Seeing our downtown disconnect first hand
On Saturday I participated in the City to River walking tour from Busch Stadium to Laclede’s Landing.
Of course we could have walked North up Broadway and then used the Lumiere Link to go under the highway to reach Laclede’s Landing. But we have this large urban park that is supposed to be an asset so including the Arch grounds on the route makes sense.
Some say Memorial Drive is the problem, not the depressed lanes of the highway. But it is the highway that makes Memorial Drive such a dead street. Get rid of the highway and we can begin the process of transforming the street.
Much of the problem is buildings adjacent to Memorial Drive present blank walls to the sidewalk. The Arch is the biggest attraction in town but the buildings on the edge don’t connect to the sidewalk!
Parked cars occupy what should be some of the best real estate. Of course tunneling the highway here would solve the problem in a few blocks.
But North of Washington Ave the highway is an overhead obstacle. We are building a new highway in Illinois to replace the stretch of I-70. Now is the time to place to eliminate the redundant lanes after the bridge opens in February 2014.
– Steve Patterson
So the new bridge across the river and freeway is being built??? I've read on again, off again articles on the project.
Yes, the bridge is a go.
Could tunnel that area too…
We need the highway downtown to ease traffic through downtown, not just in downtown. Dont give away this needed access route to get from North STL to South STL and beyond.
We have sufficient surface streets to handle local traffic.
Based on two weekend closures? Please.
Based on I-64 being closed for two years.
And you are right, for East-West, we have major major East West Thouroughfares available. But what we are talking about is taking A major north-south corridor out of commission. When you live in Carondelet, and you want to go to the airport, its already a 30+ minute drive, how much longer will adding this be? And then if we take all that traffic that goes that way and put it on a boulevard along the arch, how does that make it a more walkable, people friendly drive.
I'm all about reconnecting the downtown, but why not do something like a cap over memorial drive from Clark to Olive? Ely park could be brought to a level even with the Court house, One Memorial, Hyatt Regency (Adams Mark), Mansion House Complex, and Millenium could easily move lobbies to the second floors, or at least have secondary entrances, and this new cap could tie into their private plazas at these levels already. A large pedistrian plaza could easily be created, tying in all these buildings and the surrounding streets, expanding the arch grounds with a public space that could easily be used. Would it be cheap? No. Would it give us even more public space, while preserving the critical traffic connections.
According to Mapquest, it's 21 miles from Carondelet to Lambert Field with a drive time of 25 minutes. Abernajb, how much longer do you think it takes to drive 1.4 miles of boulevard at 30 miles per hour compared to 1.4 miles of interstate at 55 miles per hour? 5 minutes? You're still at 30 minutes from Carondelet to Lambert.
So far as walkability goes, cities need traffic on the streets. Closing traffic in front of the Arch creates another dead pedestrian mall. A well designed boulevard is pedestrian friendly. Look at the Embarcadero in San Francisco.
A cap from Clark to Olive would be six blocks long. Danforth estimated the cost of a 3-block lid at about $120 million, without the grade changes you are proposing. How much would your plan cost? It sounds like upwards of $300 million. $300 million is the total amount estimated for the entire implementation of the General Management Plan for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in Missouri and Illinois.
Meanwhile, under the tunnel plan, the Arch grounds, Washington Avenue, Laclede's Landing and the north riverfront are all still cut off from each other by the highway. The boulevard idea connects all of these areas for lower cost than any of the other options discussed here, leaving money on the table for east side improvements and other expanded programming on the Arch grounds.
Doesn't it make sense to leave the option of highway removal open for consideration in the planning process for the future of the riverfront and Arch grounds? Everyone has always said the highway is the main barrier between downtown and the riverfront. Shouldn't its possible removal be up for discussion in this planning process?
No, we couldn't tunnel the elevated portion too. There's this little thing called the Eads Bridge/Metrolink Tunnel that is in the way. That's the only reason they elevated that portion originally anyway.
I suppose we could tunnel under the MetroLink line but we'd quickly get into billions of dollars.
So leave that part elevated. Add under viaduct amenities. Dampen the noise, create a 'space' under the viaduct. Sure it will still send noise into the surroundings, sure, it will still be ugly, but the fact that it is raised gives you space to work under.
to some degree, this will still separate part of the downtown from the portion on the riverfront, but there could probably be some reconfig of the present layout to make this portion palatable to pedestrian use. Additionally, a large portion of this is blocked immediately west of the highway by the convention center and dome. If you opened up from clark to olive with a cap, bridge, bury, thats a far better connection for the majority of downtown, and the majority of the arch grounds. The other pieces might be achievable through some retooling of what is already there.
Someone above mentions $300 million. I can't say whether that cost would be correct or not. But know that building a pedestrian cap would be a lot easier than building a driveable cap. You are talking about a lot less weight and needed structure.
You seem to be proposing an inferior product, for hundreds of millions of dollars more, which will only partially solve our riverfront connection problem, all to save maybe 5 minutes of driving time. It's even possible that this lost time could be made up if there is less congestion on the northbound section of 70 just past the riverfront because of this reconfiguration.
Great, this all makes perfect sense, lets remove all the highways not just in urban areas, across the entire U.S. Replace them all with boulevards. It will only add a little more driving time and will reconnect all the severed neighborhoods.
Nope, don't think that makes sense either. Highways serve a purpose, and though they have their drawbacks, what they do is allow a lot of people to get places fast. Its the reason they were invented, and the reason we spent a ton of money over the years to build them.
If City to River wants this built, then lets get a traffic study. See what the through traffic is, see what delays would be brought, or even increased efficiency (though I really don't see how that is possible), and look at it. But right now we're asking people to get this going, all without even looking at the traffic studies. And these are studies that could be done right now with the through traffic as well as Memorial drive traffic.
Lets fund the study of the traffic, then talk if its feasible. I've got a feeling that you all don't realize the complexity that a boulevard would need to adequately connect I-55, I-70, all the downtown streets, and the Eads bridge.
City to River advocates for improved connections between downtown St. Louis and the communities of the Central Riverfront.
As the highway has been widely recognized as the primary barrier between downtown and the riverfront, C2R supports efforts to plan for highway removal. The St. Louis Post Dispatch took the same position on its editorial page.
Planning for highway removal requires completion of a traffic study. Without a traffic study, architects competing in the Arch design competition are doing their work without all the necessary information.
City to River is interested in working with other interested parties in securing a traffic study that will inform the work of the designers competing in the Arch design competition. There are engineering firms expert in the area of planning for highway removals.
Given the once in a lifetime nature of the Arch design competition, securing a traffic study which analyzes the feasibility of the full range of options open to designers in the competition is vital to goal maximizing the outcomes of this project.
So abernajb, I think what we're saying is that we agree with you.
-“I've got a feeling that you all don't realize the complexity that a boulevard would need to adequately connect I-55, I-70, all the downtown streets, and the Eads bridge.”
You obviously haven't paid much attention to the precedent accomplishments cited by City to River. This has been done. The complexity is now in finding the political will in a compressed timeframe. Traffic studies will simply vindicate the premise argued by City to River, and that's not to say it shouldn't be conducted, but only that time is of the essence. Some fluid vehicle efficiencies are very worth sacrificing for MAJOR civic gain, and if you cannot see the obviousness of the need to reconnect our city to its historically geographic raison d'etre, then there really isn't much in arguing with you, is there?
Even if I-70 is capped and landscaped between Market and Chestnut, it still leaves a formidable street for pedestrians to cross to get to the mall from the arch. Sending memorial drive underground there is not at all feasible so the plan would have to include a pedestrian bridge. Although no one likes the look of a chain link fenced ramp more than me, this bridge, given the context that it serves, would need to be more dramatic. Masonry arches over each boulevard, perhaps enclosed.
There are no pedestrian bridges over the Embarcadero Boulevard in San Francisco or the Champs Elysees in Paris. Why would we need bridges over Memorial Drive in St. Louis? How would they work anyway if you had thousands of people crossing back and forth to the Arch grounds.
