2 replies to this topic

[Spartan]

I found this article on Planetizen, and I thought it was interesting.

At first I was appalled at the idea of changing a National Monument. but as I read the article, things started to make more sense. If St Louis is really making progress downtown (which I assume it is) then perhaps altering the grounds around the Arch to allow for some development and more community space like Chicago's Millenium Park makes some sense. But then, should the park change from Roosevelts original design?

Then you have to think about the interstate if you start thinking about the park...

Just something to ponder....


Link

[tamias6]

You made the comparison to Millennium Park in Chicago and how that city did some redevelopment to it. But, those developments where done with a civic purpose in mind which is well within the Park's intent. Maybe I would support civic minded developments for the Arch grounds, such as a museum, amphitheater , etc. But if St. Louis wants the Arch land back to allow developers to built loft units or something like that, then I would be whole heartedly against St. Louis taking back of the Arch grounds.

[Southron]

I'd like to see the city reclaim some of that land and bring back the street grid to improve the connection between downtown and the waterfront.  The core area around the monument should remain as is, but I think the park area, much of which is a dead zone in a prime urban location, should be reduced and converted to civic uses (amphitheater, playgrounds etc.) and the rest restored and redeveloped as part of the street grid.