We Can All Agree, St. Louis’ Riverfront Needs Help
Yesterday I had a chance to hear a presentation by Danforth Foundation President Peter Sortino (as a guest at the monthly chapter meeting of the AIA St. Louis). The foundation recently submitted a report to St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. In the report they basically concluded that nothing “transformative” can be done as long as the National Park Service retains control of not only the Arch ground proper but also Memorial Drive.
I’m still reading through the detailed report and appendix of items but here is where we certainly agree:
- The arch grounds, while beautiful, is a large passive area.
- Pedestrian access to the arch grounds and riverfront from downtown is problematic.
- The riverfront is lifeless and disconnected from downtown.
Figuring out goals, objectives and solutions is where I think we may have some differences of opinion. Still, the foundation is looking for support from the community to agree a problem has existed for some decades — I fully support increased discussion about the future of the area around the Arch.
As lifeless as Gateway Mall has been for decades, I don’t think the City would do much better than the Feds in adding life to the Arch grounds.
I actually think the “lid” idea over 55/70 was a good one. Any one want to counter as to why it isn’t? I’m guessing price may have been a big factor. I have noticed, a good number of local fisherman seem to be making good use of the riverfront.
The whole region needs help and we shouldn’t start with property that isn’t ours. Just because local leadership now concludes that the Arch grounds need local control and that the Connector “is dominated by the sounds and smells of the vehicle traffic… pedestrians are required to cross three lanes,… high curbs, lack of ADA ramps, narrow sidewalks and low safety rails” is nothing new or startling.
Danforth is “embarrased” by these conditions? Tell me what area (besides where these wise men live) in StL and County doesn’t fit that description?
The Foundation report concludes that to be fully funded, “the aggregate cost [is] $418 million… the Mayor’s vision of a distinctive world-class destination and activity center is not feasible. The Foundation is disappointed…” I too an disappointed in how our scarce resources are allocated but my areas of concern are much larger than a few acres along the riverfront.
I’m sorry I missed the meeting . . . I agree the riverfront could be improved – both Cinicnnati and Louisville have done some good stuff recently along the Ohio River. It will be interesting once the new casino opens and to see how the current ebb and flow of people changes. I also don’t see a great need to mess with the Arch grounds – there’s plenty of land both north and south that is in worse shape that provide better public access and enjoyment . . .
worthless factoid one – looking at an aerial photo of the area, it looks like the Casino Queen parking lot is at least one-third the size of the entire Arch grounds . . . says something about our/society’s priorities?!
not-so-worthless factoid two – if you don’t own it, you don’t control it – as a city, we have more important priorities (and bigger battles to fight) than reinventing the Arch grounds.
I think the lid idea is flawed in that after you build it, there are still huge sections of the depressed lanes exposed. We could spend millions on the lid, and still feel like we have a band-aid solution.
The only real solution to fix our connection to the river and the Arch is to close 70 past the Arch groudns and fill it in. Did Sortino mention that option? Was the president of the DRA in attendance at the meeting?
Or has he been put on the persona non-grata list for suggesting closing 70 through the depressed lanes and rerouting it to Illinois over via the new Mississippi River bridge?
^ This idea deserves a lot more discussion. Other cities have removed their riverfront interstates, and the new Mississippi River Bridge makes this a viable option. Not only filling the depressed section but removing the elevated section north of the Arch grounds that cuts Lacledes Landing and the future Lumiere Place off from the rest of the city.
Also, I have mentioned before that it is ironic that the former National Parks supervisor of the Arch Grounds, left to be the supervisor of the National Mall. The mall is constantly active with vendors and organized activities. I even saw a softball league playing just a long foul ball from the Vietnam Memorial, yet the NPS will not allow vendors, athletic leagues or any other activity generating events onto the Arch grounds other than Fair St. Louis or RiverSplash. Allowing this type of activity is simple and relatively cost free first step to integrate the Arch grounds into the city life.
What exactly did he say was wrong with the park itself besides access? Has anybody presented the idea of a pedestrian bridge or two instead of an expensive “Lid”?
In the 1960s Mayor Cervantes, wanting to improve the downtown and Arch grounds, brought in the Spanish pavilion and the replica of the Santa Maria. Both failed, one sunk and the other became part of a hotel.
Whether elected or appointed, local leadership has a strong desire to control what is not theirs. Too often this is displayed in the incredible level and abuse of eminent domain or how our scarce resources are spent. Whether on Manchester Rd in the City, Maplewood, Sunset Hills, Richmond Heights, or Clayton, leadership likes to take control of property through force and coercion to prove that they have grand visions that supposedly will make our cities better. The results? WalMarts, strip malls, parking lots, empty buildings, and more highways.
