If I-64 could be moved south in the construction (bonus points for covering it), what if we could put one or two streets parallel to 64 in its place opening it up for some dense new construction? This would serve to separate the highway from the park and give us more density around the park (a huge improvement from a highway bordering such a great urban park). It could have the feel of Bleeker St. in Greenwich Village (narrow street surrounded by dense buildings).

I would be fine with simpley covering I-64 along forest park with greenery ecssentially extending the park south

Umm, Umm the mansions on Lindell are a treasure and what will we do with their pieces if leveled for high end highrises?

I really am glad to see Mayor Slay's highrise poll and the support behind the new highrise developments on the poll results.

It looks like STL is on a highrise boom schedule.



You have to give props to STL for our wonderful architecture and highrises along Forest Park already... most cities cannot boast having such a huge urban oasis and the type of development around it as we do in St. Louis. The park and environs (as well as its surroundings) is quite remarkable and very cosmopolitan. Reminds me of NYC's Central Park a lot.



Pics courtest of KCPhotos

I agree that the Kingshighway at Lindell lot is not the best place for a focal building. That should happen downtown, IMO.



More density around Forest Park with a mix of shorter, medium-height, and fairly tall buildings in a wide range of say, 6-30 stories, might be really nice though. I think it would help to define the park more. I'd enjoy seeing that kind of mix from street-level and think it would make a positive impression from the air too.

I think its dangerous to compare central park and forest park... not only the density, massive population and what not... but the parks serve different puropses. My take on forest park is that is almost fully destination oriented... zoo, museums, golf.... there isn't THAT much room just do hang out in the park... like in central park. It would be awesome to have a forest park type thing, but my opinon (as a non golfer) is that the golf-coarse takes up a termentdious amount of space that could be landscaped and made into more prestine true "park" area.... maybe make it a 9 hole par 3 coarse...

It would be awesome to have a forest park type thing, but my opinon (as a non golfer) is that the golf-coarse takes up a termentdious amount of space that could be landscaped and made into more prestine true "park" area.... maybe make it a 9 hole par 3 coarse...

Yes indeed my friend, yes indeed.

I think its dangerous to compare central park and forest park

NOT comparing my friend... simply honoring the fact that St. Louis has this wonderful oasis in central city.

^100% in agreement.

Where would the money come to do the landscaping and maintenance? I would assume that the golf fees are one of the primary money makers for the park.

Until I know how much $$ comes from each golf course I can't really have an answer.

This would work in a dense area with lots of people, say NYC, but not St. Louis. We would end up with a lot of unused space.

I do accept this to some extent. Your comment is why I think it's a rediculous idea to cover 40 along the park - there just isn't demand for the space. However, I do think there could be a higher use for at least 9 or the 27 golf holes.

We need to leave the golf course as it is. It's a great resource. There is plenty of room in the park for non-golfers to use.

When a person says:

Reminds me of NYC's Central Park a lot

its hard to not think they are at least thinking of a comparison... Also the size of the two is always quoted "larger than NYCs central park".... and when you talk about wanting dense high-rises...



IMO one of the draws of living near central park (other than the address and the prestige that it brings to live there – as noted from the rich people who I met that live right near the park) is the fact that there is that kind of park there... Forest Park isn't the same type of park (general activities as opposed to destination based attractions).... my conjecture: you could have 1,000,000 people within a few miles (like under 5-10 miles) of the park and the usage would NOT go up by the same proportion because our park has destinations(true it would go up – but the zoo can only handle so many people etc)... if you are in STL and want to see a zoo - you go there... doesn't matter if you live in St Peters or in a high-rise within walking distance... Central Park attracts people from all over - sure... but a large number of the people who use it either live close by or take mass transit a relatively short trip to the park... (maybe IRS guru or someone else who lived in NY longer than 3 months could confirm this for me – but I saw few people from Jersey or Westchester hanging out there)



My Point: any high-rise benefit (in my opinion) is NOT negated but it IS lessoned for one large reason – In NYC you have a world class urban park that you can use right outside your door.... The density being within walking distance means it is going to get used and there is a strong reason for people to be near that park (as opposed to the dozens of other parks on Manhattan alone)… forest park isn't that - if you like mediocre golf, zoos, or museums- you go to our park… and because they are all destination based – lessons the need of people to live right there…



Of coarse some people will most defiantly see it differently… that the destinations we have make it more likely that people who LOVE art or LOVE the zoo will live within walking distance… and if the zoo didn’t have (2) two massive parking lots Id agree…. The revamped art museum is going to have a huge number of parking spaces.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:We need to leave the golf course as it is. It's a great resource. There is plenty of room in the park for non-golfers to use.

I agree completely - it's the only golf course, public or private, in the city.

and because they are all destination based – lessons the need of people to live right there…

Are you saying that it's a destination park so people don't need to live close by or that people don't live close by so it's a destination park?

my conjecture: you could have 1,000,000 people within a few miles (like under 5-10 miles) of the park and the usage would NOT go up by the same proportion because our park has destinations

I think that this is somewhat incoherent. It seems to me that added density would change the demand for services/spaces in the park. Are you saying that the destinations in the park limit the parks usage?

I agree completely - it's the only golf course, public or private, in the city.

Did you come up with this in your mom's basement? This is akin to saying there aren't any golf courses in lower Manhattan (of course not really, but I'm just trying to make a point) 1. There are 27 holes in FP. I simply suggest cutting it to 18. 2. There are quite a number of golf courses in the "city". There are at least 3 inside of I-170 and 30 or more within 15 miles of FP.

