MVVA’s Winning Concept To Finish Destroying Riverfront Street Grid Pt1
Overall I’m fine with MVVA’s winning proposal for connecting to the Arch but one idea is horrible — the removal of Washington Ave along the south edge of the Eads Bridge. Â On page 12 of the MVVA narrative they wrote:
“By removing the existing Memorial garage and the terminus of Washington Avenue, which is used almost exclusively by garage patrons, our proposal allows the openings in the Eads Bridge to serve as portals between Laclede’s Landing and a dynamic civic landscape. Accessible pathways stitch together a mix of neighborhood programs and event space, including a large playground, comfortable shaded seating, an earthen amphitheater, and the Gateway Urban Ecology Center, which offers afterschool programs and summer camps for St. Louis and East St. Louis students.”
Yes, the north parking garage is a hideous barrier between Laclede’s Landing and the Arch Grounds, but Washington Ave is not a problem. Â Streets connect. Narrow the street to the width of those in Laclede’s Landing but leave it so circulation in the area isn’t cut off more. Â Allow pedicabs, carriages and vehicles to slowly navigate the area. Â But cutting off more of the grid will create more problems than it solves.
– Steve Patterson
I hate the garage, and agree it should be removed or put completely underground, but the idea of another useless piece of fallow greenspace is asinine. I guess this team saw the way green space has been fetishised in DT and just went with that. Just another failed idea from this team. Again, this seems to contradict the original intention of the first design, which at least featured the Old Rock House at Wharf St. The NPS' desire to have a low maintenance design is understandable, considering the whiner-class complaints about “their” tax dollars going to this “boondoggle”. (Though these nitwits have no complaints about the Defense Dept. spending Billions upon Billions for useless and many times unwanted armaments, not to mention the out-and-out waste and fraud coming not only from the “defense” contractors, but within the ranks of the military itself. Honor, my arse.) However, this design is becoming one which doesn't fail to leave me cold. The judges who awarded the competition to MVVA should be ashamed of themselves.
This is crap. I would hate to see the connecting road to 2nd street removed. During large fairs that segment is just closed to vehicle traffic and open to peds, why not leave it that way. I am only luke-warm on the overall project by MVVA but this part doesn't make much sense, would you not also want to keep this straight-away open for emergency vehicles for fast access to the wharf (walking blvd or whatever Wharf street will become)!!?? Stop the green-run-amok in the inner city.
If you read the jury's comments regarding MVVA's proposal, they completely agree. They maintain that the closure of Washington Ave is a poorly-thought out mistake, and that this option should NOT be pursued. They were very adamant, so I suspect as design details are finalized, we will not see a closed Washington Ave.
Good call on the jury comments, I should have reviewed those. Yes, we will see the final product change during the next five years.
Here is the quote from the Jury report; “The connection through Laclede’s Landing is a strong idea on how to draw the area into the overall plan; however, closing Washington Avenue is not a feasible solution.”
The summary report had multiple mentions of MVVA's plans for Washington Avenue, some much more harsh and blunt that what you've just quoted.
The technical advisory group said, “There are serious concerns with the elimination of Washington Street and the probable routing of traffic through Laclede’s Landing.”
The jury report said, “Closure of Washington Ave from Memorial Drive to the river is a mistake. The reasoning for that recommendation is not clear.”
I totally agree with you. Removing the street would just eliminate pedestrian and vehicle traffic all together. I think the street should be reduced to 2 lanes and have some spots created on the south side of Wash Ave for restraunts with outdoor patios and seating, possibly some local bars, or retail space to extend the landing somewhat to that side. It would not only add more to the area around the landing but it would bring people closer to the arch grounds. If it was done right it could be successful.
Couldn't agree more, north garage goes and Wash Ave stays. A question(s) I wonder about, how much revenue does the garage bring in and is it needed? In other words, is NPS relying on the garage in a large part to maintain the park?
The one thing that is sorely needed is the West Entrance. I think MVVA does a very good job of presenting that concept. Anything is an improvement upon the current entrances and any hot muggy summer day probably convinces people that one trip is enough even before they get one foot inside.
Is it just me or does the Neighborhood Park look a bit like a prison yard?
I am against removing the parking garage North of the Arch. There are a lot of people that use it to park to see the arch, enjoy a bar or restaurant on the Landing, or to jump on the Metro to go to a game. If you raze the garage and don't replace it with some substantial affordable parking somewhere within close proximity of the current location, businesses on the Landing are going to suffer. Even is you construct a garage on the south side of the Arch grounds, folks aren't going to walk the 20 plus blocks to check out the Arch, then grab a couple of drinks or a bite to eat on the Landing. Can't the garage be redesigned or rebuilts to allow some sort of walkway/path/bike path that extends 1st street across Wash Ave. to the Arch Grounds.
I'm pretty much neutral on the Washington issue (keep or remove). But what does need to be addressed is the ef'ed up intersection of Washington Ave, Memorial Drive, Eads Bridge, 4th Street, and, potentially, Lucas Ave. A good compromise could be closing Washington between Memorial Drive and 2nd Street, but keeping it open between 2nd and the river . . .