Home » Downtown »Planning & Design »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

The MVVA Team Won, Now What? Part I

September 24, 2010 Downtown, Planning & Design, Politics/Policy 7 Comments
mvva-north-gateway-view
ABOVE: Artist rendering from the MVVA Team of the north end of the Arch grounds and the Eads Bridge

Today at 10am in the rotunda of the Old Courthouse the public will meet the MVVA Team — now the winner of the City+Arch+River Competition — and hear the next steps in the process leading up to the 50th anniversary of the Arch in October 2015.

The MVVA video:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArNdigN48Kg

The project area is large and includes both sides of the river. I have hot button issues both inside & outside the project area, these include:

  • The elevated highway lanes north of the Arch grounds as well as adjacent to the memorial site itself.
  • The flow of pedestrians and vehicles of those passing by as well as visiting the Arch.
  • As a member of the Gateway Mall Advisory Board, we will be asked to advise the St. Louis Parks Dept on proposed changes to Kiener Plaza.
  • The viability of the proposed changes within the project area and beyond.

Today I will look at parts of their proposal on the Missouri side.

mvvacirculation
ABOVE: Diagram from the MVVA Narrative, p32

The diagram above shows current circulation and proposed. The diagram is misleading to a degree in that it shows only the current vehicular access point at the north end. What is true is the pedestrian access points will be greatly improved.

From page 133 of their narrative:

“The Interstate 70 trench is now the most striking barrier between the Memorial and the city. Our proposal creates physical and experiential continuity by creating a pedestrian overpass between Market and Chestnut Streets. Both the deck itself and the landscape hoods on either side will break direct lines of sight and sound between the highway and Memorial-bound pedestrians, creating a quiet, landscape-focused choreography of approach between Luther Ely Smith Square and the Arch grounds.”

“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.”

I like that highway removal was something they designed for.  More tomorrow in part II.

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "7 comments" on this Article:

  1. Jeremiah Russell says:

    as a possible future resident of STL, I'm really excited about this project. Projects that further anchor monuments/parks of this kind to their cities and improve/increase pedestrian activity will only have a positive effect. Great article and wonderful design by the winning firm.

     
  2. JZ71 says:

    While distributing pedestrian access points makes sense, I'm not sure how well redistributing the 1200 parking spaces into 3 smaller structures will. Non-locals don't want to know where AN arch parking lot is located, they want to know where THE arch parking is located – KISS! And I'm not saying don't move it (west of Memorial Drive would be fine), just don't fragment it and confuse people needlessly.

    Inevitably, the lot closest to the museum will be chronically full, forcing visitors to try (and find) one of the other locations, then remember which lot they parked in. I know, I know, the automobile is the bane of the urban experience, but when 95%+ of the visitors are arriving by car, they need to be accomodated, and doing it well will enhance their experience.

    Second point – RV's. A significant number of visitors are travelling in these oversize vehicles. There should be plans to accomodate them, as well. Perhaps there should be parking and/or even camping planned on the Illinois side, with some sort of shuttle service across the river. (I liked the gondola idea another team proposed.)

     
  3. Iluvmydugtuffy says:

    This is idiocy! There is nothing that anyone can do to draw more people (local or tourists) to the Arch grounds.

    1. The city's crime problem will continue to keep families away. And by “families”, I mean folks from the suburbs.

    2. Placing additional parking on or near the Arch grounds simply means that anyone from the “burbs” who makes the long drive downtown to skate on a river wind swept skating rink will not visit the rest of the nearly vacant CBD. Continuing the isolation of the area from the rest of downtown.

    3. The highway running through downtown, while an eyesore, is not the problem with access to the Arch grounds. The problem is Memorial Drive! Every idea that I have seen for connecting the Arch to the larger city calls for Memorial Drive to remain…sometimes in an expanded capacity after the highway is removed. Sadly, this is a political movement (anti-fossil fuel) more than a prescription for solving the access problem. Removing the traffic that terrifies pedestrians on Memorial is a greater priority than removing sunken lanes of an interstate that one would need to fall into in order to be impacted by the traffic therein. I am all for driving less, but get real! Synchronizing traffic lights better on the way to 64 and 44 would allow for alternate routes out of downtown, thus less need for Memorial. The former Memorial Drive could then be made into an actual transition from the Old Courthouse to the “modern” Arch with the sunken highway lanes serving as a testament to what modernism hath wrought…the destruction of the urban core.

     
    • Iluvmydugtuffy says:

      By “transition” I mean park space with areas for rotating sculptures and performance art. Trees and/or other plantings could be used to mask the reality of the highway while still emphasizing it integralness to the overall reality of modern America.

      The highway isn't going away. I wish it had never been built, but it is there. No getting away from it. America does not have the money nor the philanthropic wherewithal to complete the removal of the highway…or Memorial Drive for that matter…so why not walkways over it like they have over the streets in Las Vegas?

      We live in reality. Let's base our ideas in it.

       
  4. Charles says:

    This is a sorry excuse for analysis of a very serious issue. And yet you constantly blather on and on at great length about sidewalks and crosswalks etc. More proof of why I've (almost) completely stopped coming here.

     
    • This post is the first in a series of posts looking at the MVVA proposal, I'm starting with the good and working my way to the not good.

      For nearly six years now this site has been about what I see, thus it has evolved as I ran for office, bought a scooter, went car-free, moved downtown, had a stroke, etc.

       

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe