I liked PWP.

I mean, it is national parks... and the goal is to create a park.

I had a similar reaction -- "It also seemed to me that the weakest aspects of a number of the entries was their (in at least renderings etc) focus on creating new buildings/objects, such as a new/expanded museum or performing arts areas."

PWP was really lame. In a good way.

The other teams just seemed to be trying too hard to be cool?

nobody else huh?

Maybe it is too much of a landscrapers project?

Maybe it's just me but i would have thought the overall site was begging for an on axis pedestrian bridge linking the two sides, i know it's a classical planning idea but sometimes it's really appropriate. One of the best ways to experience the eiffel tower is the on axis walk through the parc du champs de mars. For that matter, a monument is inherently classical by nature...I'm surprised not to see a single entry among the finalists who took that approach.

And I don't mean the entire project should have been classical, heaven knows we don't need another DC WWII type of project. Classical planning with a contemporary landscape/aesthetic would have made for a nice entry, just my 2 cents..

personally, i found all these submissions to be more or less uninspired... certainly uninspiring and conservative. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the city itself whos central city rebirth is pretty muted and uncertain. Perhaps its due to the conservative nature of the competition organizers, or perhaps its due to each teams skepticism about completion?

Anyway... there are some pretty (OBVIOUS!) huge problems with STL's river front that i dont see addressed often enough YET.

1) First and foremost, downtown STL is pretty much a dead zone... and East St Louis, which this park is supposed to connect to... well... that might be one of the most sad and depressing pits of poverty and dilapidation ive ever seen in the states... and ive spent time in detroit....

2)Even past that massive issue... the highway completely severs the downtown area from the existing Arch and Arch park. Its a really strong edge which rarely gets crossed over by people heading back and forth in my experience. It needs to be covered up or otherwise circumvented. Because its recessed, there is that opportunity. Similar to how boston did it, or how there is growing momentum to do so with 90/94 on the chicago loop's west side.

3) There are some pretty serious grade changes that make moving east / west between downtown, the park and the river really difficult. In some sections of the existing Arch Park, there is a 20' or higher drop down to the river. I see some examples in these submissions that propose a very shallow grade INTO the river, treating it more or less like a lakefront or oceanfront... This is on the right track, because currently, the river has virtually no relationship to the Arch Park besides its definition of the eastern edge. However it would only work in very limited areas of the park unless massive grade changes are made... changes im honestly not even sure would be possible given the limited size of the site and existing conditions...

4) The river there is HUUUUUGE!!!! Anyone whos been to STL knows that the river separating Illinois from Missouri at that point is pretty substantial. Its not the kind of distance that is just casually traversed on foot. And its certainly not the kind of distance anyone would voluntarily cross to visit East St Louis.

Overall im glad that this competition has drawn legitimate talent. perhaps once this project is awarded and the participating teams can begin to work with more certainty about the final outcome, more interesting solutions will come to light. But as of now, im really apprehensive about this.

STL and East STL have some serious, serious issues that need adressing. A park is pretty and flashy, but the bottom line is that East St Louis is dead... period... and huge parts of STL are as well.

^ what lletdownl said ++
lots of stuff and not enough program

I think its clear that PWP has indeed proposed a giant vagina.

http://stltoday.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=31049578&event=1058991&CategoryID=%2038578&picnum=4&move=F#Image

http://stltoday.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=31049580&event=1058991&CategoryID=%2038578&picnum=5&move=F#Image

haha... yeah i know it... Thats gotta be Fosters contribution... hes done his buildings shaped as mens genitalia, and is now modeling womens. First the space port, and now this lil beauty.

I wanted to restart the discussion due to the recent announcement that the MVVA team have been picked for the planning phase of The City+The Arch+The River 2015 International Design Competition.

After watching the available youtube video the aspect of their design that really jumped out at me as new/ a sort of soft infrastructural/hacking approach was the fact that they propose dividing the currently approx 1000 car garage for visitors on the north side of the park into three smaller garages on each of the three main approaches (begins at approx min 1:40). The effect being to split of the multitudes and engage with the full park and provide additional programmable space on the North side.

Even more interesting however was the fact they then tie in the approx 11000 un or under used city parking spaces in the surrounding neighborhoods into the "park's infrastructure" and to develop a remote ticketing infrastructure to provide visitors with time to explore the park and surrounding areas.

It seems like these sorts of approaches follow in line very closely with the sorts of proposal that Mammoth, myself and others discussed as part of our reading-the-infrastructural-city blog discussion

yeah, i agree nam that is perhaps the most interesting part of their plan... decentralizing the parking should definitely help activate more of the park, and the surrounding downtown. I also like the fact that the axis with the state building is bolstered by that green bridge over the highway. The times an intervention like that occurs, the more likely it is for the idea to spread... like i mentioned above, maybe it will offer stronger credibility to the proposal to cover up 90/94 on the west side of chicago's loop.

the decentralized parking strategy was in most, if not all, of the 5 finalist's proposals. this is one of a few things that most/all of the schemes had in common...and these common items could very well be the most important aspects of the project (connecting the Archgrounds to the city by covering a portion of the highway, breaking down the barrier between the river and the riverfront, improving the ecology and accessibility of the Archgrounds park, etc.).

they are baseline programmatic requirements, to put it in different terms.

i have to say that a couple of the other proposals were without a doubt more optimistic. while the winning proposal looks like it will solve the fundamental problems with the site (as all of the proposals surely would have), i'm disappointed that the jury selected what to me seems to be the safest, least forward-thinking option. not to say i wouldn't be happy taking a job with them to help execute their proposal...

MVVA has been selected as the winner. I applaud the jury's decision, as I think it will be a nice quiet complement to Saarinen's arch. And very doable, which is not to be overlooked. As well as poetic and sustainable. And btw, I live here (STL).

db, i agree that the scheme seems very build-able. it was among the most clearly represented (at the public presentation) in terms of the details of its landscape (developed topographical strategy, etc.). nevertheless, the language of the competition proposal suggested that the jury and organizers were looking for something more...which is probably why each of the other 4 finalists proposed, well, more.

in any case, i'm excited this is happening, and as a transient st. louis resident (here for 2yrs of grad school), i'm looking forward to coming back in 2015 to enjoy the final product. i guess my disappointment stems from a naive optimism that was hoping for a project that could truly elevate this area of downtown, and potentially incite a significant resurgence (for at least one precinct of the city, if not each of the neighborhoods that touch the Archgrounds). i guess time will tell...maybe the other schemes were looking past the 2015 target a bit too aggressively...i'm sure i would have done the same.

DB i use to be a STL native. My dad's family is all from there. Do you live in the city itself?

AP, I didn't realize that that was one of the basic required programmatic elements for all submissions. I do remember thinking that some of the proposals did focus alot on the future possibilities out to 2015 and beyond. The reason this aspect of the plan jumps out to me is because as I said previously the weakest to me aspects of all the proposals was their focus on creating new venues, buildings etc vs simply reprogramming or restructuring existing park.