By now most have formed an opinion of MVVA’s winning proposal in the City+Arch+River competition. Â Over the next five years we will (hopefully) see work completed on both sides of the river. For the poll this week I hope to get a sense of what you think of the proposal. Â I know there are those who are disappointed, but are they a few or the majority? Â The poll is in the upper right sidebar.
I think it could be great, after thinking about it for awhile the others did look a little unrealistic, mainly from the perspective of sustainability. Gondola idea was awesome but what would it look like in 10yrs? Two things that I think would add SO MUCH to this design are; 1. I loved the design feature of the museum under the arch having a skylight looking up at the arch, because what does everyone do when they get to the archgrounds? They look up! 2. Dedicated bikepath systems that flow in and out of the arch grounds and connect to the rest of the city and over the river to the Madison County bikepath network. I would be amazing to be able to jump on your bike in South City, ride to the archgrounds, over the river into Illinois and back. Great workout and a great way to keep alot of the “right” kind of traffic moving through the area, not cars, but people. STAY AWAY FROM RELYING ON CARS AND PARKING GARAGES, PEOPLE WON”T COME!!!!
Probably the biggest concern should be process, why is there a full scale discussion now that everything is signed, sealed and delivered so to speak? I think the organizers tried to include the public, sort of, but the last few days of posts on Urban Review indicate clearly the need for a process that includes earlier public discussion. Surely a better solution for the Arch grounds is desired.
The question becomes why do discussions about the solutions occur after a final choice is made and not before? The bottom line is that city planning in the City of St. Louis is almost primitive as the result of a lack of knowledge, skill, experience or corruption. This has been going on for years, the evidence is in the steady decline of St. Louis.
For instance there is not a valid answer about the mass transit relationship between the McKee project, the Arch, and the rest of the city. When does that question become valid?
What is the relation of mass transit to public space? An important question not even on the radar of our esteemed planning agencies.
At least I have heard nothing, but if all is back room deals, why should I?
I don't view this as “final”. I view it as a framework for much further discussion. Now that we actually have selected a designer of record, they will have to have multiple discussions with multiple constituencies before any real physical changes occur. Up to now, they were working essentially in an academic vacuum. Now they're going to have to make their vision work in reality.
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
By now most have formed an opinion of MVVA’s winning proposal in the City+Arch+River competition. Â Over the next five years we will (hopefully) see work completed on both sides of the river. For the poll this week I hope to get a sense of what you think of the proposal. Â I know there are those who are disappointed, but are they a few or the majority? Â The poll is in the upper right sidebar.
I think it could be great, after thinking about it for awhile the others did look a little unrealistic, mainly from the perspective of sustainability. Gondola idea was awesome but what would it look like in 10yrs? Two things that I think would add SO MUCH to this design are; 1. I loved the design feature of the museum under the arch having a skylight looking up at the arch, because what does everyone do when they get to the archgrounds? They look up! 2. Dedicated bikepath systems that flow in and out of the arch grounds and connect to the rest of the city and over the river to the Madison County bikepath network. I would be amazing to be able to jump on your bike in South City, ride to the archgrounds, over the river into Illinois and back. Great workout and a great way to keep alot of the “right” kind of traffic moving through the area, not cars, but people. STAY AWAY FROM RELYING ON CARS AND PARKING GARAGES, PEOPLE WON”T COME!!!!
Probably the biggest concern should be process, why is there a full scale discussion now that everything is signed, sealed and delivered so to speak? I think the organizers tried to include the public, sort of, but the last few days of posts on Urban Review indicate clearly the need for a process that includes earlier public discussion. Surely a better solution for the Arch grounds is desired.
The question becomes why do discussions about the solutions occur after a final choice is made and not before?
The bottom line is that city planning in the City of St. Louis is almost primitive as the result of a lack of knowledge, skill, experience or corruption. This has been going on for years, the evidence is in the steady decline of St. Louis.
For instance there is not a valid answer about the mass transit relationship between the McKee project, the Arch, and the rest of the city. When does that question become valid?
What is the relation of mass transit to public space?
An important question not even on the radar of our esteemed planning agencies.
At least I have heard nothing, but if all is back room deals, why should I?
I don't view this as “final”. I view it as a framework for much further discussion. Now that we actually have selected a designer of record, they will have to have multiple discussions with multiple constituencies before any real physical changes occur. Up to now, they were working essentially in an academic vacuum. Now they're going to have to make their vision work in reality.