Ihnen wrote:

I agree completely - it's the only golf course, public or private, in the city.

Did you come up with this in your mom's basement? This is akin to saying there aren't any golf courses in lower Manhattan (of course not really, but I'm just trying to make a point) 1. There are 27 holes in FP. I simply suggest cutting it to 18. 2. There are quite a number of golf courses in the "city". There are at least 3 inside of I-170 and 30 or more within 15 miles of FP.

Nope, I came up with it right here at my desk. Within the city limits, it's the only golf course. I like having a golf course in the city in which I live. It's popular, it's nice, it's a great amenity, it's fine the way it is.

just my opinion, but there is more than enough green space at the park for whatever I would do... The golf course is attractive and serves the needs for a nearby course... What the heck would we do with the space if we removed the course? open meadows? sounds to me like it would look like more vacant lots...



So how about Mcgowan/Walsh releasing something already?

We go to Central Park often, even though we live down in Chelsea/Flatiron. All of the concrete gets to us ocassionally, and we need open air, trees, and grass. Union Square is a block from our apartment, but it's much too urban to give us the feeling of escape.



Central Park is geared towards the pedestrian, especially on the weekends, when all but the Crosstown streets are closed; but even the Crosstown streets are recessed and are barely noticeable. We often go there simply to walk. We especially love the Ramble for it's deep forest feel. Forest Park is much more auto-oriented and destination-centric. Though, Central Park does have destinations, Central Park is our destination.



I enjoy Central Park for the communal experience I get while walking. I get that communal feeling just walking around the streets as it is. But, walking around the park, you get the feeling of relaxation and a feeling of less urgency. We often walk from the east side at Fifth Avenue and Central Park South up to lower eighties, then over to the West Side and back down to Central Park South. That's about 25 blocks up and 25 blocks down. It's a lovely, exhausting trek down the many meandering paths. You get a great vibe from the park and the people along the walk. You get mostly tourists in the lower part of the park near the Zoo, then mostly New Yorkers as you get above 70th. That transitions to just a handful of people as you enter the forested, bird-watching Ramble. As you head back down, the transition repeats in reverse.



Forest Park in St. Louis is lovely, but much less a necessary escape from the urban jungle. St. Louis is already so green, you can barely recognize that there is a park there from the air.



For the sheer sake of defining the boundary of the park, I think it would be lovely to add high-rises around the perimeter. The visual impact would be wonderful. But I wonder, does Forest park have the walking paths necessary to support an increase in peds, outside of the bike and jogging paths? I do not recall ever being able to wander around the park on paths.

DeBaliviere wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:We need to leave the golf course as it is. It's a great resource. There is plenty of room in the park for non-golfers to use.

I agree completely - it's the only golf course, public or private, in the city.

I hadn't even thought of that. All the more reason to keep it!

Zas-



I appreciate your comparison of the two parks.



I lived at 6th and 23rd, so that area is familiar to me. I probably spent more time going to Battery Park to stare at the water than going to Central Park, but I agree that Union and Madison Square Park are not much green space for the city.



Although I agree that it is a near necessity for NYC, I would argue that it is vital to keep FP here green, even though it is not as dense. In the long run, I think it will prove more and more useful.



I agree that it would be nice to make the park more pedestrian friendly in general. There are differences though. Central Park DOES have more destinations than the park itself, but it is that those destinations are on the boundary, so "tourists" going to these places do not cut through to get to them. In FP, the museums, zoo, etc are in the middle. I imagine if the Natural History and Art Museum were in the middle of Central Park, it would be enormously different.



As an aside, may I ask why you post in the StL forum and live in NYC? Are you from StL originally? Just wondered



Matthew

I don't understand what you guys are talking about. True that Forest Park has regional destinations within. But, as someone that lived on Forest Park for years, I can tell you that the neighbors use it. They use it a lot. For walks, bicycle rides, walking dogs, finding a quiet place to read in the summer, meeting friends, playing catch, idling on a park bench, people watching, and on and on. I used to walk through and around Forest Park all the time and always ran into friends and neighbors. There is a lot more to Forest Park than the attractions. Perhaps some people have only used it for its destinations, but the experience is different for people that live on the park.

I thought the argument was that FP attracts more people to its destinations (Art Museum, Zoo, Histrory Museum) than people walking through, biking, etc.



Central Park has more people walking, riding, etc than people going to a "destination" such as the Natural History Museum, Art Museum, etc.



That is how I understood the argument, but I do not agree. I still contend that if you consider the museums within the CP boundaries, more people go to a "destination" like the museums in CP than just walking/riding/etc.



I did not say that people do NOT use it as neighbors to walk/stroll/bike/roller blade/etc. I don't live across the street and I go to walk around the park, but I don't see many people out and about. I say many as compared to the quantities in the Zoo and Museums. So I would be fairly certain that more people (quantity) go there for the Zoo, Museums, etc. Do I think that is optimal? Not really, but it is the way things are right now.



EDIT: Expat, I think it is great that you use the park like that, but you must agree that the majority of people do not use it the same way.

Just to clarify, it wasn't my intention to get into a Forest Park vs. Central Park. My comments were strictly about my experience with Forest Park and had nothing to do with Central Park. Leave me out of the Forest Park vs. Central Park argument .



I just wanted to emphasize that Forest Park has plenty of neighborhood users. If the density of the surrounding neighborhoods and city increased, it would get even more. But, believe me, it is being used now.