Unbuilt St. Louis

A catch-all forum for urban discussion. If it doesn't fit elsewhere, post here.
First unread post193 posts
rbb wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 12:33 pm
Add a lake with a stable shore and you could have lunch on a pier over the water, etc. That's another reason you don't see residential or offices right up against the water (the stillborn NFL stadium would have been the first, so it is possible).

All of these things would be much more practical to do on a lake. And presumably they won't turn the thing into an open sewer this time.

All that said, while I love the idea I'm not holding my breath that we'll see a recreation of Chouteau's pond any time soon.

-RBB
Very good point. This could be much more like Forest Park's Boathouse experience or OKC's or Indy's canals.
Sidebar, just got back from Copenhagen and Helsinki, both cities had large lakes that attracted walkers, runners quite well. Not an unrealistic proposal at all. I will reiterate: this was once a natural lake that was drained by 19th Century "engineers" because humans believed that nature was inferior and needed to be "improved."
aprice wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 1:56 pm
I will reiterate: this was once a natural lake that was drained by 19th Century "engineers" because humans believed that nature was inferior and needed to be "improved."
Not quite right,actually. Chouteau's Pond was formed by damming Mill Creek. Natural in the sense that there was a flowing creek that provided the water source, but it wasn't a lake until humans intervened. By the time it was drained it was a cesspool and one of the sources of the Cholera Epidemics that rolled over the City more than once. Still more natural at its creation than a recreation would be, but I'd be fine with a man-made and man-filled lake there now.
mjbais1489 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 1:55 pm
stlokc wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 8:15 am
I never understood the Chouteau's Lake proposal. Why in the world would we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build an artificial lake six blocks away from one of the greatest, most historic natural waterways in the country? St. Louis needs to find ways to engage with our existing riverfront rather than creating something new.
Well you cant really use the Mississippi for anything fun honestly. Too big, too powerful, too fast. Every time I go home to Milwaukee, I am incredibly jealous of the Milwaukee river. Small, slow river they spent a lot of money to clean up that cuts through what would basically be like tucker Ave in STL. Now people take boats on it every night, kayak, canoe, have a riverwalk, tons of restaurants in several neighborhoods looking over the water. Pricey condos looking over the river. I know people who Kayak to work!

You can't have any of that with the Mississippi.
But you could with the RdP, if it were filled.
General overlay:

Image

View south from 8th and Clark, circa 1850:

Image
framer wrote:General overlay:

Image
[/img]
"Stop looking at me SWAN"
framer wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 2:32 pm
General overlay:

Image

View south from 8th and Clark, circa 1850:

Image
Wow is that actually what River Des Peres looked like? What a massive mistake to put that underground.
mjbais1489 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 3:13 pm


Wow is that actually what River Des Peres looked like? What a massive mistake to put that underground.
The furtherest East River Des Peres runs in Kingshighway. I'm assuming this was the damming on Mill Creek to form the original pond.

Which, btw, I never said that this pond is natural, I said that this was naturally a wetland, which is true.
Guys it's Choteau's Pond


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Original plans for the new Shriner's Hospital in The City. Unfortunately, the recession caused them to re-think and downsize their plans.

Image

Image

Image
moorlander wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:36 pm
Brown Shoe Campus Expansion


Image

Image

A couple more images:

Image

Image
Laclede's Landing ferris wheel:

Image
framer wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 11:28 pm
Laclede's Landing ferris wheel:

Image
There's still a TIF ordinance on the books for this one (never activated). They theoretically could resurrect it at some point, though thankfully I don't think that will happen. The obsession with "observation wheels" by developers in this City is fascinating.
Here's one of several facade designs that had been considered for The Standard at Forest Park Pkwy. and Vandeventer. Even though the hip roofs are rather ridiculous, I think most of us would agree that this would have been much better than what they actually built.

Image
So you know Lambert has two terminals. Did you know that there was at one point plans for a third?

This is totally stolen from here, for the record. In it, he shows that the W1W airport expansion built not because of a projected increase in flights, but because of the "crippling effect of bad weather on Lambert operations".

However, they did believe passenger volume was likely to increase. They projected a high-growth scenario, a low-growth scenario (wherein Lambert is de-hubbed, but some other airline eventually steps in to replace some or all of the volume) and a middle ground with some growth. They ultimately based expansion plans off of the middle projection. It explains:
Before the expansion project began, Lambert had 89 aircraft gate positions and about 1.5 million square feet of terminal space. The projected future need (in 2015 with the middle forecast) was about 110 total gates. In order to accommodate these new gates, one option was to relocate the Missouri Air National Guard from its location just west of the main terminal to a site on the east side of the airfield, and to build another concourse to the west of the main terminal.

Another option considered was to build a new midfield terminal. This option allowed for more gates (more than the projected need) and thus allowed for easier future expansion. The satellite terminal would have been located between the new runway and runway 12R-30L, as shown below.
Image
This new midfield terminal would have accommodated an additional 150 gates.
Interestingly, as of the penning of this this report in 2007, the plan hadn't actually been completely discarded, only delayed until volume again justifies considering it:
However, although the option still exists to develop this site, no construction has started on this terminal. Since the demand levels are so far below what was forecasted in 1994, there is no need or justification for the new terminal building. Thus, the terminal expansion plans have been delayed until the passenger demand levels actually require a new terminal building.
Perhaps some day in the (distant) future it will be considered again? One can dream...

-RBB
I do indeed remember some of that. One of the (several) terminal concepts was floated as a replacement for the main terminal. I was . . . absolutely mortified at the idea the terminal might be demolished. (It's been one of my favorite buildings from my earliest childhood memories.) But, many is it nice seeing it in print again so I know I'm not crazy. Thank you. Bring back some memories. Will have to give the whole paper a read. It looks quite intriguing.
Holy crap, they stole my idea! Jokes aside, I did think that it made sense at some point, particularly if traffic increased to build a new Southwest terminal by 11/29 and essentially give Southwest an exclusive runway/terminal setup on that end of the airport and rework the exiting terminals for other carriers. Never knew that they actually considered building a midfield terminal with the runway. Shame we'll likely never see it.
I bet most of you youngsters have never even heard of the Meramec Dam proposal.

Back in the 1970s, the Corp of Engineers had actually started construction of a 180' high dam at Sullivan, which would have created a 23,000 acre lake less than an hour away from St. Louis. It would have prevented the kind of flooding that effected the Meramec in the St. Louis area recently. It would have also destroyed the Meramec's free-flowing river system and flooded thousands of acres of beautiful land (including such areas as Meramec State Park and Onondoga Cave).

In 1978, voters in a non-binding referendum rejected the plan by a 2 to 1 margin. The dam was officially de-authorized in 1981.

Image

https://www.rollanet.org/~conorw/cwome/ ... mbined.htm

https://sierraclub.org/missouri/eastern ... 1_25_years
Second place entry in the Jefferson National Memorial competition:

Image

Interest article with several more entries from St. Louis Public Radio:

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ins ... d#stream/0

Who is online

In total there are 16 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 16 guests (based on users active over the past 30 minutes)
Most users ever online was 969 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:56 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests