RSS Feed
- Phriday Photos
- Untitled
- Local Control of the Arch
- Saying Goodbye
- Not Another One
- I Miss The 90s
- Super Depressing
- Argh
- Why Can't We Do It
- A Mess
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- October 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
Mayor Slay's current blog entry addresses what he calls misunderstandings about the proposal to develop portions of the Arch grounds. His most significant statement, in my opinion, was this:
My thoughts:
This is great, because the city most likely can't afford to maintain the grounds properly.
Isn't there a Zoo/Museum tax that City & STL county residents "give" to in order to maintain our zoo and museums? I'm still trying to figure out how we're going to pay for this local control of the Arch grounds. Also, who will define "the region"? I'm sure more than just City and County residents use the zoo and museums, but City & County residents are the only ones paying the tax for those amenities. If a new tax is implemented, who will be paying it?
I disagree. I walked the grounds yesterday while taking some photos and was taken aback by what a loss this green space would be. We need less green space downtown and have too much of it for sure (perfect example, the new "urban plaza" being built across from the Old Post Office) but I believe the Arch grounds lie in perfect context with what it surrounds.
DING! I think this whole debate boils down to CONNECTIONS. Connecting the Arch to downtown, and as Bev commented previously, to Lacledes Landing and Chouteau's Landing on 4th street (if that happens) is super important. There are plenty of places to eat, drink and have fun just a block or 2 away from the Arch, it's just hard to get to!
If we deal with and reconfigure/beautify the whole Memorial Drive/Hwy 70 mess, provide more & better connections from downtown to the Arch grounds (I'm thinking around Wash Ave.), install some good wayfinding and find the money and will to all that, I think we could connect the Arch to downtown and direct all those tourists off the grounds and into downtown quite easily.
I do think developing the Arch grounds is an intriguing idea, it holds potential, but I also think it's an unnecessary one. I feel this plan puts the cart before the horse. There are plenty of neighbors that surround the Arch that could benefit from better connectivity to our steel landmark...why keep everyone on those 90 acres with some faux entertainment area? Let's get those tourists off the Arch grounds and show them what our City is made of.
"The City of St. Louis does not want to run the Arch, nor own the Arch grounds. However, the current configuration and use of the Arch grounds is a significant barrier to the revitalization of the riverfront and its reconnection to the rest of downtown. If the people of the region support it and Congress allows it, the region would set up an entity-- maybe something like the Zoo/Museum District-- to use some portion of the grounds to accomplish those things in a way that also enhances the experience of visiting the Arch."
My thoughts:
"The City of St. Louis does not want to run the Arch, nor own the Arch grounds."
This is great, because the city most likely can't afford to maintain the grounds properly.
"...the region would set up an entity-- maybe something like the Zoo/Museum District"
Isn't there a Zoo/Museum tax that City & STL county residents "give" to in order to maintain our zoo and museums? I'm still trying to figure out how we're going to pay for this local control of the Arch grounds. Also, who will define "the region"? I'm sure more than just City and County residents use the zoo and museums, but City & County residents are the only ones paying the tax for those amenities. If a new tax is implemented, who will be paying it?
"...the current configuration and use of the Arch grounds is a significant barrier to the revitalization of the riverfront"
I disagree. I walked the grounds yesterday while taking some photos and was taken aback by what a loss this green space would be. We need less green space downtown and have too much of it for sure (perfect example, the new "urban plaza" being built across from the Old Post Office) but I believe the Arch grounds lie in perfect context with what it surrounds.
"...its reconnection to the rest of downtown."
DING! I think this whole debate boils down to CONNECTIONS. Connecting the Arch to downtown, and as Bev commented previously, to Lacledes Landing and Chouteau's Landing on 4th street (if that happens) is super important. There are plenty of places to eat, drink and have fun just a block or 2 away from the Arch, it's just hard to get to!
If we deal with and reconfigure/beautify the whole Memorial Drive/Hwy 70 mess, provide more & better connections from downtown to the Arch grounds (I'm thinking around Wash Ave.), install some good wayfinding and find the money and will to all that, I think we could connect the Arch to downtown and direct all those tourists off the grounds and into downtown quite easily.
I do think developing the Arch grounds is an intriguing idea, it holds potential, but I also think it's an unnecessary one. I feel this plan puts the cart before the horse. There are plenty of neighbors that surround the Arch that could benefit from better connectivity to our steel landmark...why keep everyone on those 90 acres with some faux entertainment area? Let's get those tourists off the Arch grounds and show them what our City is made of.
0 comments:
