^ Perhaps, but heart implies both vitality and more importantly, that the district played a central role in St. Louis' manufacturing industry. If you cut out the heart, the being dies. The Arch project did cut out the historic riverfront area, but the St. Louis manufacturing industry hardly died as a result (it would die shortly thereafter, though we all know that was related to larger international economic and demographic trends).
We both know that by the turn of the 20th Century, if any area was to be described as the "core" of the manufacturing industry in St. Louis, it was likely to be the areas north and south of downtown along the river, or perhaps some areas along the railroad lines in the central corridor.
And to be factually correct, it should be noted that the arch grounds were cleared in the early 1930's, when the idea of a monument was only a concept in peoples imaginations. Manufacturing was much more focused to the north and south of downtown.
The article quoted by MDTH reminds me that opinions are like arseholes; everyone has them. Like anything else, there are bits of truth in it. I just don't lend it a lot of credence.
While I agree with your post, innov8ion, I do wonder what of what I quoted is not true, exactly, or is not an opinion for which a very strong case could be made?
The very fact that this thread (and me included) is even somewhat excited about a) something being constructed on a surface lot in downtown and b) a parking garage that has street level retail and other decorative features is quite telling.
Their biases overshadow the reality of St. Louis' development over time. Are they aware that markets, neighborhoods, and the fabric of a city change over time and do not occur in a vacuum? They paint large brushstrokes and the Arch / manufacturing point is but one example. Stadiums, blocks of surface lots, and little-used green spaces wipe away building diversity necessary for urbanism to occur? Uh, ok. Stadiums can be part of a thriving community. Surface lots are there because of past divestment and serve as opportunities in the future. The Gateway Mall can be made more viable with better urban planning and an influx of residents. Also, St. Louis has excellent building stock so I'm not sure what the authors have been smoking.
Does St. Louis have challenges? Sure, but the majority of the points the authors raise are a result of divestment and can be counteracted via reinvestment and sound planning. Unfortunately, these authors are a bit self-absorbed and out-of-touch.
Well, I think the valid point in there is that once so much disinvestment has happened, and if that disinvestment entails losing so much of a particular urban fabric, you've got a mountain to climb rather than a hill. When you consider that St. Louis's economy is a slow-growth one and that our planning is slow and often lacks vision, our problems are compounded.
Don't get me wrong. I am amazed at how St. Louis's downtown (as well as others across the country) have rebounded from their darker days. But as much credit as we give it, it really still is a relatively dead place. I think we as proud St. Louisans are almost akin to mothers with their children: we only see the good, the improvement, without recognizing the truth that there's a tremendous amount of work ahead for downtown before it becomes a vital urban neighborhood.
You'll notice the makings of a neighborhood are present on Washington Avenue, the one sustained street in downtown with active retail/residential/office/entertainment uses throughout the entire stretch. But in the rest of downtown, there's roadblock after roadblock. These are the places that don't end up on the photo section of this forum, or on skyscraperpage, and for good reason. They're textbook examples of how to discourage streetlife in an urban area.
I should note again that this is not unique to St. Louis. Every downtown has these areas--1960s-90s corporate campuses designed for suburban commuters only. It's just that few downtowns are so isolated from residential neighborhoods or other districts that make themselves islands unto themselves. New Orleans's downtown, for example, is pretty dead off hours. Save for the Harrah's, which straddles the border between the French Quarter and the Central Business District (CBD), the CBD itself is kind of bland, has bad streetscapes, and doesn't offer a lot of mixed use opportunities. Even so, it's sandwiched between the French Quarter and the Warehouse District, and there's definitely a bit of a spillover and a feeling that the CBD is connected to both (very active) districts.
Anyhow, suffice it to say that I have my worries about downtown. The transformation that has already played out is amazing, but can we build off of that by correcting the mistakes of the past? Something tells me that the U.S. Bank building (whose turnaround plaza "required" the demolition of the Ambassador Building) will never reformat its street level and offer retail. Chestnut Street's deadening parking garages will remain intact, probably for many decades. The Gateway Mall will have nothing surrounding it that offers it a chance of being a successful urban greenspace, nor will it be built upon. The 22nd Street interchange will likely stay a dead end rather than a development that restitches the downtown fabric that has been long severed.
I know. I know. I know. Relax, right? I'm being overly pessimistic. You may be right. There's just a noxious mixture of elements stifling St. Louis's potential right now--old guard leadership complete with 1960s planning ideals mixed with further exurbanization of the St. Louis metro mixed with dangerous complacency among current residents mixed with lack of human capital flowing into the region and especially the city, perhaps all causing or exacerbating a weak economy.
I wonder when we will see leadership that does not just tell us "we'll be a great city again," but one that shows us that we can be and how we can be.
old guard leadership complete with 1960s planning ideals mixed with further exurbanization of the St. Louis metro mixed with dangerous complacency among current residents
I agree. Look no farther than the new Bread Company on Broadway/7th Street next to Soulard. UNBELIEVABLE! The broker for this property touts that it has the "look and feel of a suburban property" as if that's a bonus! Who let this one through? Who's the Alderman here? Thanks for a little taste of Ballwin in Soulard....
Not a bad looking garage, but why won't they just build a modest amount of office space (25-75,000 square feet) on top of these garages? Seems like they could maximize the use of the land a little more.
jlblues wrote:
Perfect, thanks! I think I've seen that second one, but I don't remember where it is...
Again, I'm no landscape architect, but English Ivy grows incredible fast, grows anywhere, is evergreen, and doesn't damage surfaces as far as I know...
First one looks good. Second one is horrible. Looks like an unkempt jungle.
The jungle look is precisely what makes it cool, quirky and endearing.
The jungle look, I think works better with palm trees. We don't exactly have that.
Arch City wrote:Not a bad looking garage, but why won't they just build a modest amount of office space (25-75,000 square feet) on top of these garages? Seems like they could maximize the use of the land a little more.
old guard leadership complete with 1960s planning ideals mixed with further exurbanization of the St. Louis metro mixed with dangerous complacency among current residents
I agree. Look no farther than the new Bread Company on Broadway/7th Street next to Soulard. UNBELIEVABLE! The broker for this property touts that it has the "look and feel of a suburban property" as if that's a bonus! Who let this one through? Who's the Alderman here? Thanks for a little taste of Ballwin in Soulard....
^ That would be Phyllis Young. You should drop her a line and let her know what a good job she's doing. I did and got no response.
I believe the garage at Tucker will be a city owned property. Not sure if the city can go into the office real estate market. Nor would I favor such a move upon the City's part. However, I agree whole heartedly that it would great if any new parking garages should incorporate some speculative Class A office space. Anything to convince businesses to move employees would help.
[quotet sure if the city can go into the office real estate market.[/quote]
why not? the city owns the office building just to the east of the new garage. the reason there won't be new office space above is that there isn't demand for new space downtown at this point.
Looks from Live Maps that there's parking on top of the Powerhouse building. I'm guessing that architecture firm renovating it will be parking there. Google Maps shows cars parked there already.
At least this garage is planning on having something besides just parking in the garage (the retail thing). Still, parking seems plentiful in St. Louis. Is that a good or a bad thing (maybe both)?
stlouis270 wrote:Pic from my car with my Tmobile G1 Google Phone not bad looking for a phone
It wouldn't be bad looking if it were a phone. Unfortunately, it's the urban fabric of the city, and it's thus far yet another butt-ugly parking garage.
^ we need parking downtown since we cant support public transit in this state. At least it has ground retail and apparently the garage will have LED lighting that makes it glow I think.
