ABOVE: Public views boards from five competition finalists in space under the Arch
Yesterday I posted my initial thoughts on the Arch Design Competition.Today I want to go over some of the upcoming dates & places you need to know about.
Monday August 23rd: The last day the National Park Service will accept public comment, you can do so here.
Thursday August 26th: Each of the five teams will present their concept to the jury, 8am-6:30pm. Note the location has changed — it is now the Ferrara Theater inside America’s Center. View the schedule for the day. Transit access via the Convention Center MetroLink stop or the #99 MetroBus.
Friday September 24th: Winning team to be announced. Time & location not yet known.
Two identical sets of boards exist. One will remain under the arch through September 26th. The other will travel to venues on both sides of the river through September 26th. For the details click here.
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.
ABOVE: A woman leaving the Arch grounds faces the elevated highway lanes
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.
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:
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]
ABOVE: View of St. Louis driving in via the Eads Bridge
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:
The removal of I-70 must be planned now, even though a boulevard cannot be complete by October 28, 2015. The new interchange at I-70 and the new bridge should be designed and built for a future boulevard. Connections to & from Broadway & 4th Streets can be completed prior to the 2015 deadline.
The corner of the Arch grounds at Washington Ave is just as important a connection point as Market Street.
The pedestrian connection between the east bank MetroLink station and the Malcolm Martin Park is a priority connection.
Closing off the levee to traffic will create a dead space like so many pedestrian malls. Allow traffic but pedestrians must have priority. Surfaces must allow access for the disabled.
Removal of the Arch parking garage on the north and the maintenance building on the south will remove barriers in those directions.
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.
On a cloudy, early spring day back in 1982 a very dear, elderly friend and neighbor of mine, Herbie Keuster, accompanied me to the East St. Louis riverfront to take in the view of the Gateway Arch, the adjacent skyline of the city of St. Louis and to explore the surrounding bottom lands. Herbie, who had lived nearly all of his eighty-plus years in the grand old home immediately behind Powell Symphony Hall (today known as the Portfolio Art Gallery) and who shared with me over a number of years a rich legacy of personal and family memories growing up within that part of the city, was as curious as I to visit the area but also concerned for my safety. Neither of us had ever traversed the then mostly abandoned eastside riverfront before as it was quite forbidding, filled with weeds and trash and fairly frequented by an odd assortment of vagrants and delinquents. I planned that particular day as a much anticipated respite from stripping paint from interior woodwork in my own historic home, Stockton House, just a short block away from Herbie‘s residence. For a number of years it had been my desire to observe what was left of the old secondary river channel beneath the interstate as I had studied on a number of occasions local topographical maps of the eastern riverbank dating from the mid nineteenth century. Concerned that I might encounter trouble or injure myself in such an out-of-the-way and notoriously unsafe district Herbie insisted that he accompany me on what would ultimately become an enlightening day-long sojourn of discovery into the unknown. Thinking back, I probably should have been more concerned for him.
After several hours trailing about the underbrush and observing the slow reestablishment of a new river bottom forest landscape interspersed within this terrain of towering concrete highway piers, mostly abandoned railroad tracks and assorted industrial rubble we headed back to my truck parked near the existing concrete levee wall overlooking the Mississippi River and distant St. Louis skyline. There we sat for nearly a full three hours taking in the breathtaking view of the Gateway Arch and surrounding cityscape, throwing ideas back and forth about how the eastside riverfront could be brought into play as an attractive, viable and inspiring addition to the national park to our west, including numerous thoughts for improving the Gateway Arch and Gateway Mall grounds. After elaborating a few of my ideas on a sketch pad I had brought along for our excursion it was then Herbie encouraged me to continue refining my ideas, perhaps with the intention of eventually sharing them with others receptive to my vision.
Herbie passed away three years later. Prior to his death I did manage to develop my original ideas in more detailed form, including various explanatory notes, construction details and many pages of writings, all the result of his encouragement (and extensive input) that my vision, which he thought quite good, should at the very least eventually be included in the public record. Sadly, after he was gone from my life I consigned those drawings and written materials to a file drawer in my studio with rarely a thought or mention of any of it again as I figured no one would really care much as to what I, personally, might have to say about the matter.
