case study:
Forest Park
by: Liz Crim LAR 4304: Urban Open Spaces Fall 2011 Terry Clements Virginia Tech School of Architecture + Design College of Architecture + Urban Studies Department of Landscape Architecture
introduction. The public open spaces of the city are more than the spaces between buildings; they combat “placelessness” ii and give cities their identity. Their benefits go beyond access to the outdoors: “[Parks] are not just about improving the physical health and well-being of people as they go about their daily lives, but about creating more reciprocal forms of social life as well. There is no sustainable future without them.” iii Jane Jacobs has said that streets are the life of the city, but I think this can be expanded to include all urban open spaces. They are, after all, where the identity of the city is played out, where the culture takes place. “City space is the framework for people’s meetings with society and each other…[it is] one of the most important functions of city culture: the meeting of people.” iv The three main social functions of urban open space are defined by different types of human activities: a meeting (social) space, a market (economic) space, and as a connection space.v Open spaces also serve an ecological function; Frederick Law Olmsted thought of open space systems as part of the city’s infrastructure, critical to the health of the city (both of the citizens and of the environment), parks were the “lungs of the city.” There are various definitions for urban open spaces, ranging from typologies to philosophies. At its most basic level, a public open space is a publically accessible open space, designed for human activity enjoyment.vi Accessibility is key to this definition; Kevin Lynch argues that open space is open when it is accessible.vii Others have argued that inclusive access to public spaces is a cornerstone of democracy and social equity, that citizens have open space rights.xiii, ix These rights include the “right of presence, use and action, appropriation, modification, and disposition.” Defining these rights more broadly, people should “have access to an open space, freedom to use the space, to claim and change the space through their use, as well as to transfer their right of use and modification to other individuals. This is an effective measure of ‘publicness.’” ix If people do not have the opportunity to exercise their rights in an open space, it is likely to be less used: “the amount of freedom and control a space offers has been suggested as a basis for people’s use and enjoyment of an open space.” x “Use, or ‘livability’…is a dimension often employed to measure the success of open space. Whyte…argues that use of an open space is a critical ingredient of success.” xi Though public interest declined in the mid-20th century, the “initial passion for popular fitness and exercise” in the form of outdoor parks and other public landscapes came from the people, not the lawmakers.xii In recent years, there has been a resurgence of public interest in open spaces, in improving existing spaces and creating new ones. Forest Park in St. Louis, Missouri is a good example of this resurgence, of a park coming into its own because of the work of citizens, and of the effect of well-designed urban open spaces on their surroundings. The revival of the park has led to the revival of the surrounding neighborhoods; local restaurants and businesses have thrived and the neighborhoods surrounding the park, once decaying, have become increasingly desirable places to live. The park itself is home to many of St. Louis’ museums, including the Art Museum, History Museum, Zoo, Muny (outdoor municipal theater), and the Science Center, providing opportunities for “environmental learning and offer[s] users a sense of discovery, delight, and challenge.”xiv Thompson and Travlou’s assertion that “open space should be a place of delight and pleasure, eliciting and responding to the ‘playful natures’ in all of us,” is exemplified in Forest Park.xv
Overview: Location: St. Louis, Missouri Designed: 1876 Redesigned: 1995 Construction completed: 2004 Cost: $94 million (.5¢ sales tax, fund-raising, and grants) Size: 1,371 acres Master Plan: St. Louis Development Corporation, St. Louis; H3 Studio Inc., St. Louis Landscape architects: Austin Tao & Associates, St. Louis; The HOK Planning Group, St. Louis; Oehme, van Sweden & Associates, Washington, D.C.; The Saratoga Associates, New York; SWT Associates, St. Louis Planting restoration, installation, & maintenance: DJM Ecoscapes, Florissant, Missouri; Flora Conservancy of Forest Park, St. Louis Client: City of St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry; Forest Park Forever, St. Louis Consultants: CH2M Hill, St. Louis; David Mason & Associates, St. Louis; Hale Irwin Golf Services, St. Louis; Hydro Dramatics, St. Louis; URS Corporation, St. Louis Managed by: City of St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry; Flora Conservancy of Forest Park Annual attendance:
~12 million
city context. Forest Park, the largest and most popular park in St. Louis, is located just north of Interstate 64, along the boundary between the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. Though St. Louis does not have a connected park system, Forest Park serves as a connection from the county to the city, both physically and culturally. Over the course of the twentieth century, Forest Park has become the home of many of St. Louis’ cultural treasures: St. Louis Art Museum, St. Louis Zoo, The Muny, Missouri History Museum, and others. These attractions draw visitors from around the metropolitan area and around the country, and help to improve the perception of the City of St. Louis, which is known for its crime. St. Louis County City of St. Louis