Yes our river front needs to be improved, but more importantly, so do our neighborhoods and our transportation system. Our city-region needs to be made more livable and people friendly, but leadership fails to address these issues in hope that a campus or park may be named after them.
I’m all for the removal of or the moving of highways that interfere with the livability factor like 70 downtown, 44/55 between Lafayette Sq and Soulards, etc. Unfortunately there is not much hope for this type of change as proven by the expansion and poor design of the New I64. The silent tyranny of the auto-dependent is all around us. Our future will be more govern by these impediments than ever before, including the river front.
Hey John,
Instead of complaining about how hopeless everything is, why not become an active participant *on this issue*?
And for those seeking some form of action to stem from the Urban Review blog, why not make the rerouting of I-70 away from our riverfront and Arch grounds the cause celebre for our Urban Review/blog-driven activism?
Who knows? Maybe we’ll learn that the establishment’s greatest fear is a blog-driven, well-organized, pressure group. We haven’t seen that yet. Maybe this is the issue to bring everyone together?
It certainly is well focused enough, timely, and in the middle of an active planning/decision making process.
And looking at this more politically, perhaps our local leaders feel less intimidated by blogs, but perhaps the NPS is a bit more skiddish of being the target of well organized public criticism?
Those folks in the green mountie hats are supposed to be the good guys, right?
The problem isn’t the riverfront itself – or the arch grounds – but rather, everything else that is around it. Chicago has a beautiful downtown park, but that’s a much more feasible thing when it looks out onto beautiful Lake Michigan, and back onto what is perhaps the coolest downtown in the midwest. In fact, Chicago is in a way worse off than we are – Lakeshore Drive cuts off downtown Chicago from the lake and the park, and what’s worse is, you have to cross Lakeshore at grade. At least we have overpasses with sidewalks to cross 70.
Our riverfront looks out onto East St. Louis, and back onto … well, think about what lines Memorial Drive heading north from 40: The Pet Building, the Millenium Hotel, the back side of that weird looking building at 4th and Walnut, the KMOX building, the vacant plaza between the Old Courthouse and Memorial Drive, the Adam’s Mark … have I made my point? Sorry, but I just don’t think a $450 million lid … or a multi-billion dollar rerouting of I-70, for that matter, is going to miraculously transform our riverfront into Grant/Millenium Park.
Nick, I think thats really the whole point. The streetscape along Memorial Drive aka 3rd street is bad because the highway is there, and its not going to get better unless something changes. All the buildings you mention plus the Mansion House complex were built after the depressed interstate made Memorial drive just an outer road.
Also, I would question your assumption that rerouting the interstate would be a multi billion dollar prospect. After the new Mississippi bridge is built, the depressed section will not be a part of any numbered interstate, just a connector between I-55 and I-70. There would need to be a traffic study to determine how many people are using the highway now as a connector and how many are using I-70. If it everything looks good, remove it and replace it with signalled boulevard. How expensive would that be? I would guess its probably within 2 or 3 times the cost of the lid, but the impact would be just incredible. I would also guess that many of the buildings along Memorial will probably be candidates for demolition and/or redevelopment within twenty years. Then 3rd street could become pretty cool.
Don’t worry, Nick. The idea of removing the depressed lanes is too”big” of an idea to ever happen in St. Louis. Isn’t it ironic? Here we have the friggin’ Arch, one of the “biggest ideas” in the history of mankind, sitting right next to the nightmarish, 1950s-engineered, Highway 70 depressed lanes.
(Begin dream sequence) A 19th century connestoga wagon symbolically passes through St. Louis, travelling right between the legs of a superimposed, timeless image of the Arch. The wagon begins its descent down the Arch grounds toward Memorial Drive and the Old Court House. Then, all of a sudden, the wagon plummets down into the chasm of the depressed lanes and is smashed to pieces under the wheels of a 40-ton semi doing 65 miles per hour through downtown STL. (End dream seqence. Wake up from bad dream. Welcome to real world St. Louis….)
Matt B. and neighbor are on the right track about the rerouting of 70 out of downtown with a new cross mississippi 70 bridge. Of course that cost lots of money not to mention the fear of too many bridges to maintain and a repeat of Minneapolis. St. Charles County to St. Louis has 4 major ones now and MO to IL already has 3 in downtown. Speaking IL, our riverfront stares over at East St. Louis. This begs the question, what does our partner to the east bring to the table to put St. Louis in the national spot light? I guess they’ve got the Queen and the Sauget ballet… and of course Oz/Pops.
Quick story, in reference to the buildings just south of the arch grounds and PSB bridge and east of Broadway/7th, a friend of mine referred to it as “the part of town I’d be killed and left in my trunk for days.” An exaggeration but still kind of clever/funny but very close to the arch. What do you expect though when you hinge the heart of your downtown on stainless steel sided Buck Rodger’s era looking modern art sculpture as if it were one of the next logical steps in colonizing the moon before the Soviets did?
May be the city should run with fisherman thing and push the riverfront as the “urban” fishing experience. I’d love to the see the brochures for that.
dude,
I usually enjoy reading your posts, but you’re losing me with all those subtle references. Are you talking about Buck Rodgers inspiring Arch? What stainless steel sided, sputnik vintage design are you referring to? And the whole urban fising thing? Dude!
neighbor,
were you suggesting in an earlier post that someone in the Danforth Report Writing Foundation is suggesting the rerouting of I-70? I have the “report to the Mayor” in front of me and i cant find any reference to that. As far as i can tell, the idea has gotten no traction. About a month ago, I commented on a P-D discussion forum about the “lid” and out of like 100 raving comments I was the only person who brought the rerouting idea up. Also, you mentioned the DRA, whats that, and if you dont mind would you elaborate about who is for what, etc?
The arch has a sci-fi look to it. A lot of things built in the 50’s&60’s have a sci-fi look to them, say like the Guggenheim in NY. I’m not an admirer of that look though my artistic tastes may be lacking. That was the height of the cold war and race for the moon and all. Star trek may have been the better sci-fi reference.
I think every time I’ve road biked along the riverfront… I’m pretty sure there are always at least a half dozen men fishing in the Mississippi river. Usually closer to the Eads bridge. It isn’t your intuitive fishing expedition destination, at least not in the Busch beer commericials. Then again I don’t fish but do drink Busch beer.
Hi Ben,
I haven’t seen the Danforth report. About two weeks ago, the Post ran three op-ed pieces about the future of the Arch and the riverfront. One was by a top local architect, Andy Trivers. He suggested building a new promenade between the Arch and the riverfront, above flood level. Cars could drive on it, and there would be commercial uses. It would run from the Poplar Street Bridge to the Eads Bridge. A second letter came from the design firm who came up with the floating island concept. The writer compared the plan to a waterfront redo in Spain. The third letter came from the president of the Downtown Residents Association (DRA). He advocated big thinking, like Saarinen and Eads, and advocated for filling in the depressed lanes, and re-routing I-70 somewhere north of Laclede’s Landing. Who knows if the “fill in the depressed lanes” idea has any truck at all with the Civic Progress, Great White Fathers, old-money crowd. It might not be all that popular with the people going from South County to the airport, either.
There is no multi-billion dollar re-routing needed. It is already part of the Mississippi River bridge plan. What is need is for someone to stand-up and say once this project is completed we don’t need the depressed (and elevated sections) of I-70. It is redundant of a connection between 40/64 and 70 that will be located about a mile and a half east in Illinois. Then round up a bunch of people with shovels and start filling it in.
I think this discussion will always go back to the same, relocation of I-70 brings back the street grid that is desperately needed to connect the Arch Grounds and Laclede Landing. Of course, this would take real dollars invested in infrastructre for which the politicians (Danforth included) are avoiding like the plague. Heck they are trying to get by cheap on a bridge.
Some big differences to me in comparing St. Louis and Chicago (after living in both and running along the Lake Michigan waterfront a few times) is that State Street doesn’t seperate any downtown neighborhoods (Laclede Landing as my thought), Chicago had infrastructure to work with from the Navy Pier to the old barge basin turned into an expanded marina on the lake side and most importantly Chicago realizes that something as simple as maintaining and expanding a waterfront bike path is a huge asset. St. Louis gots grandiose ideas of islands yet trailnet is struggling to develop the old power plant building as a trailhead and Choteau greenway remains as renderings.
One, check out http://www.8664.org – if this is real concern, we need an 8670.org here. Two, Ben H, Chicago has “cool” buildings looking over their “outer road” because they have a vista of Lake Michigan to look at, not a view of East St. Louis. Three, a huge challenge here is the fluctuation in river levels. It’s one thing to deal with occasional flooding and variations of ±10′. It’s a whole ‘nuther thing to have to deal with fluctuations in excess of 30′ or 40’ (like we have). Four, we have other focii that compete with the river – Forest Park being one big one. By accident or design, Chicago has invested on their lakefront, while we’ve invested more public capital away from the river. Five, the scale of the arch is diffcult to meld with more human-scale public spaces. Much like the Mall in D.C., our investments are aimed at making grand statements, not people places (although games and recreation can occur in any public open space). Six, perception is reality – do people feel safe on our riverfront, especially when it’s not mobbed for a special event? Seven, recreation has morphed, to a certain extent, and especially for adults, to favor individual activities in linear spaces – running, cycling, roller blading. While we’re making great progress in creating a regional trail system, we don’t have the infrastructure or use in place (yet) along our riverfront, especially compared to places like Chicago, Memphis, Cincinnati and Denver. This is a case where you need to trust in “build it and they will come”, but you also need to provide safe, attractive, well-maintained connections. Eight, and finally, a cap faces several hurdles beyond pure dollars. Realistically, before a cap could be installed, 70 would have to be widened – it’s a daily bottleneck now. It also needs to a constituency advocating for funding, likely from federal sources. The National Park Service has other priorities – this idea is in their bottom 2% of priorities, if it’s on the list at all. Plus, being the age that it is (approaching 50 years), it’s reached the threshold where it’s become an “historic” design and will be much harder to mess with since doing so would impact the “integrity” of its original design intent . . .
Gee, a majority of residents would claim that more auto-dependency is a positive thing! This story brings many issues to the forefront including parking strategy, pedestrian access, and most importantly, how our resources should be spent to create an infrastructure that serves everyone. There’s a great deal of difference between honesty and pessimism and progress can only begin with truth. The desire for tourist dollars often leads to bizarre and imprudent spending.
Chicago has a mayor/leaders/citizens that believe the streets belong to everyone, not just to trucks and cars. In the StL region, the tyranny of the silent majority is stronger than most here realize and the leadership is accommodating. Auto-dependency is so pervasive that ideas like Complete Streets, livable communities, the proper valuation of parking lots for tax purposes, toll roads, smaller highways, walkable communities, etc. are met with either ugly responses or complete silence. In addition, scarce resources here have been wasted (an unneeded and over-priced landing strip, the overly large Page extension, an overpriced MetroLink extension, etc.) which leads to additional problems.
Having lived on Chicago’s lakefront for many years, it is much more pedestrian-bike friendly than St. Louis as there are many tunnels/bridges/walkways that link the lakefront with the city and its people. Bike-pedestrian advocates in Chicago are effective (IL recently passed Complete Streets legislation) while MO continues to dodge the issues and local advocates are silent. Our climate is much more supportive of cycling-walking but we continue to fall behind. Chicagoans actively promote meeting the needs of everyone while StL leadership is concerned with a few acres around the Arch.
Continuing to subsidize destructive practices will lead to more of the same. State leadership is more concerned about feeding autos with crops than finding low cost and reliable solutions for the sprawl they purposely helped create.
Does anyone know if the op-ed piece written by the pres. of the DRA is the offiical position of the Downtown Residents Association, or just the author’s own views? It would be good if the DRA would come out officially in support of filling in the depressed lanes. Then some of us non-downtown residents would have neighbors we could support in this quest.
John,
There you go again: pontificating on an issue. Why not pick something manageable and significant – getting rid of the depressed lanes – and apply your talents to making it happen?
It’s easy to say how bad sprawl is, how the state leg sucks, how the silent majority supports highways and sprawl…yadayadayada.
Let’s do something. Let’s change the perception of downtown. Let’s “take the braces off the Arch” and see her smile. Let’s get rid of the depressed lanes!
It is clear that the arch grounds was the very heart of old St. Louis and today it is like a medieval fortification with entry to the grounds difficult at best.
At the blog St. Louis Rising a few weeks ago I suggested that the city grid reenter the arch grounds. The Old Cathedral then becomes part of a city street again.
A grid could take many forms. one city block on the Cathedral side (about 400 feet)and perhaps only a street running to Wharf Street to make a final connection to the river would be a minimum proposal.
But the idea of a grid is wide open. Savannah Georgia has a grid with city parks and squares every few blocks. Perhaps there should be a grid that surrounds the Arch creating a public square. The opportunities for a grid are infinite.
It is also interesting to point out that the grid will accommodate any of the other solutions offered. This points out the failure to address the real problem of the integration of the arch and the arch grounds with the city.
Nor will the grid require unusual funding such as the proposal to move Highway 70. So in theory at least, the reintroduction of some type of grid is financially in the realm of possibility and not some impossible, imaginary plan. (Developers add streets and infrastructure to build buildings all the time.)
JZ has pointed out that scale is a problem. Architect Steven Holl suggested the Arch should of risen from the old city neighborhood at a lecture at Washington U. in the eighties. This would of dissolved the scale problem. Nevertheless a huge park has not solved the scale problem either.
Ultimately the Danforth Foundation has failed in carrying this issue forward. It claims to have public input, but it must have been top secret. All of this points once again to the lack of a underlying city planning process that engages citizens and considers all issues of design and planning. The current park is a planning and design nightmare for St. Louis.
And while I agree with various commentaries that St. Louis has other problems, unless the current planning process becomes transparent, the results will be the same. It will be a fragmented city that occurs in every ward, no matter what project is proposed. The problem of the Arch and its integration with the city is merely a symptom of a larger disease that exists in city government and it’s corporate handlers.
Yes there is a large disease and it is apparent in the electorate GM as many of these comments illustrate. Thus we get the type of leadership we deserve. The sources of these problems are not new, and matter of fact are alive and active. Here’s a few hints…
MoDOT: One of the keys in understanding how these conditions that Danforth complains about, starts and spreads begins with monitoring the role and policies of MoDOT, particularly the Bike-Pedestrian program. The program has been described as being “in disarray” by the head of the MO Bike Federation. The first appointed head of this important program is no longer an employee of MoDOT and her input for years has been marginalized. Numerous projects headed by our state’s transportation dept. are being developed in ways that are not only unfriendly but are outright hostile to cyclists and pedestrians. The Arch Grounds are not exempt from these policies and should have been addressed years ago. The Arch and the surrounding area were designed in the 60s and that attitude that created this mess is still prevalent here.
The New I64: Our alternative streets and highways are being re-stripped, lanes narrowed, and being made more dangerous. Homes/neighborhoods are being destroyed and pedestrians pathways are being permanently eliminated. The speed limit will be raised, bridges too, so that larger and more trucks can use this main artery. Some sidewalks will be improved but this grand opportunity to do it “right” is being wasted. The community and state are now short on funds and prefer to do the project “on the cheap”. A greatly needed bike route or path extending east-west is not part of the plans.
Multi-headed monster: The local media, particularly the PD, is doing its best to put a positive spin on these unfriendly policies (ex. the Tamm Ave bridge is the least important part of this project but has been designed/developed as a marketing tool). In addition, we now have a generation of auto drivers who were never active walkers or cyclists. These DRIVERS cannot relate to sharing the road with others and are unsympathetic to their rights. When I have questioned LEADERSHIP on these problems, the people involved with these decisions (MoDOT, EWGC, Metro, mayors, city managers, etc.) make clear that they have little interest in changing the status quo of what is popular here (ie. auto-dependency, free parking, etc.). When the MetroLink extension was being presented to the public, a bike path was included in the plans, but never built. Great Rivers Greenway and other ADVOCATES remained silent as this grand opportunity was lost. No doubt that the funds were needed for an alternative plan like this one as the DF report makes clear. Look at what leaders do, not what they say.
Bottom line: StL leadership, demographics, economic resources, and priorities will lead to more auto-dependency, not less, no matter what a group of “blog-activists” may type or hope for. Fundamental change is needed but it shouldn’t start at the Arch.
Hopefully someday Steve will discuss these issues (in addition to parking) and name the people involved concerning our transportation system and its impact on infrastructure. Few issues are more important in making our area friendlier for residents and an attractive place to live.
i REALLY like the PET building. it’s a great (and actually attractive) example of brutalism – we should be proud to have it. personally, i’m happy to look at it. i don’t think the millenium is unattractive either. sorry for the tangent.
Cincinnati’s plans for their riverfront: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/NEWS01/711071072/1008/NEWS01
Ooops, reality hits home: “there is nothing on the Arch grounds to hold people for any length of time, and nothing that compels them to return again and again.”
“While we understand that the NPS may be interested in better connections to downtown and better amenities on the Arch grounds, it is clear that the goals of the NPS fall far short of the transformative change hoped for by the Foundation. Accordingly, we are now directing our attention to other interests”.
To the PD editor from John Danforth (4-30-09). What’s the latest on BPV?
If transform means to change, isn’t “transformative change” a redundant expression? Regardless, why does the Arch need to change? What’s wrong with it the way it is?
Most people think it’s one of the coolest things in town. What does Danforth see that no one else does? Does he have better vision than the rest of us?