line is capital expense and annual operating expenses. It is very easy to look at an operating budget of a streetcar line and see if expenses are greater than revenue. But we don’t hold any such expectation for the riverfront, Forest Park, Library or other civic resource. We are able to see these draw people to the area who spend money. Transit most certainly pays for itself just not necessarily on the bottom line P&L statement.

A National Stage Riverfront

One of the assumptions we’ve all made (including myself) is that our riverfront should be the best — receiving national acclaim. This was reiterated by the design team several times. But I’ve been wondering if that is necessary. I’m not suggesting we aren’t worthy of having the most unique and interesting riverfront in the country. Instead, I’m questioning if that is a worthy goal and a good use of funds. I fully agree something needs to be done on the riverfront. The access solution to get from the Eads bridge to the riverfront is wise. Ditto for the ramps from the top of the grand stairs down to the riverfront. Pulling the street away from the oppressive walls at the ends of the grounds are also a good idea. I’m on board with providing the necessary facilities to set up a stage for concerts without having to run industrial extension cords. I’ll be glad to see the old 70s beige concrete go away and having a better way to touch the water all makes sense to me.

The idea is to make this one mile stretch of river in front of the Arch a place where us non-tourists will hang out as well. We’ll all go swimming or play volleyball or have dinner by the water. Yeah, right. But suppose it does become the place to go. Where does that leave Forest Park, the many other great parks in our city and region, and even nearby areas such as The Gateway Mall? Wouldn’t a series of neighborhood pools make more sense than a floating pool by the Arch?

The Arch and grounds are stunning but unfortunately they deaden the area. I don’t know that we should try to overcome that. That is right, I’m content with the fact the area is a dead zone. I’d much rather spend time and money building up vibrant neighborhoods that will sustain us through drops in tourism and increases in energy costs. The idea that the riverfront must be this world class design seems more like something for the trophy case than sound urban planning.

Follow the Money

Money is the root of all evil is the old cliche but it has never been more true than in massive public projects. Government officials love to divide up our pot of tax dollars and then tell us that we can’t do something because of how the funds are allocated. The money trail is as complicated as plan #4 above! This is why we are seeing things like a bike station in a plan that really doesn’t need one – because the money can be found in this project but not on its own. We shouldn’t be planning facilities based on how the bureaucrats have complicated the spending of our tax money.

Next Steps

We’ve seen nothing of the secondary areas in front of Laclede’s and Chouteau’s Landings. I prefer to see more activity in these areas and less so in the middle.

The next public meeting is December 3rd on the Arch grounds (not sure exactly where). That is a Saturday so perhaps the date is wrong? Whatever the date I’ll be there.

– Steve