opinions of a kid from chesterfield... (St. Louis: safe, area, charge)

[1greatcity]

^Bravo! My sentiments exactly.
It's painfully apparent that there are two opposite points of view on the downtown I-70 topic. Some say cap it, some say remove it. But at least we all seem to agree on one thing: I-70 in it's current form is a barrier (both physical and psychological) that impedes pedestrian flow to and from the arch grounds. I'm just glad that something is going to be done to change that.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

^Bravo! My sentiments exactly.
It's painfully apparent that there are two opposite points of view on the downtown I-70 topic. Some say cap it, some say remove it. But at least we all seem to agree on one thing: I-70 in it's current form is a barrier (both physical and psychological) that impedes pedestrian flow to and from the arch grounds. I'm just glad that something is going to be done to change that.

It is self apparent that it is a barrier and people have known it for a long time. At this point it will soon be possible to really do something about it. I think both sides on what to do about it can get to some agreement over it since it is rooted in the same principle.

Now capping the depressed section, would it just cap it without any improvments to the road for now or will improvments occur as well at the same time?

[DinsdalePirahna]

reroute and bring some economic benefits to areas that need it. But think of any long term cause and effect

[stlcitygirl]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

Almost everyone know that Interstates were the death of many small. What many people don't know that many urban areas were the victims of poor planning. Neighborhoods were divided, access to rivers and other recreation areas were shut down or made more difficult. Some cities realized this many years ago and made changes to correct these mistakes. Saint Louis has that opportunity know with the Arch grounds being remodeled

Who hacked into Dinsdales account?

[DinsdalePirahna]

I always speak the truth. Whether you want to listen is your own business...

[StanleySnail]

Originally Posted by imperialmog

It is self apparent that it is a barrier and people have known it for a long time. At this point it will soon be possible to really do something about it. I think both sides on what to do about it can get to some agreement over it since it is rooted in the same principle.

Now capping the depressed section, would it just cap it without any improvments to the road for now or will improvments occur as well at the same time?

I-70 is depressing from Downtown through the Blanchette Bridge. Then things start to slowly improve.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

reroute and bring some economic benefits to areas that need it. But think of any long term cause and effect

Actually a reroute is possible for this. There was a proposal in the 1970's to build a freeway along the west edge of downtown that later got scrapped. One idea I had is maybe to consider looking into the half North of 64/40 and connect it to 70 at the point of the new river bridge. (what killed it was more the Southern part near Lafayette Square) You can see where it would connect due to all the large ramps along the highway, the part north of where the partial build already exists has a lot of empty areas so not much demolition is needed to build it. This section can't really be argued that it causes a decline in that area like some highways have but it might help spur development due to better transportation links. From what it looks like development along Washington Avenue isn't far enough west to where it would be a problem, but building it might start developing it from the West. In terms of cutting off areas design it where if development starts encroaching on it have it lower than the surface streets to where it can be capped when needed.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by StanleySnail

I-70 is depressing from Downtown through the Blanchette Bridge. Then things start to slowly improve.

the section of 1-70 between the Mississippi and Wentzvile is ugliest section of that interstate. Maybe because it is also the oldest.

[zoomzoom3]

I had to laugh about the smoking thing. Missouri has one of the highest smoking rates in the nation. Some people think you're odd if you don't smoke. Where I work I had someone ask if I wanted to smoke with them & I was like "No thanks!" They replied "You don't like cigarettes? What's wrong with you?"

The biggest thing that could be done to improve St. Louis would be to crackdown hardcore on criminals like Guiliani did in NYC in the 1990's. NYC went from being an extremely dangerous city in the 80's to being pretty safe by the year 2000.

[aragx6]

I definitely don't want to move beyond St. Louis, but this idea as Giuliani as savior of New York has been significantly exaggerated.

Violent crime in New York began falling three years before Giuliani took office in 1994. Property crime began falling four years before.

New York was part of a trend that saw crime fall sharply nationwide in the 1990s, particularly in big cities. The city with the best record for reducing violent crime during this period was actually San Francisco.

There were a lot of other factors at work during this time. The crime decline in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami and elsewhere, was the result of a mix of social and demographic changes, including a break in the crack cocaine epidemic, an improving economy, and increased prison terms for proven lawbreakers.