te 7 rsta
Inte
Forest Park
0
Interstate 64
Downtown
Inters
tate 5 5
Interstate 44
1 mile
Figure 1: context of Forest Park within the city
immediate context. Once a destination park outside the city, the park is now surrounded by some of St. Louis’ finest neighborhoods and institutions (see Figure 2). Washington University, Children’s Hospital, BJC Hospital, and the Washington University Medical School are all prominent St. Louis institutions and are all well ranked nationally, drawing people from around the country. Forest Park is also in close proximity to a few less prominent institutions: Fontbonne University, Concordia Seminary, St. Mary’s Hospital, Forest Park Hospital, Forest Park Community College, and Kindred Hospital. The Central West End is one of St. Louis’ most prominent neighborhoods. In the 1880s, it became a popular neighborhood for St. Louis’ elite and almost all of its private places and grand homes still exist today. Although the neighborhood declined during World War II and the flight to the suburbs in the 1950s and 60s (and subsequent rise in crime as lower classes began to fill vacated neighborhoods), its citizens rallied together to clean up their neighborhood and become a lively community.2 Today its proximity to the hospitals and Forest Park has made it a desirable location, and its core (just east of Kingshighway) is a popular destination for shopping, dining, and walking. The other neighborhoods around Forest Park are also very desirable. Skinker-Debaliviere (between the Central West End and Skinker, north of Lindell) and Wydown-Skinker (west of Skinker in the city of Clayton) are known for their park-like streets and substantial historic homes. Clayton-Tamm (south of Interstate 64, between Skinker and Kingshighway) is filled with smaller, more affordable homes, and has a vibrant Irish heritage, centered around the Dogtown area along Clayton Ave and Oakland Ave. As the city has grown up around Forest Park, major thoroughfares have defined its borders; Interstate 64 is one of the most travelled highways in St. Louis, Forest Park Pkwy and Lindell Blvd are both major streets that lead downtown, Clayton Ave is a major street within the county, and Skinker Blvd and Kingshighway Blvd are both major arteries (the municipal boundary of the City of St. Louis also runs along Skinker). Forest Park is also located within easy walking distance of two Metrolink (electric rail system) stops: one at Forest Park Pkwy and Skinker Blvd (corner of Washington University’s campus), and one at DeBaliviere and Forest Park Pkwy.
wy.
ro l
hway Blv d.
Forest Park P k
et
in
k
Lindell Blvd.
Kingshig
Skinker Blvd. Washington University
M
Central West End
Kindred Hospital
Fontbonne University Concordia Seminary
Children’s Hospital Clayton Ave.
BJC Hospital WashU Med School
St. Mary’s Hospital
Interstate 64 1000 ft.
Figure 2: immediate context of Forest Park
Forest Park Hospital
Forest Park Community College
site analysis. Forest Park is an excellent example of an urban district park that accommodates both humans and wildlife while still providing a rich array of cultural and recreational attractions (see Design and Development Process for more information). The park features a passive open space spine (see Figure 27) that connects many of the main attractions and also serves as a wildlife corridor. The gently rolling hills of the site, especially the eastern half, are similar to its original contours, which drained into the River des Peres (see Figure 9). These rolling hills and serpentine roads give the park an Olmsted-like feel, and contribute to its atmosphere of an urban escape. The road system can be confusing for visitors, however, and driving through the park is more of an experience than a quick cut-through, unless you know where you’re going. Also, only a few of the entrances to the park are easy to find, and visitors may have a hard time entering the park if coming from the east or north. Home to many of St. Louis’ cultural attractions, the park is also a popular recreation destination (see Figure 6). It is home to two golf courses (one public, one at the club), two sets of tennis courts (one public, one at the club), public racquetball courts, public baseball and soccer fields, a public skating rink (turned into sand volleyball courts in the summer), and miles of trails. Although the masterplan is technically complete, construction is still being done to connect and widen disjointed trails and paths.
Figure 3: playing racquetball at the Visitor’s Center 3
Figure 4: view from near the art museum to Central West End 3
Figure 5: Twilight Tuesday concert at the History Museum3
Missouri History rugby field Museum racquetball court
golf course
tennis courts
crickett fields
football field The Muny St. Louis Shakespeare Art Museum Glen
soccer and baseball fields skating rink
zoo
Turtle Park
The Jewel Box
golf & tennis club
archery soccer and baseball fields course Planetarium
Figure 6: major attractions within Forest Park. (blue: recreation, orange: cultural, white: cycling paths, walking paths, and main sidewalks).