Since that day-long sojourn of discovery with Herbie so many years ago the Missouri riverfront below the Gateway Arch has received two consecutive new promenades (one replacing the other), a parking garage has been completed on the north side of the grounds, perimeter bollards have been installed to thwart terrorist access and, most recently, a new administration center was constructed on the site of an ugly maintenance facility near the south side of the park. Beyond these “perimeter” improvements not much else has been accomplished within the Gateway Arch grounds beyond the workings of nature. Trees and plantings within the park have grown more lush and dense, affording visitors and locals alike much needed shade when exploring or traversing about the grounds on hot summer days. Sadly, despite all the years that have passed and the tremendous sums of money spent, no serious consideration seems to have ever been given to the needs of the surrounding community or the many visitors to the park with regards to making the grounds more comfortable, user-friendly and amiable for play and relaxation. To this day it remains an exceedingly “formal” and somewhat “stuffy” setting.
Yet despite this handicap I personally believe it would be a grave mistake to impose any real overall change to this great civic space as it was originally designed. The key, however, is in making it a more pleasurable and inspiring place to both visit and “hang out”. As this park serves not only national and international visitors, from the standpoint of locals it is seen more as a neighborhood “green space” where many nearby downtown residents and office workers visit on a regular basis. For all intents and purposes it is not a National Park to them but an extension of their home (and/or office) world where persons can go to walk the dog, picnic or just sit out amongst the trees, read a good book or perhaps share a bottle of fine wine with a loved one. As I see it, this is where the problem presents itself in how to make this great public space more an integral part of the local scene and not just some isolated National Park that is aloof, above and beyond its attachment to downtown St. Louis and those who live around it. If this can be accomplished I sincerely do not believe anything else needs to be undertaken and the park should be allowed to mature and season as time and the centuries pass. Future generations will surely thank us as they, too, will be allowed to experience the great vision of the master architect who originally designed this magnificent public space. Personal experience informs me additional clutter and architectural “gimmickry” will not bring more visitors in the long run.
This past fall an architectural competition for improving the Gateway Arch grounds, along with portions of the East St. Louis riverfront, was announced seeking to make the Gateway Arch grounds and eastside riverfront more pedestrian-friendly and interactive with downtown St. Louis. While it is wonderful to hear that at last both sides of the river are beginning to receive long-overdue consideration one can only hope this time they will get it right.
Following are numerous excerpts on how to make the Gateway Arch grounds more pedestrian and visitor friendly, and interactive with the surrounding urban community, taken from a section of my original proposal for the redevelopment and revitalization of the East St. Louis riverfront and improvements to the Gateway Arch and Gateway Mall grounds written so many years ago. In essence, my focus was originally not on adding mere “novelties” but seeking intelligent, commonsense solutions to recognizably commonsense problems. I present them here for the benefit of public discussion and discourse as I do believe many of my concerns remain (and always will remain) relevant and perhaps will prove useful and illuminating to others in light of this new competition. I leave this for interested readers to decide for themselves.
In my second essay, to appear in a couple of weeks, I will focus on the East St. Louis riverfront and the problems and opportunities that exist there.
Note: Since I prepared my original proposal the industrial-style maintenance “barn”, asphalt parking lot and surrounding chain-link fence near the south end of the park has been replaced with what appears to be a reasonably attractive administrative center. Although this new construction is a vast improvement over what stood there before I remain convinced there are better uses for this site and I can only wish another urban location near the park could have been chosen. Therefore, my original suggestions for this site stand and are included within the following pages.
Excerpts:
A Greater Diversity of Landscape
When I walk through the park grounds I am discouraged by the tremendous lack of diversity of the plantings throughout the established landscape. This is particularly obvious along the varied concrete walks where ash trees seem to predominate. In addition, there seems to be no emphasis whatsoever on seasonal fragrance or the inclusion of many flowering trees and shrubs that can offer both visual and sensory stimulation at various times from early spring to late fall. Another area that begs for attention is the total lack of plantings adjacent to the small concrete ponds situated in the two undulating valleys both to the north and south sides of the Gateway Arch. These ponds should be made to appear more natural incorporating water grasses, water lilies and other edge plantings that could soften their lines and provide a more integrated appearance into the larger ensemble.
In addition, sweeping masses of ground covers would do much to counter the endless and numbing expanses of grass that meander throughout the park setting. Large swaths of native grasses and wildflowers would be particularly effective along the slopes overlooking the river where pedestrians rarely traverse. A greater diversity of plantings would immensely improve the appearance of the riverfront along Sullivan Boulevard, including the use of more native varieties that can withstand high water for extended periods of time.