Doesn't it make more sense to have multiple crossing points, stopping traffic with traffic cops if neccesary on festival days? Herding people onto pedestrian bridges sounds highly unpleasant and would create a cluttered appearance. How many layers are we going to have there? The depressed lanes, the deck or lid, and a pedestrian bridge over the top? That sounds like a total cluster f%*$.
Different context requires different solution. The goal in St. Louis is to connect the mall with the arch grounds to create a unifying effect. Just capping I-70 between Market and Chestnut wont do it. Thus the bridge. Now if the bridge is not feasible then some other method would be required to visually connect the two areas. Perhaps just stone arches at market and chestnut intersections would do it. Back to the bridge…If designed properly it can be a destination as well as a connector. The bridge could actaully be a building which could have various elements that would draw people to it. Museum/visitor center/concessions/art displays/whatever…
Okay, just to be sure I understand your point. You are suggesting we build a large structure to attract visitors right in between the Old Court House and the Arch? Wouldn't that block views of the Arch? How could whatever we put in that location be more of a destination than the Arch itself?
The Arch is one of the most iconic structures on the planet and is the symbol of St. Louis and westward expansion. Yet we think that we need to build something next to it in order to attract more visitors? That makes no sense. That's like saying the Statue of Liberty or Eiffel Tower needs something next to them in order to sustain visitor interest.
When visitors come to St. Louis, they visit the Arch. We have tons of other destinations for tourists here. The Arch is number one and always will be. The Arch is a manifestation of great inspiration and great vision. It still inspires today.
The Arch is not the problem. The connections to it are.
The arch gets 'em here, but what else is there to keep 'em here? How many times have you ridden to the top? In how many years? New York is much more than the Statue of Liberty and Paris is much more than the Eiffel Tower. The whole goal is to connect our icon to our downtown. For better or worse, many (most?) of our other “attractions” are outside of the downtown core – Forest Park, with the zoo and museum, Grant's Farm, and the A-B tour, to name three – and many people see a real need to better connect downtown and the arch, in the belief (hope?) that better connections will mean more visitors and more tourist dollars being spent downtown.
I've ridden to the top maybe three times in 20 years. I've been the Arch probably 100 times. When we bring visitors from out of town we DISCOURAGE them from riding to the top. It's not worth the wait in line. The Arch looks much better from the outside than the inside.
Look at it another way, how much better would our downtown do (Wash Ave, Union Station, Cit Museum, other retail, office, restaurant and residential if the Arch was connected to the City by a restored street grid?
What if that new museum was built out near Union Station, at Ballpark Village, or the Bottle District site? Would it be any less of a destination there than if it were on or adjacent the Arch grounds? How is it any better to put a new attraction on the borders of the Arch grounds?
Hey, why not rehab a loft building on Choueau's Landing for a new museum rather than building something new on the Arch grounds. The Warhol Museum in downtown Pittsburgh is in a rehabbed loft across the river from downtown Pittsburgh and near the Pirates stadium.
What formula says putting a new attraction on the Arch grounds is a way to revitalize downtown? What is the Arch, chopped liver?
JZ, here's one more thing to add to the conversation. Let's say any of those regional attractions you mention were moved so that they were sitting right next to the Arch. Would that addition be a magic bullet to somehow “activate the Arch” grounds and revitalize downtown? Okay, so say instead we created the coolest, most interesting museum attraction in the country. Would that be the golden ticket to a revitalized downtown? Is that what draws people to a city, or is it an authentic experience?
So instead, what if there was a boulevard connecting the North Riverfront, the the Bottle District, the Arch, Laclede's Landing, Washington Avenue, downtown hotels, the riverfront, Chouteau's Landing and the rest of downtown. Say that boulevard brought an additional 60,000 – 80,000 cars per day into downtown with access to a connected street grid.
Which approach do you think would do more to enliven the Arch grounds and the City?
I actually have more questions than answers when it comes to “enliven[ing] the Arch grounds and the City”. If our only goal is to connect the arch and downtown, IMHO, Memorial Drive is actually a bigger impediment than the depressed lanes of I-70. Between turning vehicles, high curbs and a major lack of wheelchair ramps, being a pedestrian isn't very nice at street level west of the arch. I also think that the 4th and Broadway couplet of one-way streets would be a better alternative than rebuilding Memorial Drive with either its current or increased capacity. The arch grounds would then become much more accessible, for pedestrians and confused tourists, if Memorial Drive became Memorial Street, at a scale similar to the other streets in Laclede's Landing.
