Search This Blog (A.K.A. "I Dote On...")

Showing posts with label Forest Park. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forest Park. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Forest Park's Biggest Flaw - Now Never to Be Corrected?

Often called the "jewel" of St. Louis (certainly of its park system), Forest Park is a difficult space to critique in its entirety. With its variety of attractions, cultural institutions, beautiful vistas, running and biking paths, golf courses, and more, it definitely causes a moment of pause to reflect: thank the heavens the County-secessionists kept this 1,200 acre wonderment within city limits upon drawing the boundaries in 1876.

(Okay, I could complain a bit here. Other large municipal parks have cut down on paved roads and turned the park into more of an urban, pedestrian-friendly destination. And, as St. Louis Urban Workshop notes on his blog, Forest Park could definitely feature more spaces in which to simply hang out and people watch.)

To me, the biggest flaw of Forest Park is a somewhat disappointing connection to nearby neighborhoods. On each side, there's an issue.

On the west (Skinker Boulevard), you have an overly wide road that does carry a high volume of traffic. It's noisy, difficult to cross during the day, and somewhat uninviting, though a tree canopy helps a bit. Regardless, this edge of the park appears the most active and therefore enticing. It's no doubt bolstered by the presence of Washington University at its doorstep and all of its students/faculty.

On the north (Lindell), there are beautiful, stately homes, but I have never seen much activity flow out of these single-family manses. I always wonder if this portion of Lindell had developed as Pershing (formerly Berling) did, with all of its mid-rises, what Forest Park's northern edge might be like. It would have been wonderful to be able to sit at a sidewalk cafe patio and stare into the park, urbanely surrounded by an attractive turn-of-the-century skyline. Don't get me wrong, the present homes are splendid; my feelings toward them are not exactly ambivalent. I just wonder how they could be employed to make Forest Park's northern edge even better. I'm excited by the possibility of the proposed Delmar Loop Streetcar continuing eastward from DeBaliviere on Lindell and into the Central West End. In New Orleans, the St. Charles Avenue streetcar carts tourists and locals alike who, cameras in hand, enjoy gawking at inconceivable wealth and their historic mansions. Could St. Louis have its own version of this pleasant, tourist-friendly transit ride? I think so.


A St. Charles Avenue streetcar passes in front of one of the many mansions on the famous street. Source.


The east side of Forest Park (Kingshighway) is an interesting case. Just to the northeast sits one of St. Louis's mostly densely-walked neighborhoods and just to the east is the well-trafficked Medical District. You would think the east side of Forest Park would be filled with sauntering pedestrians. Yet, when you look at the topography, you see why. There are definite grade issues with the eastern side of the park, which slopes significantly downward from the Kingshighway elevation. Plus, the Metrolink railroad tracks slice off a portion of Forest Park, dividing the two sections from pedestrian access.

Of all of the neighborhood connectivity issues with Forest Park, the south side of the park (Oakland/I-64) is the worst. Why? Because there's an interstate highway blocking the following from walking to and directly enjoying their park with ease and without a car: Forest Park Southeast neighborhood (ironic, right?), St. Louis University High School, the Science Center, Compton-Drew, St. Louis Community College's Forest Park campus, the King's Oak and Cheltenham neighborhoods, the old Arena site's Highlands development, Forest Park Hospital, the Dogtown neighborhoods, Turtle Park, and points west. I cannot help but think that the south side of the park would usurp the title from the west for most active if Oakland, rather than I-64, were the point of crossing into the park (as it once was).

So when I read the following Post-Dispatch headline I was disappointed:

Highway 40 project head to lead Forest Park group


All urbanists should be frustrated that the Missouri Department of Transportation thought it worthwhile to rebuild several miles of I-64 almost exactly as it was to the tune of $535 million. Sure there are now soundwalls and somewhat less egregiously land-wasteful interchanges. Great. But if there were one section of the interstate that should not have been rebuilt as it was, it was the stretch that fronts Forest Park! Yet now, Lesley Hoffarth, manager of that woebegotten "New I-64" project, will head Forest Park Forever, the advocacy group and ersatz management of the park. 

It astounds me that there was such a fight to rescue Hudlin Park (a portion of the park stranded by both a re-routing of Kingshighway and the construction of I-64) when the "New I-64" project was a real chance to take back a huge chunk of the park.



With the money spent adding even more highway lanes to a region that simply doesn't need them, I-64 could have been tunneled, reconnecting Forest Park to its southern neighbors and institutions.



Now, I don't know Lesley Hoffarth, and she may be more urban-minded than I'm aware. But any head of Forest Park Forever, a group that has done great work strengthening and improving the innards of the park, should know that its edges are important too.



The greatest improvement that could come to Forest Park would be the removal of I-64, at least visually, from the southern end of Forest Park.