This park landscape should be a veritable “paradise” of lushness, texture, fragrance and color.
Comfortable Park Benches
As a gentleman in my early fifties there is nothing more unpleasant while visiting a park than having to “squat” down on a hard concrete bench that has no back and arm rests. Most people I know like to sit back, cross their legs while they think and take in the views. Hard, cold concrete benches are about as comfortable as sitting in a backyard outhouse. You are forced to lean forward and look mostly downward. Nice wood and metal benches with good curvatures, like those in Central Park in New York City, allow for the physical comfort of those who utilize them. Wood is not so cold to the touch when sitting during colder months, flexes a little and it is also easier on the back. A good point to remember is that park seating should be designed primarily to cater to senior citizens, rather than to the younger set. It is the needs and comforts of this elder generation that should set the “benchmark” as they are the ones who will utilize them more than any other age group. And if they are comfortable, by gosh, everyone will be comfortable.
Finally, place many of these new benches in areas that afford both pleasant views and shade. I, for one, love to sit back and just think, taking in inspiring views and observing others. And, of course, it is always preferable to be able to do so when you are in the coolness of shade and not prostrate to the rays of the sun during the hot summer months.
Comfortable Picnic Tables
Scattered about the grounds of the park in pleasant shaded areas I recommend that there be placed attractive picnic tables for the enjoyment of those who would like to picnic outdoors, whether they be visitors to the Gateway Arch or simply those here within the city who wish to go to the park for an afternoon outing. Unlike many ordinary picnic tables in most parks that are really quite ugly I see no reason why very comfortable, attractive, architecturally designed picnic tables cannot be included. On numerous occasions over the years I have personally observed some truly stunning picnic tables, including picnic pavilions, within rest stop areas along many of our nation’s interstate highways. There seems no reason to me why similar creations cannot be designed to become viable and enhancing additions to the overall park experience.
Lovely Park Pavilions
I cannot begin to count all the times I have been to the Gateway Arch grounds over the past forty years and found myself in the middle of an unexpected rain storm with no place to take shelter. Lovely park pavilions effectively integrated into the landscaped grounds could afford not only shelter from inclement weather but would also make pleasant destinations for picnic gatherings or romantic interludes. They should in no way distract from the park atmosphere and, if properly designed, would be extremely attractive additions to the overall park landscape.
Improved Lighting
Much of the lighting on the grounds of the Gateway Arch is ugly. Particularly the pole lamps that line the walkways throughout the grounds. To me, they appear more like “lollipops” on a stick and the intense light emanating from them at night is especially disturbing and painful to sensitive eyes. Why not lighting that appears more “grounded”, softer and iridescent? In other words, lighting that is more romantic and soothing to the senses – appealing to the romantic moods of young and old lovers as they stroll the grounds in the evening hours. With all of the varieties of lighting currently available there seems no reason why new standards cannot be chosen or designed incorporating light bulbs that address necessary security concerns, are more energy efficient and complimentary to the environment aesthetically.
Completion of the Raised Walkways
In many of the original renderings of the Gateway Arch grounds there are two soaring pedestrian walkways that connect the old courthouse park setting directly into the Gateway Arch grounds up and over the highway lanes of Memorial Drive. The completion of these bridges is encouraged as they are integral parts of the original design. Furthermore, in conjunction with the paving over and landscaping of the three linear blocks of depressed interstate highway below their addition would cement both the visual and physical re-integration of downtown to the Gateway Arch grounds.
Landscaping Atop the Interstate Depressed Lanes
For many years various individuals, including myself, have suggested that the three blocks of depressed interstate lanes separating downtown from the Gateway Arch grounds should be paved over and landscaped in order to better integrate the park into the fabric of the city, and vice-versa. I believe this remains a critical element and would add immensely in helping to better humanize the immediate surrounding landscape when one traverses between these two worlds.
Whenever I have had the time and inclination to stroll around and about downtown in the vicinity of the old courthouse I never cease to be distressed over how depressing and unnerving the short distance between the old courthouse and the Gateway Arch can really seem to be. It is one thing to deal with urban traffic – and this I am pretty good at since I have spent most of my adult life living in such circumstances – but it is quite another having to cross a sterile no man’s land, complete with the ungodly loud noises (and associated smells) reverberating from the echo chamber of the depressed interstate. Whoever designed this might have been “highway engineer” smart but they were “urban community” stupid. Even though this is only a three hundred foot span one cannot help but feel they are in a DMZ, or “neutral zone”, between two opposing world-view forces.
