I almost thought it was a joke when a friend IM'd me the link to the press release late yesterday morning. After looking it over a few times though and remembering "oh, right I'm in St. Louis, of course this could happen", I realized it was not a joke, but a real proposal. The St. Louis Zoo is under contract to purchase the former Deaconess Hospital complex (more recently as Forest Park Hospital), with intensions to demolish all the buildings except a 1970's office building and a parking garage and replace them with parking lots, drop off and loading zones with the possibility of some kind of people mover transportation system crossing the highway.
Unlike most of my posts, I'm not necessarily advocating for preservation of the main hospital building, which was opened in 1930. The original structure has been severely altered by additions and a complete slip-cover. While it might be possible to remove the slip cover and the windowless bathroom towers that are tacked onto almost all of the buildings facades and potentially get the original building listed on the National Register (see the former Post-Dispatch building at Olive & Tucker), potential uses for the building would be limited... maybe senior housing or possibly a hotel. If the building is demolished though, it should be only after exploring all possibilities.
I can see the positives for the zoo, which would gain additional space for veterinary, lab, research, and other uses. Having an additional overflow parking area might be considered a positive too, however just last year the Forest Park Trolly was introduced with the goal of reducing congestion and parking immediately around the zoo and other popular attractions as well as making use of large existing under-utilized parking areas such as the Muny upper lot. One of the goals of this program and the media campaign put out by Metro, MoDOT, the CVC and Forest Park Forever was to get people to use other highway exits than 40/Hampton (which often backs up onto the highway) and other park entrances to access the attractions. So which exit do you think people will use to get to the new parking on the hospital site?
While I'm glad to see that the zoo is planning for commercial development at the corner of Oakland & Hampton, which is now occupied by a low-rise parking garage, much of the rest of the proposed site plan shows the areas now occupied by buildings filled with an overly large oval drop-off zone, expanded surface parking and a large reflecting pool... not exactly the best and highest uses for a prime site facing Forest Park. Additionally, one of the items listed on the press release for long term uses is the potential for additional "fitness trails, playgrounds or water features"... so people can use these instead of going to Forest Park and using the ones that are already there?! Seriously, I'm not making this up. Hopefully in the long term, the zoo will see that replicating features already in Forest Park is not the answer, and dedicate more of the 13.5 acres for other uses be they commercial, mixed use, and/or additional new support facilities.
14 comments:
while normally I would be right behind you in line to push for preservation of an older building the face that it is for zoo expansion turns the tide for me. The zoo does nothing but serve the public good of our area and that is the one time when I we preservationists need to take a bit of pause. If they were going to tear it down for a CVS or Walgreens I could not support it but for this purpose I am all for it.
^ it's not the tearing it down part that sucks. it's the part where 85% of the site becomes a parking lot/driveway. there is a much better use for this important corner. the commercial part of the zoo plan is a good start that should be extended to front Oakland as well. there's no reason the driveway couldn't run behind sidewalk-fronting buildings. and the monorail is an absurd Disney-esque waste of money. run a shuttle service between this corner and the zoo if people absolutely can't walk a few hundred feet. then spend that money extending the Loop streetcar to hit all the museum district attractions. the entire area would be much betters served by a streetcar that runs between the CWE and the Loop and hits all the attractions in between.
When will this city stop demolishing usable buildings in favor of asphalt? It has REALLY gotten old.
Finally, a blogger who agrees with me about this! Almost everyone else I've heard from, even NextSTL!, thinks this is a great idea, presumably because it's for the zoo, so the fact that the site will be mostly parking merely fills the Zoo's underserved need for more parking, of course. I also don't think the buildings all need to stay, but it's a critical urban site and should be planned as such. The monorail is a ridiculous idea (how does it even span I-64??), so why not extend the Forest Park Trolley route to this new satellite lot? I know the zoo already has satellite employee parking at the Community College during the busy season, so maybe they could expand that service to include the new parking?
Moving parking across the highway allows them to expand the Zoo into the current parking areas in the future. That is why I support this plan.