Not that I think this concept ever held much weight in an autocentric region, but I worry now that this "radical" idea may now never get airtime. At any rate, the finishing touches are adorning the rebuilt stretch from I-170 to Kingshighway. Many would call it more than wasteful to suggest that this freshly redone section now be covered up.



But I say, the sooner the better. We need not live in the shadows of bad planning simply to justify the costs of a worthless effort.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

"The New I-64"--A.K.A. Highway 40--a Freeway without a Future?

Is Highway Forty a member of the not-so-elite Freeways without Futures?

Not yet--but, on the dawn of the closure of Kingshighway to I-170, it should be.

Those who know St. Louis know that I-170--the Innerbelt--is a rough demarcation between urban St. Louis and suburban St. Louis (some say Lindbergh Boulevard instead).

Now that the western half of the former Daniel Boone Expressway has been completed (Spoede to I-170), we should really give a last minute look into the eastern half, which is simply not the same.

The western half of the New I-64 Project was a suburban, commuter interstate and nothing else.

Check out an aerial of the road network:


View Larger Map

It's clearly not an urban area.

Now check out the eastern half that is slated for closure in days:


View Larger Map

Notice anything?

Did the 1,300 acre regional park and neighborhood asset known as Forest Park enter your mind? How about the generally urban street grid that surrounds the interstate?

So, let's get this straight. We're spending millions of bucks to repave a highway, put up some sound walls, and knock down a couple bridges? Why not up the ante and urbanize I-64 from I-170 to Kingshighway, if not all the way into downtown? Yes, I am borrowing here from Steve Patterson's visionary post calling for the removal of St. Louis's superfluous interstates, to be replaced by something along the lines of Forest Park Avenues (ex: the stretch from Kingshighway to Market St., not the Parkway portion, which is a true expressway). It just makes sense. Congress renewed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA, pronounced ice-tea). ISTEA allows funding to transform historic road corridors into pedestrian-friendly, landscaped, functional corridors. It allows for bike lanes, street lamps, sidewalks...everything.

The public has well gotten used to life without 40; the addiction to whizzing on and off this central artery is past the withdrawal stage. Why reintroduce the habit of overly convenient and anti-pedestrian highways in urban areas? With the money earmarked for rebuilding, we should construct something that honors the urban locales that have been affected by the endless buzz of traffic for decades.

I can think of one argument against the urban boulevard transformation for I-64 (other than that it'll slow some commutes). It doesn't truly solve the root problem of I-64/Highway 40.

THE FREAKING HIGHWAY SLICED THROUGH FOREST PARK!!! The Dogtown neighborhoods--Kings Oak, Cheltenham, Clayton-Tamm, Hi-Pointe--have been cut off from one of the region's greatest assets for so long. Due to the presence of the interstate, pedestrian entry to the park from the south is funneled into a couple roads, when the whole south side of the park should be so attractive as to be a prime address in St. Louis. The reality is that, if you live, say, here:


View Larger Map

...you have an unnecessarly long trek to the Tamm overpass, the nearest park entrance. Or you could walk across the Oakland overpass, past the nightmarish I-64 Clayton Avenue exit/Skinker intersection, and thence into the park. Not. Pedestrian. Friendly.

Autocentricism has destroyed a vital connection between park and neighborhoods. The result is a "suburbanized" park in the process. Many people who live less than a mile south of the park will nevertheless drive to get to it.

I envision a buried Interstate 64. Forest Park could then be restored to its original footprint, which includes the section presently south of the interstate that some might assume was simply federal right-of-way from the start and not part of the park itself. The south side of Forest Park, then, could enjoy the brisk, urbane aesthetic of the Skinker and Lindell sides. Unfortunately, this might mean the need to remove the Hampton exit altogether, with Zoo and Jewel Box and Muny goers subjected to the Skinker or Kingshighway exits. The buried portion would extend for at least the length of Forest Park, if not farther.

Again, why spend public monies on recreating something that may not have a long term future as an asset to the city? I-64 may be a freeway without a future; burying it would reduce its obstruction of the jewel of the St. Louis park system from the deserving residents just south of the future construction zone.

In the meantime, scroll down City Park Avenue in New Orleans to observe an interstate-free, vital connection between a 1,300 acre park and an urban neighborhood (yes--they're just about the same size!). [It's New Orleans' City Park.]


View Larger Map

Fashion STL Style!

Fashion STL Style!
St. Louis Gives You the Shirt Off of Its Own Back!

Next American City

Next American City
Your Go-To Source for Urban Affairs

Join the StreetsBlog Network!

Join the StreetsBlog Network!
Your Source for Livable Streets

Trust in Rust!

Trust in Rust!
News from the Rustbelt

Dotage St. Louis -- Blogging the St. Louis Built Environment Since 2008

Topics: Historic Preservation, Politics and Government, Development, Architecture, Urban Planning, Urban Design, Local Business, Crime and Safety, Neighborhoods, and Anything Else Relating to Making St. Louis a Better City!