As I see it, it is essential to bridge this chasm once and for all and reunite our fair city to its natural riverfront. For no other reason than to “symbolically” marry the downtown area to the riverfront.
Improvements to Surrounding Sidewalks
Whether walking along the west side of the Gateway Arch grounds adjacent to the highway that separates the park from downtown or strolling along Sullivan Boulevard (Wharf Street) the experience for the pedestrian can be quite unpleasant. The fact that fast moving vehicles are so close by makes for an uncomfortable, and at times, nerve-wracking experience when walking along the sidewalk west of the park. In addition, during the summer months the experience can be unbearable as there is absolutely no real shade to protect strollers from the hot summer sun. Here, sidewalk trees should be made generous to the extent that when they begin to mature in say, twenty years, one should never have to leave the protection of the shade if they do not desire so. Furthermore, the sidewalks along the west side of the park adjacent to downtown should be set back from the street curb in order to incorporate a ten foot wide sidewalk tree medium. Not only would this afford a more pleasant walking experience, but it would also provide, psychologically speaking, a more “comfortable” distance between fast moving automobiles and strollers.
Finally, when approaching the Gateway Arch from the direction of downtown near Market Street along the main east-west park axis I remain confused why this area has no shade trees whatsoever. On a hot summer day visitors are forced to be prostrate to the sun for several hundred feet while walking towards the monument from Memorial Drive. It seems to me that at the very least both the walkways and vast open lawn should be filled with many more shade trees creating the effect of the great monument rising out of a majestic forested landscape. Again, I cannot emphasize enough the need for SHADE.
Improvements to the Existing Parking Garage
The existing parking garage on the north edge of the Gateway Arch grounds adjacent to the Eads Bridge while not particularly architecturally exciting is nonetheless more “quiet” than most urban parking structures. It does not compete with the Gateway Arch, nor does it try to stand out in such a way as to make itself too obvious. This said, it could still use touch-ups here and there to better blend it into the existing landscape, making it even less obvious and more complimentary. Ways to do this include better landscaping around the perimeter, softer accent colors, the possible inclusion of plantings (in concrete planter boxes) in specific areas of the top open deck, as well as to paint this roof deck in a warm, earth green shade to soften this portion when viewed from various positions both within and outside of the park. One other improvement could be the improvement of the roof-top lighting, making it less harsh and glaring at night.
As an alternative to preserving the top deck of this structure for parking I would recommend the conversion of this space to an elaborate and well designed “food court”. I can envision a subtle but imposing L-shaped rooftop structure backing up to both the north and west sides of the garage building and opening out to an attractive courtyard, complete with lush landscaping and water fountains. Here one could dine outside during mild weather conditions while taking in a
stunning view of the Gateway Arch and the surrounding park, along with impressive views of the Eads Bridge and the Illinois riverfront.
This building would be designed with its two front-facing sides featuring open arcades overlooking the court. Thus, one could dine either inside, outside under the shade of the arcade or in the open courtyard, itself. The flexibility of this design arrangement would afford the greatest number of alternative options for patrons depending on the time of year and varied weather conditions. Perhaps even a semi-permanent tent-like roof structure could be incorporated over this open courtyard allowing for even greater outdoor flexibility and further protection for patrons from rain and the hot summer sun.
In this regard the parking structure can be maintained but take on added value and function, despite the loss of a given number of parking spaces. In addition, by providing such a center at this location you are creating another “destination” within the park grounds for patrons who might not otherwise come to the park, particularly office workers and nearby residents out for a nice lunch or dinner in an inspiring park-like setting. This also provides visitors to the Gateway Arch an enhanced option for staying longer and lingering within the park as it creates an economical dinner option for traveling individuals and families on a tight vacation budget.
As for structural concerns of the garage taking on this added load from above the design of the improvements would correspond with the primary supports of the garage structure, itself, carrying the loads downward major structural support points.
Children’s Play Land
On the far south side of the park today stands what is undoubtedly a very ugly and depressing industrial structure utilized as a maintenance shed. Surrounding it is a moderately sized asphalt parking lot and all enclosed within a chain link fence. Although not seen by most visiting the park itself this facility is quite obvious to those who drive by on certain portions of the adjacent Poplar Street Bridge. It is also most obvious to anyone walking along the sidewalks south of the park in the vicinity of Chouteau’s Landing. It is recommended that this facility be razed and a new larger and more flexible underground facility be constructed where all storage and maintenance staff parking can be channeled. A simple, yet discreet, entrance-exit could be constructed adjacent to the nearby street allowing for all necessary coming and going.
Atop this newly added green space to the park I suggest the construction of a most unique and inviting children’s fantasy playground be developed. This
added feature to the park would be particularly oriented for children between the ages of one and twelve and would be intended to not only delight the children of visitors to the park, but also serve the children of those residents living within the downtown area where currently there are very few options of any kind for children to really play within a lushly landscaped urban park setting. Furthermore, as this area is somewhat isolated from the rest of the park it would be ideal for noisy children wishing to yell and scream with delight to their heart’s content.
I cannot begin to convey all the stories I have heard from friends from St. Louis and out of town who have visited the park grounds during the summer months only to observe the results of trampling and abuse left behind annually from the July 4th holiday festivities. At the very time of the year when this park receives its peak number of tourists the grounds always look their very worst. Eliminating these annual festivities would immensely improve the local ecology of the park and restore it as the place of relaxation, contemplation and inspiration that it should focus on being. There are numerous other locations throughout nearby downtown St. Louis where such large events can be held. Events should be focused on paved public plazas, including streets closed off at specific times when required. Furthermore, if my ideas for the East St. Louis riverfront as mentioned previously in this proposal are deemed appropriate some of these events could be moved to that park setting, including the proposed new amphitheatre where potential damage from trampling would be less obvious and problematic as visitors would be spread out over a larger area, thus lessoning the wear and tear on soil and landscaping, as well as the “stress” on individuals and families when dealing with over-whelming crowds at these events.
Encourage More Multi-Use Development in Laclede’s Landing & Choteau’s Landing
Despite years of redevelopment effort Laclede’s Landing remains mostly a bar and restaurant district, with very few long-term residents living within that area north of the Eads Bridge. Those that do reside within this riverfront community are often resigned to deal with immense parking dilemmas, noise and other assorted distractions that ultimately make quality-of-life issues within this part of downtown extremely awkward and disconcerting. I know this for a fact, as numerous friends of mine have lived there and ultimately given up due to the endless onslaught of day-to-day complications. Speaking from my own experience, I have personally resided part time in the area over a one year period due to the fact that I was involved in a personal relationship with another who lived there. Consequently, I found myself in the “thick of things”, so to speak, and know, first hand, what it was like trying to live a sane life. A serious effort should be undertaken to remake this area into a more resident-friendly district. Encouraging more individuals and families to reside in the immediate area the potential exists for greater local pedestrian activity within the adjacent Gateway Park. The same case can be made for the area south of the park, known as Choteau’s Landing, where many abandoned commercial buildings would make ideal loft and apartment space for individuals and families who might wish to live near the river and downtown. Once these two specific districts are strengthened and pulled into the equation the opportunities for greater local utilization and interaction within the Gateway Arch park becomes only a natural extension of the urban condition as more local citizens will have a truly legitimate reason to patronize the park.
Let us not forget that the condition of the areas bordering the Gateway Arch ground – particularly to the south and to the east, across the river – no doubt instill a deep and distinct “psychological” pathology on individuals and families in determining how often they might wish to frequent the area. Decay and abandonment almost always impress upon the mind a fear of potential criminal activity. If the entire surrounding areas were finally fully restored and reinvigorated with vibrant urban residential and commercial day-to-day activity this can only add to the appeal of the park from a local viewpoint as it creates more and varied reasons for visiting the area, not just for touring the arch (as is the primary goal of tourists and locals taking out-of-town friends while visiting the city) but for locals who might just want to come and just “hang out”, take in the sites and “people watch”.
Let us note that no amount of construction of parking lots or novelties are going to bring people to the Gateway Arch grounds on a consistent, long-term basis. Novelties ultimately become tiresome and where off. By contrast, making the park a more integral part of the immediate urban fabric, and making the surrounding urban fabric integral to the life of the park, you are on a solid road towards establishing permanent usefulness and viability.