The Science Center
project background and history. Throughout its lifetime, Forest Park has gone through several different roles and redesigns (see Figures 7, 8) in an attempt to keep up with the changing needs of society. The design changes throughout the years were crucial to the final master plan (see Figure 33), which strove to restore historical elements and reinterpret the existing landscape. 4 The park, completed in 1876, was a product of the American Parks Movement of the late 19th century, when “prosperous cities of that period sought to display their municipal pride with civic adornments, and parks ranked high as a cultural expression of the new wealth.” 5 The vision was to create a park where “‘the rich and poor…each with his family and lunch basket, can come and enjoy his own…all without stint or hindrance…and there will be no notice put up, “Keep off the grass.”’” 12 The designer of the park, Maximilian Kern, (who went on to design several other St. Louis parks) was influenced by the Olmsted-Vaux plan for Central Park, borrowing several features: the Grand Drive, the Promenade, the Sheepfold, and the irregular lakes (see Figure 10). “But Kern was not a designer of equal imagination and artistic rank with Olmsted and Vaux, and, while his plan had many fine attributes, it was flawed in certain respects,” such as poor circulation and views, and the design was tweaked in the 1890s to correct these issues and deepen the lakes. 5, 12 The serpentine drives were originally intended for the elite – the city boundaries were two miles away and the poor took a train from downtown to get to the park. 12 Despite the tweaking, the circulation remained fairly poor, and commuter traffic and park traffic still intermingle to this day. The River des Peres, a natural tributary to the Mississippi that ran through the site (see Figure 9), was a popular attraction when the park first opened, winding its way through the rolling hills and picturesque forests, “creating a natural pathway and pedestrian connector.”4 However, as the city began to expand westward towards the park, the construction of sewer lines lagged behind, and
park as scenery
park as setting
park as resource
park as decline
park as jewel
1876 – 1902
1902 – 1970
1920 – 1960
1970 – 1995
2005 –
model
English Landscape School
Beaux Arts, Reform & Recreation Park
(urban renewal)
––
characteristics
- curvilinear paths - artful nature - picturesque
- park a backdrop to civic/cultural amenities - open space divided into recreational uses
- park seen as available land: parkway and I-64 cut through park - ebbing civic pride
- park falls into disrepair - haven for homeless - fewer visitors
- restoration of historical elements - connection of ecological systems
driving change
Maximilian G. Kern
World’s Fair, WWII
suburban flight
effects of suburban flight, decreased budget
Forest Park Forever
theme duration for Forest Park
Figure 7: evolution of role of Forest Park (compiled from 5, 7 )
open-space system parks
Figure 8: timeline overlaying the health and the history of Forest Park. (compiled from 4, 5, 6, 8) 19 ad 40s: dit ion o
sc
19 Riv 20s: er de sP ere
ha
nn
eli zed
19 pa 04: (re rk wa de sig s site ne d i of W n 1 or 90 ld’s 2) Fa ir
stu sti dy b t y ch ute o the fm an f A St. ge rch Lo ore s, t uis i ac t he ect Ch tiv eu a s add s rec apt se eco itio om er are nd n o me of th as f the re nd e A ate sta ed, me 1 Fo u r, a ra am ric 976 tai res nd nts on an : n, an t Par a j , a g o Inun ca th ds kF ior rou er ust ore co sel ain ver lle , Fo fou ge res nd . t P ed 19 ark “t cit 83: as o re s ha y dev gre one o tore 198 s n elo , at 6 f o m pe urb Ame main : on d Fo an ric ey pa a’s to rest P rks im ” ple ark m me a nt ster it pla 19 n, bu ne 95: t wi w ma t pla h te ster yea nne am o plan an rs o rs, co f 67 deve d ds fp n urv ubl sult esig loped eys ic m ant ner ee s, an s, tin 20 gs d 20 co 04: str 09: co nstru gu ateg tim mple ction ide ic p t e e nia fo d i po lan r n stl of cel cen res deve Wo eb ten tor lop rld rati ati ed ’s F on on t air ca o re
en par ha k s nc lig e c htl irc y r ula ed tio esig 189 n a ne 0s: nd d t vie o ws
ilt in Ma Olm xim sted 1 ilia sty 876 n G le b : . Ke y rn
bu
the River des Peres soon became an open sewer and more of a public nuisance than a park amenity. Two floods in the 1890s sealed the river’s fate, and it was shortened and channelized for the 1904 World’s Fair (see Figures 11, 12, 30). 4 The World’s Fair, while of great importance to the prestige and civic pride of St. Louis, lead to massive deforestation and earth moving in the western half of the park (see Figure 12). Despite the massive effort involved in making the fairgrounds, only a few elements were built to survive: the Grand Basin, the art museum, and the birdcage at the zoo (see Figure 12) – the rest were temporary buildings made of “staff” (plaster of Paris mixed with fibers) and were dismantled after the fair ended in January of 1905.6 After it was dismantled, the area went back to its original purpose, and recreational areas were added during the 1930s and 40s (see Figure 13). The channelization of the River des Peres before the World’s Fair had been a temporary solution, and in the 1920s, the city buried and re-routed the river in huge underground pipes (see Figure 30), where it remains to this day.4, 10 As the city continued to spread west, city planners tried to keep up by adding more recreation areas and, to relieve traffic congestion, cutting off part of the southern end of the park to create the Oakland Expressway, which later became Interstate 64.12 By 1943, most of the existing programming on the site was in place (see Figure 13) and much of the site was given over to recreation and increasingly popular cultural institutions. (For example, the park gained national attention from a Fortune article in the 1940s which declared the Muny “‘probably has no counterpart anywhere; it seems to appeal to almost everybody.’” 12) As a result, “the landscape [had] receded from the park’s design, becoming merely backdrop for these other institutions.”11 After World War II, the population of the City of St. Louis began to decline sharply, and by the late 1960s the city no longer had the funds to keep the park well maintained. Even the crowds drawn by the addition of the Planetarium (now connected to the Science Center via a bridge across Interstate 64) in 1963 could not bring in enough money to maintain the park. The museums and the zoo, however, kept up their operating budget by expanding their tax-base in 1971 and 1983 to cover both the city and the county (this special tax district is still in place today) – while they thrived, the landscape around them slowly deteriorated, and people would only drive through it to get to the zoo or museums.12
