Poll: Now what is downtown’s biggest eyesore?
When St. Louis Centre opened in 1985 it was a success, albeit briefly. But even then the 4-level pedestrian bridge over Washington St between 6th and 7th was been considered an eyesore – downtown’s biggest in fact. But the pedestrian bridge is nearly gone and soon it’s twin over Locust St will also be gone. So that begs the question, what takes on the role of downtown’s biggest eyesore?
I’ve listed some you might consider to be eyesores in the poll on the right. These include a few of my top eyesores such as the I-70 depressed lanes by the Arch, the elevated lanes that will soon be more visible, US Bank’s 1975 parking garage and so on. This week I’ve given you the option to select one or two answers.
– Steve Patterson
America's Center – the combination football dome and warehouse-looking convention center is too big, disrupts the street grid and is dead way too much of the time. Put the football stadium in East St. Louis, just north of the Queen, and put the convention center at Union Station, putting the train shed to a real use and justifying its preservation.
Powell Square! You can hardly notice the BEAUTIFUL Catholic Church (St. Mary of Victories) just to the south of it because your eyes are so overwhelmed by the ugliness of Powell Square.
I agree the church is blocked but it is the highway that blocks it. Renovate Powell Square and remove the highway!
My vote would be for depressed/elevated 70, followed by Powell Square, the various concrete bunker-looking parking garages, and any of those (pick 'em) '60's-70's era tall buildings along 4th street, especially that top-heavy looking one near Busch Stadium. I agree with JZ71's comments on the football stadium & convention center.
Ballpark Village is certainly undeveloped, but I don't see how it could be considered an eyesore.
I know it isn't downtown, but the whole area of Kingshighway between Shaw and Southwest (the bridge and the run-down industrial area east and west of Kingshighway) is a huge eyesore. The Hill could really benefit from a great re-use of that space.
Think not of this area as an eyesore. But, rather, think of all of those old buildings and vacant lots as opportunities for rehabilatation and reuse.
ugh i hate the peabody building!! While the building itself is not a complete eyesore, what it does to the whole mall, blocking off the view of (half of) the arch is atrocious. Plus, knowing the history behind what used to be there makes it even more unbearable.
The Gateway One vs. Century Parking Garage, which gets the prize?
I don't think this was ever downtowns biggest physical eyesore, but perhaps one of its largest political failures (especially with the recent decision to back the TIF bonds for Pyramid then after that failed turn it into a garage in order to keep Thompson Coburn in the City while generating revenue through parking in order to repay those guaranteed bonds). I think if we look at biggest political and physical eyesore, it should be the BPV parking lot and fenced off softball field. But in terms of physical only, downtown has been damaged so greatly we could debate this for months.
The depressed/raised lanes are the easy vote because of the overall impact they have with/without them. Powell Square is an eyesore which won’t be fixed for sometime and is part of the Chouteau’s Landing area that is cut off from the city by 44’s raised lanes to the south. My vote goes for another square, Plaza, where you have the Plaza Square Apartments and Blu City Spaces that surround two churches. All the buildings are hard to look at and the five towers just cripple the two churches they surround. A few of the towers were in such disrepair a few years back that the city was close to taking action.
I’d also put in a vote for the intersection to nowhere at 40 between 21st and 22nd street.
my vote would go for the following:
1) Raised/Depressed lanes that carry 70 and also 44 to the south. Chouteau's Landing would be 100 times easier to develop if it weren't cut off from the city by 44.
2) Plaza Square. I've always disliked the six towers and how they clash with the two churches they surround, plus now they have that covered parking behind 7-11, it all has to go.
3) The interchange to nowhere at 40 between 21st and 22nd street.
4) The “Bottleworks District”, at least at BPV they have dressed up the site. Bottleworks is like the demilitarized zone between the North side of the city and Downtown.
Powell Square is #1 eyesore. How does this make St. Louis look to out-of-towners or people just driving through? And my #2 eyesore is graffiti in general. Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but there seems to be a proliferation of graffiti around the city over the last 5 years. Hello? Slay? You say want to draw people into the city, yet you leave graffiti fester. Put up some cameras there instead of the intersections.
The depressed section and the twin eyesore that reinforces it, the Mansion House complex. I think the towers are very cool, and hanging out on the balconies is an experience unique anywhere in the city. But the pedestal complex is terrible and it makes a dead end of 2 important streets: Pine, Locust. The promenade level mall has been dead for decades, fortunately mostly unseen 2 stories above the street. The towers should stay, but the garage needs some serious rethinking. It would be really challenging but maybe the grid can be cut back through the complex, even if only as a place to walk, and see, through.
ihave to ask. What used to be there?
I-70 downtown, the depressed and raised sections destroy any true connection to the riverfront. Infrastructure is key, buildings come and go, can be rebuilt, razed or rehabbed. However, won't see fundamental change downtown until I-70 is gone.
Second biggest eyesore, The failed 22nd Street Parkway and interchange on the west end of the Gateway Mall. Was and still is a horrible idea. Somehow, someway funds are needed to put back the street grid. Otherwise, the Gateway Mall or Union Station will ever live up to potential. This is even more doable and cheaper then removing I-70.
I do think Stler brings ups a good point. Picture Peabody moving to BPV and their current office tower demolished, opens up Gateway Mall and finally gives BPV a real tower with real lease committments from two Corporate HQ's (Stifel Nichols and Peabody siging leases for +500,000 sf).
Peabody is one of many tenants in the Gateway One building at 701 Market. The building is almost fully leased. The cost to change that block from commercial to park use would be massive.
And a bad idea. The Gateway Mall should be buildings not parks. If it was ever torn down it should be mixed use, a lot taller ever more blocking the Arch, and encompass the entire block with other buildings
If you want views of the Arch then walk to the Arch grounds.
I also don't understand why we have people advocating for demolishing one office building for another newer one when this might not attract new clients from outside our region yet involves our tax dollars for certain. Downtown already has the highest office space vacancy in the region. Public subsidy cannot fix that nor will simply constructing new office space. It might even raise vacancy as tenants leave older buildings. This happened when Metropolitan Square was constructed.
Instead why don't we push for a critical mass of residential and smaller niche retail, which will then attract the employees of those who work elsewhere yet want an urban experience that Clayton does not provide? Maybe then larger employers will relocate when it's truly on another level than our suburban neighbors? If not we could at least promote small business and residential growth instead of directing our public subsidy at handouts for those who want a payoff and parking to stay. We still have a lot of old warehouse and office space downtown which ironically could be put back into use as the buildings which predated Gateway One.
I think Edward Jones question will be answered one way or another by 2014 when a plan needs to submitted and approved by the Rams Owner(s). We might have a better idea of what the NFL and Stan K desire once ownership issues are settled this year. Their desires will drive a huge downtown debate, upgrade Edward Jones? New Stadium? if new stadium, indoors or outdoor? retractable roof? in the city, county or across the river? My best guess is that politicians will run away from these questions unless their is a big boost to the economy, state coffers or Stan K & Walmart come to the table with a major financial contribution.
I'm hoping that the Arch Ground design force an at grade Blvd and 22nd street interchange is being rebuilt before the Edward Jones discussion evn begins. Otherwise you have another competing debate for funds, subsidies, govt dollars etc.
An email response from Mayor Slay to me the other day agrees with earlier posts that 44 did more damage to the city than 70. It is likely easier to get money for downtown projects than worry about thriving neighborhoods such as the Hill, Soulard, Benton park and Lafayette Square..
“BTW, many St. Louisans would argue that the damage done by the construction of I-44 has had a much greater impact on us than the routing of I-70. No interstate highway will be moved simply by municipal intention.”