In summation, it is my reasoned (and “seasoned”)opinion only a few changes need to be undertaken directly to the overall park landscape. This would include landscaping over the depressed interstate lanes, completing the magnificent raised, soaring pedestrian walkways atop these depressed lanes, replacing the existing maintenance facility with a new, underground one, thereby freeing up the land above for more appropriate development and improving upon the existing parking garage, preferably making this structure more multi-functional. It should be noted that two of the aforementioned are technically outside of the park purview and for all intents and purposes would be city/state projects rather than a direct part of the park system unless otherwise assigned this by an act of congress. Thereafter, everything else involves the sensitive and effective enhancement of numerous details and the improvement of the usefulness of targeted existing sites.
Specifically, what needs to be undertaken is the improvement of viability and usefulness of the Gateway Arch grounds, not some major upheaval of any kind. As I see it, this can only be done by making the park itself more user friendly and pedestrian friendly and I sincerely believe the recommendations I have proposed herein on the previous pages would be very helpful in this regard. In my opinion, they would “enhance” the park to the delight of all and add to its elegance, loveliness and repose that this park should rightly invoke as one of the greatest of our national works of architectural art. More so, what I am calling for does not involve outrageous sums of money in order to see these projects carried through to fruition. What we are really talking about here are very common sense solutions to very common sense problems, but executed in a manner that is both tasteful, artistic and cost-effective at the same time.
To me, the Gateway Arch and its inspiring setting is not only a great local, regional and national treasure, it is also a masterpiece of architectural design and advanced engineering. Whatever is done to enhance and ennoble this jewel in the cultural crown of America must be done with the utmost respect and delicacy of scale. Here within the city of St. Louis we have a magnificent monument and splendid urban park designed and constructed in the tradition of the great classical European parks of the past. Only one other American city can claim title to a comparable park designed in the greatest of classical traditions, and that is Washington, D.C., as originally inspired by our first president, George Washington. Recognizing this simple reality, the St. Louis riverfront surrounding the Gateway Arch occupies a very esteemed position within a very exclusive American club. Let us recognize it for what it is and seek to improve those details and negative aspects that do not seem to work well. This is not the time to “throw the baby out with the bath water”, so to speak, and discard what is essentially one of our nation’s greatest civic spaces.
Let us refine, fine tune and better articulate it for the good of all. Future generations will surely thank us.
Fredrick Medler, President
Urban Design Forum
—
Editor’s Note: Important Events This Week:
Tuesday August 17th marks the opening of the design competition exhibit with opening remarks at 9am near the north leg of the Arch.
Wednesday August 18th the grassroots highway removal organization City to River will host STLStyle Trivia and Arch Design Concepts at the Tap Room, 2100 Locust, 7:30pm-10pm.
A year ago yesterday Culinaria, a Schnuck’s Market, opened in the ground floor of the 9th Street parking garage. You know, the parking garage that replaced the historic Century Building. The intersection of 9th & Olive was the last intersection in St. Louis’ CBD that still had it’s pre-WWII buildings on all four corners. More on the Century in a bit.
ABOVE: Entry to Culinaria lacks auto opener for disabled
The store has been open a year now yet there is no door opener on either front door. Because of the settings on the door closer it is nearly impossible for me to enter without help from others. I exit by pushing the door open with my wheelchair.
Inside the situation is getting worse. The once attractive store has every bit of floor space occupied my an increasing number of display boxes. They change based on what company is paying them. Trying to access a freezer case was difficult the other day because a stack of product on the floor next to the door handle prevented me from getting in the right position.
A year ago I was impressed by the design of the store. Today I use it as a convenience store, the bulk of my groceries comes from other grocery store and markets. I need to go once a month for my prescriptions but I try to avoid the place now. It is hard to access and circulate, increasingly not worth the hassle.
I’ve asked before about a door opener. “We are working on getting the state to pay for it.” You see, Schnuck’s is a tenant in the state-owned parking garage. The garage wasn’t designed for a grocery store but the developer was DESCO which is owned by members of the Schnuck’s family.
Which brings us back to the 1896 Century Building. Local property owners & residents (and friends) Roger Plackemier & Marcia Behrendt had sued various entities prior to the destruction of the Century, questioning the legality of the process used in the garage project. In 2004 they were unable to raise the money to post a bond and the demolition of the Century began.
In April 2005 the developer and development agencies of the city & state sued Plackemeier & Behrendt for “malicious prosecution“, seeking $1,000,000 in damages. The trial has been scheduled several times and each time the plaintiffs request a delay. The trial was to begin on Monday of this week but once again they were granted a delay.
For over five years now two citizens have had a million dollar lawsuit against them and those suing them keep delaying the trial. Talk about malicious prosecution!
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