This should be turned into a soccer stadium! Use some of the existing facade, towers, and statues and make it something special
"How does it span I-64?" I would imagine like any other road, highway, or rail bridge...
I am for it, just because I love the Zoo. And the sea of parking attached to the Zoo will most likely become exhibits and stuff.
The monorail is probably a bad idea. A pedestrian bridge similar to the Science Center would be good. But I am not totally opposed to a monorail. I'd prefer to see some designs to make that decision.
How about an existing idea to tie these new parking lots to the Zoo, and beyond? Joe Edwards could use some help getting his loop trolley off dead center. Think bigger! A light rail REAL trolley from the Delmar Loop around the History Museum behind the Art Museum, through the Zoo and to the new Forest Park conference center and parking facility. Imagine riding a trolley and looking down on elephants et al. Imagine gliding on a trolley through the luxh greenery of Forest Park. No, it wouldn't spoil, but would rather enhance the jewell of St Louis.
The quality of urban design in St. Louis is so low, so disjointed, it is like automobiles are the main occupants of the city.
Why is that? Ignorance? Politics (normally urban design favors the interests of the oil companies and not transit or people)
Why does this occur?
I recently read an article (Helsigin Sanomat) about how the city planning board in Helsinki takes their lap top computers with 3D renderings of a proposed 33 story building along the harbor and walk around to see how it fits. But, it goes on "even if the planning board decides to give the project the green light, it must be discussed by the City Board and ultimately the City Council"
Sounds like they are very interested in their environment, and this is a public discussion also.
Not only that is they are given the insurance "that the building would be of high quality architecturally both outside and in"
In St. Louis projects, even public ones, are just slapped on the table, "here it is, too bad if it's lousy"
What's the difference? Why is one government concerned about outcomes and the public interest and the other is not? Why is there such a lack of concern about urban design in the City of St. Louis?
I live in Dogtown and definitely want something to be done with Forest Park Hospital. After looking at the proposed plan map I think people are not looking closely at the "new" parking. There is a 7 story lot as well as two large parking lots that are Already There and will be reused. The only new lots will be at the corner of Clayton & Hampton.
Furthermore how the Zoo buying the hospital to improve the area is seen as a bad thing is beyond me. In the neighborhood there are many empty commercial properties and hopefully businesses will move in.
Please stop complaining about the city government is ruining the city. Again, they are only building one new parking lot. The plans look great and will definitely improve the area.
I'll take the parking lot option, plain and simple.
Wow...I left STl some years ago...but am a member of the Zoo...My family has and always lived in Stl. I was born in Deconess Hospital and all my siblings were also...I had some of my surgeries in those old buildings. It is sad to see them go or that they couldnt be incorporated into the Zoos plans. I was sad to see the Pevely buildings burn which my family were a part of also...However, the Zoo is one of the last free zoos in this world and they make it happen being one of the zoos at the forefront...I think that they could put the space to better use but if the existing old parking lots could and would be transformed into more exibits...well then let them do it...has anyone thought of a tunnel to go under I-64? it happens all the time in other cities. for tram and pedestrian traffic....maybe the train can go also under the highway ... i dont know...but I think if it is for the Zoo....let the work begin.....just saying....
As an old '57 grad from EDH, it makes me very sad. I just wish the hospital and nursing dorm (I lived on 5th floor)could have continued to exist as a medical center because if it had, then we wouldn't be talking about this now. Unfortunately, the old Deaconess ceased to exist when it was first sold in '95 with subsequent sellings in '97 and '99. Corporate takeover destroyed the Deaconess mission and it would never, ever, be the same wonderful haven of healing.
It's down & dirty now. The "grand plan" sucks but the comments of PD readers show the love of more parking, gondolas (wow the family won't have to walk two blocks), more pollution, more traffic,...
A great park would be car-free on weekends but not one in StL. In fact a large an important section of FP next to the zoo is a highway and a parkway exists through the north section. At a minimum there should be no FREE parking anywhere on weekends.
No wonder though, the the woman who headed the New 64 heads FPForever.
Pathetic plans.
Post a Comment