The high curb issue has been fixed by MoDOT.
Have you stood next to the west side of the elevated lanes at Washington Avenue? When it comes to barriers, the elevated lanes block you from even SEEING the Arch, let alone treading through the maze they create to get there.
When you speak of a 4th Street and Broadway couplet, do you mean two names for the same thing? Why is 4th or Broadway any more relevant than Memorial Drive in terms of moving traffic? If there was a restored downtown street grid, and, god forbid, more 2-way streets, don't all roads become more valuable.
But none of this gets to your original point of how do we “keep 'em here”. How does a closed Memorial Drive keep 'em here? How does the 4th/Broadway couplet keep 'em here? Would a pedestrian mall in front of the Arch in place of Memorial Drive on a new lid over the depressed lanes keep 'em here? WHat would make the mall any more of a destination than the Arch itself?
It seems that many people are chasing that elusive “big fix” with the lid or mall idea. Has something like that ever worked? Do we need a big mushroom shaped mirror thing their like they have in Millenium Park to tie it all together?
What if instead Chouteau's Landing was developed with interesting shops, officers, lofts, and restaurants, and the same could be said for the near North Riverfront, and all of these places had good visual and pedestrian connectivity to the other districts of downtown? Would that translate to a more connected downtown and riverfront?
Consider Old Town St. Charles. What if I-70 ran along the parallel the Missouri river just a couple blocks west of historic Main Street (wiping out blocks of historic homes in the process). How would that area be doing as a pedestrian friendly business district compared to what they have today? It would probably suck and they'd want to remove the highway.
I guess I'm not stating my perspective as clearly as I'd like. I don't object to removing I-70 between the new bridge and the old bridge, I'm just not sure if there's the political will to make it happen. And yes, if it stays, it has a much bigger impact at Washington than at the arch itself. I'm also in favor of reducing the number of one-way streets downtown, but also expect that there's limited political will to make that happen, either, otherwise it would've already happened. That said, if 4th and Broadway remain a one-way couplet, I'd much rather see freeway traffic redirected there than onto Memorial Drive. I'd rather see Memorial Drive revert to a much-narrower, tree-lined secondary street (compared to what it is now) with on-street parking and an energized urban streetscape. If that happened, the whole western edge of the arch grounds would become a more-inviting gateway into the rest of downtown, for both visitors and residents. Assuming that direct freeway access is required is disingenuous – the arch is too simply big to hide. If it takes the Griswalds an extra ten or fifteen minutes to find the parking garage on their cross-country vacation, so be it.
Two examples, both that could be visions for this area. Lake Shore Drive in Chicago isn't pedestrian friendly, but it moves a lot of traffic and provides a lot of great vistas of the city and the lakefront. Urban Philadelphia, around Constitution Hall and the Liberty Bell, where moving traffic is secondary to historic presrevation and a positive pedestrian experience. I'm much more in favor of the latter (and similar to Old Town St. Charles); the trick is/will be convincing the leaders of this autocentric region that it will work and will be the best answer in the long run. It means thinking outside their comfort zone, ripping out existing investments and spending more many than just leaving things as is.
It seems then that we have come full circle. We have identified a couple of interesting possibilities for downtown – highway removal and converting 1-way streets to 2-way and the one clear obstacle is political will. So if political will needs to be changed, how does that happen? A ground swell of community support for a cause. Will people then back away from their computer screens and get involved, or just go on with their own lives and leave the work to others?
One, it takes a private-sector champion, either an individual or a focused group. Two, it takes strong political leadership, ideally the mayor. Three, it takes a defined goal, something to accomplish. And four, it takes money, to influence the larger community and to build whatever needs to be built. But the real challenge is consensus building – as most of us know, everyone in St. Louis seems to have an opinion, we tend to have provincial and parochial perspectives, and inertia dominates too much political “discussion”.