Figure 9: original path of River des Peres through Forest Park. 8
River des Peres artificial lakes
art museum
grand basin
Figure 10: 1876 masterplan of Forest Park by Maximilian Kern. 8
roads existing today
Figure 11: perspective of World’s Fair (existing elements highlighted in white) 9
roads existing today boundary of World’s Fair areas existing today buildings existing today bodies of water existing today railroad existing today (as Metrolink route and Forest Park Parkway
Figure 12: plan of Forest Park at the time of the World’s Fair 8
roads existing today
areas existing today
buildings existing today
railroad existing today (as Metrolink route and Forest Park Parkway
Figure 13: conditions of the park in 1943 – much of the design remains today 8
bodies of water existing today
genesis of the project. The plan to revitalize Forest Park by creating a system of open space came about 30 years after the trend started in the U.S., and it was started by a nonprofit organization. Though several plans were drawn up for the restoration of the park (1976 and 1983), the city could not come up with the necessary funding to pay for any restoration. Then, in 1986, a group of citizens and city leaders formed Forest Park Forever (FPF) with the mission “to restore, maintain, and sustain Forest Park as one of America’s great urban parks.” 6 Over the next decade, fundraising efforts by FPF, together with grants from private foundations and a half-cent tax increase, raised $100 million for the restoration of the park, with the goal of completing the project by 2004 for the centennial celebration of the World’s Fair.
design, development process. In the late 1980s, FPF and the St. Louis Development Corporation began sponsoring public meetings, forums, and workshops during which “individuals and citizen groups could convey their ideas for the park and glean valuable knowledge from the committee’s experience.” 19 John Hoal (of St. Louis Development Corporation and H3 Studio) praised the effort, saying “Design is a mutual educational process…I think it shows that the process has fostered a sense of ownership…the plan accommodates a community that can grow into new roles.”10 The public meetings and surveys were invaluable in the process, contributing to the final nine design elements/themes: water, nature, history, infrastructure, culture, education, access, recreation, and maintenance.8 Each of the elements played an important role in the final masterplan: - Water: “transformation of the Park’s lakes and lagoons into a ‘riverlike’ system which promotes better water quality, less flooding, and a self-sustaining Park environment.” 6 - Nature: “restoration and preservation of the Park’s forests, meadows, prairies, savannas, and other wildlife habitats, to ensure an ecologically sound natural system that can be enjoyed by all Park users.” 6 - History: “a renewed emphasis on the historic prominence and grandeur of the Park’s central gathering place, the Emerson Grand Basin.” 6 - Infrastructure: “repair and modernization of the Park’s sewers, roads, curbs, and other infrastructure.” 6 - Culture: “reaffirmation of the Park as home to many of the region’s leading cultural institutions.” 6
Figure 14: contributing factors to the final masterplan (most important factors highlighted). 8
history museum lindell pavilion
golf course
fish hatchery tennis courts
golf course
muny sports fields art museum world’s fair pavilion golf course
zoo
baseball fields
Figure 15: 1983 programming of Forest Park. 8
highlighted programming still exists
- Education: “expansion of educational and youth programs, events, visitor services, and outreach activities.” 6 - Access: “improved access and circulation into and within the Park.” 6 - Recreation: “improvement of the Park’s ball fields, golf courses, tennis courts, and other active recreational facilities.” 6 - Maintenance: “establishment of an ongoing public/private partnership to oversee improvements in the Park and ensure that the glory, once restored, remains untarnished – forever.” 6
The designers weren’t interested in completely remaking the existing landscape; rather, they “were interested in reinterpreting the existing landscape, which suffered from a malaise both physical and mental” 10 (See Figures 15-21). One of the most important of these elements was the transformation of the park’s disconnected bodies of water into a connected system. (See Significance & Uniqueness of Project.) This new system was part of the new open space spine that runs through the park, serving as a wildlife corridor, stormwater management tool, and the unifying element of the design. Greg Calpino, the landscape architect on the Forest Park Forever committee, sees balance of passive use as central to the future of urban parks: “people increasingly want to spend time walking through a variety of landscapes, from the formal and architectonic to the natural and pastoral.” 4 The masterplanning team was composed of 67 people, including St. Louis Development Corporation; H3 Studio, Austin Tao & Associates; The HOK Planning Group; Oehme, van Sweden & Associates; Saratoga Associates; SWT Associates; DJM Ecoscapes; CH2M Hill; David Mason & Associates; and wildlife experts.10 In 1995, the team unveiled the final masterplan; work began the next year and was completed at the end of 2003.
Figure 16: connected, linear water system 8
Figure 19: emphasize site relationships 8
Figure 17: active open space systems 8
Figure 18: historically significant areas 8
Figure 20: landforms define park experience 8
Figure 21: passive open space system 8
role of landscape architect. It is important to stress that this project was interdisciplinary and the project was started by a grass-roots movement to save the park. While landscape architects (H3 Studio; Oehme, van Sweden & Associates; Austin Tao & Associates; The HOK Planning Group; Saratoga Associates; SWT Associates) did have a main role in the design process, it was not the only role. The landscape architects were responsible for the development of the concept plan, design details, and the management plan (see Future Plans/Issues).
program elements. Forest Park is an urban park on 1, 371 acres. Including the restored primary and secondary successional forests, there are approximately 18,000 trees in the park.6 The main bike loop around the park is 6 miles, and the park includes many miles of other paths and sidewalks, with more being built. Other recreation amenities include two golf courses (27 holes and 9 holes), many different sports fields (baseball, softball, football, cricket, rugby, soccer, and lacrosse), an archery course, a boathouse (kayaks, paddleboats, and gondolas), several fishing docks, and a skating rink (which is converted into sand volleyball courts in the summer).6 Other attractions include the Muny (outdoor municipal theater which puts on musicals every summer), the Shakespeare Festival (free productions of Shakespeare in the glen near the art museum every May), free concerts during the summer (Twilight Tuesday at the History Museum, Jungle Boogie at the zoo), the Missouri History Museum, the St. Louis Art Museum, the Planetarium (part of the Science Center), the St. Louis Zoo, and the Jewel Box (conservatory with special exhibits). The park is also host to many different events throughstructured unstructured out the year: the Great Forest Park Balloon Race, LouFest Music Festival, St. Louis Earth Day Festival, St. Louis African Arts Festival, St. Louis Wine - league play - fishing active Festival, and others.13 The Grand Basin (near the Art Museum) is one of - softball - sledding baseball -walking the most popular sites for wedding photography in St. Louis; any given - field hockey - jogging Saturday during the summer, you can see 4-10 wedding parties lining - rugby - bicycling up to take pictures. It also has space for unstructured activities, with - soccer - skating golf - boating very few portions of the park inaccessible (the portions that are fenced - cricket - frisbee off are sensitive wildlife habitats). (See Figure 22). -tennis - archery passive
- football
- free play
- muny - theater - concerts - planetarium - museums - spectator events
- zoo - jewel box (exhibits) - picnicing
Figure 22: breakdown of common types of recreation within the park 5
maintenance and management. The motto of Forest Park Forever is “stay on the grass,”6 and there are only a few restrictions on park behavior. The normal park hours are 6am – 10 pm, but exceptions are made for park events (such as the Muny, Shakespeare Festival, etc.) There are normal park rules such as no destruction of park property, no disorderly conduct, no trespassing on fenced-off areas, no molesting of nests or other animal homes, and a strict speed limit. The park is patrolled by the St. Louis Mounted Police Department (see Figure 24), and also by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police and occasionally by the St. Louis Sheriff’s Department. The St. Louis Parks Department does have a few odd rules for all their parks (including Forest Park) regarding freedom of speech: speeches, posters, and any other advertisements are strictly prohibited, both in the park and any area adjoining it.14 The park is maintained by the City of St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry and the Flora Conservancy of Forest Park (a volunteer organization that helps maintain floral displays throughout the park) (see Figure 25, 26). The greenhouses (part of the Department of Parks’ complex), located near Aviation Field and the Planetarium, are used to grow both ornamental and riparian plants, and also provide ornamental plants for the rest of the city’s parks and median plantings (see Figures 23, 25). Though many of the open spaces within the park are mown, there are several areas that are allowed to run fairly wild and act as wildlife habitats: Kennedy Savannah, around the fish hatchery, the marsh north of Jefferson Lake, the prairie along Deer Lake, and riparian buffers along much of the waterway.
Figure 23: fleet of city forestry vehicles parked near the greenhouses. 3
Figure 24: mounted police directing traffic. 3
Figure 25: watering plants in the city greenhouses near Aviation Field. 3
Figure 26: pruning waterlillies in Post-Dispatch Lake. 3
use/user analysis. With more than 12 million visitors per year, Forest Park has a diverse patronage: tourists, visitors to park institutions, special event patrons, and local visitors. According to a city survey, roughly one-third of visitors live within ten miles of the park, another third between ten and thirty miles, and another third living beyond thirty miles from the park. Of those visitors, 88% drive to the park, while the remaining 12% are split between public transit, walking, or bicycling.14 (Activities within the site are varied, see Figure 22 for general breakdown.)
significance and uniqueness of project. The most unique element of the new design is the replica of the River des Peres, originally a tributary of the Mississippi River that flowed through the site (see Figures 9, 30). The river was a popular attraction when the park first opened, winding its way through the rolling hills and picturesque forests, “creating a natural pathway and pedestrian connector.” 4 However, as the city began to expand westward towards the park, the construction of sewer lines lagged behind, and the River des Peres soon became an open sewer and more of a public nuisance than a park amenity. Two floods in the 1890s sealed the river’s fate, and it was shortened and channelized for the 1904 World’s Fair (see Figures 11, 12, 30). The channelization of the River des Peres before the World’s Fair was a temporary solution, and in the 1920s, the city buried and re-routed the river in huge underground pipes (see Figure 30), where it remains to this day. 4, 10 The designers wanted to bring back the river for several reasons: to connect the disjointed ponds and lakes (see Figure 29), to create a unifying element for the site and a passive use spine (see Figure 27), to create a wildlife corridor through the site, and to deal with flooding issues.4, 10 Even though the river had been channelized decades before, the “original watershed remain[ed], and with hard rains natural flooding re-creat[ed] portions of the old river, albeit in haphazard, dangerous, and destructive ways.” 4 The new plan would correct this by “reconstruct[ing] the path of the river by creating residual basins for stormwater and recycling water back through the system by using another piping system. Greenways and promenades…connect each individual water feature and return what Calpino calls the ‘romance of the rivers’” to the park.4 The old system of disconnected water features was inefficient (using 3 million gallons of tap water per day), while the new system seeks to be more efficient: the system uses approximately 1.5 million gallons of tap water per day (rain sensors are supposed to adjust the input accordingly), fed into the system at four different points, and recirculates some of the water. 10 (See Critiques for reviewers’ reactions). In order to create a viable habitat corridor along the constructed river, the designers worked to recreate the original riparian and upland plant communities. Today, the habitat corridor contains primary and secondary successional forests, prairies, savannahs, and wetlands. 6
Figure 28: diagram of original plant communities related to the River des Peres. 8
Figure 27: passive use spine created around the new connected waterway. 8
Figure 29: diagram of how new water system is connected and how it recirculates. 10
River des Peres (originally a Mississippi tributary) was an important park attraction in early years two floods in the 1890s caused serious park damage
as city expanded west toward Forest Park, sewer lines lagged behind, and river became an open sewer
Figure 30: evolution of the River des Peres 4, 8, 10
entire river (18 miles within city limits) was buried in 1920s)
replica of river constructed as part of new masterplan – connect all lakes, waterways (fed largely by city water)
river was shortened and channelized for World’s Fair what’s left of River des Peres still exists in underground pipes
Another interesting element to this project is what the designers called the “human-ecosystem design method,” which they defined as a way to “harmonize the nature/man dichotomy that has always plagued much thinking about public landscapes.” It attempts to “formulate a more complex understanding of an urban park and the multiple roles it fills in society…‘it is a park for humans and for all critters as well.’” 4 To accommodate all users’ needs, the designers created the passive use spine along the newly connected waterway (see Figure 27), making it a “complex system of cultural and natural elements, including active spaces, passive spaces, cultural spaces, bluffs, uplands, and bottomlands.” 4 When creating the masterplan, the designers “considered all aspects of the park, including its role in the natural ecosystem and in the migration of many species of bird by creating wildlife connector paths” 4 (see Figure 31). “The quiet paths and romantic pools” in the new design “that are seemingly designed for human meditation are also intended to provide resting places for migratory birds that make a temporary home in Forest Park on their way down the Mississippi River only a few miles away.” 4 Greg Calpino feels that this new emphasis on wildlife migration and habitat introduces a new component into the planning process, representing a fuller, more dedicated approach. “‘[Wildlife experts] were an integral and critical part of the design team all the way through. I think that is unusual. From my perspective it was probably the most educational and enjoyable part of the whole plan. I think we’ve all done a certain amount of site planning, and planting plans, and paths and trails and such, but this added a whole different perspective, and ever since it makes me look at parks a little bit differently.’” 4
Figure 31: (top) usual vegetative clumping. (bottom) using the “human-ecosystem design method” to create wildlife connector paths 3
Figure 32: riparian buffer along the waterway near Deer Lake 3
Figure 33: final Forest Park masterplan 8
(Before)
(After)
Grand Basin
Pavilion Circle
World’s Fair Pavilion
Aviation Field
Figure 34: before and after pictures of some of the historical elements which were restoraed as part of the redesign. 6
roads not meant for lots of traffic; congestion during rush hour and after events (especially after promoting the park as a way to beat traffic)
some entrances hard to find; not enough along Skinker
roads too circuitous – hard to navigate, need better signs
Figure 35: compilation of some user critiques (as observed by author)
bike paths don’t always connect, some just end
poor access across Kingshighway Blvd.
peer reviews. Forest Park has received a lot of local publicity, almost all of which is favorable, as well as some national attention (see Criticism). Because the public was involved both during the design and construction processes, it has met with few complaints. John Hoal (of St. Louis Development Corporation and H3 Studio) said that during the construction process, he received “calls daily, many from individuals who happened to walk by a certain work area in the park and have a comment or opinion. Recently someone called to complain about a handrail. ‘A handrail!’ he says enthusiastically. ‘Someone might view that as an “issue.” But I think it shows that the process has fostered a sense of ownership – that people care about handrails!’” 4 Hoal also says the process has become a model in St. Louis: “at a recent community meeting for another project participants urged the committee to ‘do it like Forest Park.’” 4 The replica of the River des Peres (see Significance & Uniqueness of Project) is so convincing that “first-time visitors to the park today find it hard to imagine that the re-created river did not exist until a few years ago. The restoration bodes well for the renewal of a city too many were ready to declare dead.” 10
criticism. Despite its success, Forest Park has also attracted criticisms from the professional design community, most of which are focused on the relevancy of the “backward-looking aesthetic” of grand spaces and a picturesque river replica.17 Bill Thompson, editor of Landscape Architecture magazine, asks if Olmsted’s intent of “pastoral relief” still makes good sense today. “Or would it have been better to give Forest Park’s 2.5-mile water feature a contemporary design expression that it makes it transparent and celebrates the ingenious technology that activates it?” 17 Heidi Hohmann argues that the “mechanized nature” of the “pale shadow of a real, functioning river…should be revealed, rather than hidden under a thin veneer of ‘ecological design.’” 11 Hohmann feels that an attempt to restore historical elements creates a “tension between the past and the present…this project makes me wonder if renovation and repair of a landscape must be synonymous with restoration.” 11 I do not have a complete rebuttal to these arguments, but I would venture to say that this attempt to restore the park’s history is such a crucial step forward for a city which has been decimated by urban renewal, population loss, and blight. If this process does, as Hoal suggested, indeed become a St. Louis standard, then St. Louis will no longer live up to Thompson’s biting critique: “to anyone who loves cities, a visit to St. Louis can be a melancholy experience.” 17 Thompson provides another explanation for what he calls the “backward-looking aesthetic” of the replica river by quoting Rob Thayer’s Gray World, Green Heart. “‘Americans, in increasing numbers, feel guilt about what technological development has done to the landscape.’ This ‘environmental guilt,’ Thayer says, has given rise to a hose of landscape cover-ups…our general discomfort with what we as a culture have done to our landscapes drives us to re-create pastoral scenes – even when, ironically, we have to apply enormous technology to do so.” 17 As our cities become more and more dense, more and more modern, I think the contrast of such restored pastoral landscapes and the passive open spaces they provide, will become more and more important.
limitations. Perhaps the greatest potential limitations of Forest Park are its location and popularity. Because of the dense urban fabric surrounding it, if the park becomes too popular, it may be difficult to accommodate all users while still maintaining the character of the park – especially the passive open space spine. Steps need to be taken to ensure that the mission of Forest Park Forever continues: “to restore, maintain, and sustain Forest Park as one of America’s great urban public parks, for the enjoyment of all – now and forever.” 6 (See Future Issues/Plans).
generalizable features and lessons. - Importance of community support and input as project impetus, in design process. - Retaining and restoring historical elements are important to a city that has lost so much to urban renewal. - Human-ecosystem design method: “harmonize the nature/man dichotomy that has always plagued much thinking about public landscapes.” 4 Wildlife experts and ecologists as critical design team members as part of a fuller, more dedicated approach. - Importance of passive open spaces in parks of the future – “people increasingly want to spend time walking through a variety of landscapes.” 4 - “The Forest Park masterplan illustrates the importance of process – that how we do what we do is essential to the final product.” 4
future issues/plans. The designers designed the park to be flexible, “as long as its intent is kept.” 4 To ensure this, in 2009 Forest Park Forever created a strategic plan to guide the park in the post-restoration era. The plan’s five key goals are all focused on using resources to support sustainability and preservation of Forest Park going forward: - Prioritizing the visitor’s experience. - Clarifying and expanding the role of Forest Park Forever to sustain and maintain the park at the highest standards of excellence. - Seeking financial stability and sustainability for the park. - Attracting quality leadership. - Building community awareness and support for sustaining Forest Park at its current high level of restoration.6
FIT
(context) CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL Awareness:
- statue of Louis IX (patron king of original French settlement) in front of art museum - outline of St. Louis Arch mown into lawn of Art Hill during summer (see cover photo) - citizens have embraced new park – one of favorite places in St. Louis. - citizens were heavily invested in design and construction process (public meetings, surveys; calls to design team during construction.)
SPATIAL Connection to a larger system: - because of location at edge of city boundary, is a transition between city and county. also draws visitors from metro area (21 counties across 2 states) and from around Midwest - St. Louis has no connected park system, but the renovation of Forest Park has benefited surrounding neighborhoods, spurred revitalization efforts all over the city (“do it like Forest Park” 4)
Scale: - size appropriate for district park that serves entire metro area - large size doesn’t seem incongruous with adjacent neighborhoods because of arterial roads surrounding it
Equitable location: - location on edge of city makes it easily accessible from both city and county - proximity to Interstate 64, major arterial roads provides easy access
(economic, cultural, ecological)
(physical + spatial) LEGIBILITY Way-finding:
BENEFITS
- some visitors find circuitious roads confusing - there are signs (for entrances/exits, attractions, etc) but getting there are few direct routes - new connected water system serves as a way-finding device - other landmarks within the park include Grand Basin (and Louis IX statue), History Museum, Muny, zoo. - tall buildings outside the site (Central West End, WashU, Forest Park Hospital, etc.) also help orient visitors - major nodes within the park are at the Muny, Art Museum, Hampton entrance, zoo
- most residents know about World’s Fair - not many know about River des Peres, or that the current river is a replica - restoration of many of the historical elements (Grand Basin, Pavilion Circle, World’s Fair Pavilion, etc.)
Identity:
FUNCTION
FORM
Views:
- park rules are posted at major entrances - roadside signs throughout park point out major destinations, entrances/exits
- public, open to all - sense of community among frequent users - active and passive recreation
Environmental: - ecosystem services - wildlife corridors (human-ecosystem design method)
ACCESSIBILITY ADA Compliance:
Economical:
- all attractions (museums, pavilions, etc.) and most sidewalks are ADA compliant
- impact of property values; revitalization good for distressed city - tourism
Access: - clear boundaries (Skinker, Lindell, Kingshighway, Interstate 64) - there are entrances along all sides: some from sidestreets, others major (stoplights)
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIFFERENT USE: Ecological services:
Circulation:
- stormwater management - wildlife corridors
- roads can be circuitous - hierarchy of recreation trails: wheels, heels, shared
Maintenance:
AESTHETICS Clear Concept:
- very well maintained by Flora Conservancy, Parks Dept. - restoration of native ecosystems (riparian, prairie, forests) - high quality materials
- cohesive design elements, comfortable; appropriate to site conditions
Scale:
Safety, Comfort:
- diversity of spaces
AMENITIES Facilities:
- although variety of seating in sun/shade near attractions, some paths don’t have seating opportunities
Social:
- preservation of history - one of cultural centers of city, metro area
Signage:
Seating:
- restorative environment (microclimates) - space for exercise and leisure activities
Cultural:
- best vantage points in the site are the Art Museum and World’s Fair Pavilion - views to landmarks were created along paths, main roads
- sports fields, museums, Muny, theater, zoo, golf courses, tennis courts, boathouse, picnic public restrooms in museums, zoo, boathouse; some restroom buildings near picnic areas
Health:
-
- roads lit at night, patrolled regularly by police - mounted police, metropolitan police patroll park during day - general perception of safety
Adaptability/flexibility: - multifunctional spaces - variety of users at different locations, various events - community/city events (see Program Elements)
sources: intro. x
Carr, S. and Lynch, K. “Open Space: Freedom and Control.” Urban Open Spaces. ed. L. Taylor. New York: Rizzoli, 1981.
xiii
Forest Park Forever. <http://www.forestparkforever.org>
vi, ix, xi, xiv
Francis, Mark. “Urban Open Spaces.” Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design. ed. Ervin Zube and Gary Moore. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.
xii
Lynch, Kevin. Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.
ii
Petrow, Constanze. “Hidden Meanings, Obvious Messages: Landscape Architecture as a Reflection of a City’s SelfConception and Image Strategy.” Journal of Landscape Architecture, Spring 2011. Thompson, Catharine Ward and Travlou, Penny. Open Space: People Space. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2007. vii, xv “Preface” (Thompson, Catharine Ward and Travlou, Penny) iv, v “Public Spaces for a Changing Urban Life” (Gehl, Jan). i, iii, xii “Public Health, Public Policy and Green Space” (Worpole, Ken).
sources: case study. 1
The Central West End Association. <http://thecwe.org/>
2
McClellan, Delphine. We Stayed to Fight for City Living: How St. Louis Women Sparked a City Renaissance. City Living Press: St. Louis, MO, 1987.
3
Forest Park 365. Edward Crim Photography, 2009. <http://www.forestpark365.com>
4
Bennett, Paul. “The Park Process.” Landscape Architecture. Jan. 1998. vol. 88, no. 1, p. 28-31
5
St. Louis Forest Park R/UDAT, Oct. 28-Nov. 1, 1976. St. Louis: St. Louis Chapter, American Institute of Architects, 1976. Print.
6
“Park History.” Forest Park Forever. <http://www.forestparkforever.org/learn/history/>
7
Cranz, Galen. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1982. Print.
8
Forest Park Master Plan. St. Louis Planning & Urban Design Agency. <http://stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/documents/forest-park-masterplan.cfm> 9
1904 World’s Fair. Missouri History Museum collection. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mohistory/2869703198/in/set-72157616438572882>
10
Hazelrigg, George. “A River Runs Through It....Again: Over the Grave of St. Louis’ Buried River, an Artificial Waterway is Born.” Landscape Architecture. Feb. 2004. vol. 94, no. 2, p. 108-117. 11
Hohmann, Heidi. “Perspective: It’s a Pale Shadow of a Real, Functioning River.” Landscape Architecture, Feb. 2004, vol. 94, no. 2, p. 115.
12
“Memories and History by the Decade.” Forest Park Forever. <www.forestparkforever.org/files/Memories_and_History_by_the_Decade.pdf>
13
Event Calendar 2011. Forest Park Forever. <http://www.forestparkforever.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011-forest-park-calendar-as-of-may.pdf>
14
Park Regulations. St. Louis City Revised Code Chapter 22.16. St. Louis Public Library. <http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t2216.htm>
15
“Forest Park Parking and Access Report.” City of St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry. <http://stlouis-mo.gov/citygov//parks/forestpark/ParkingReport.pdf> 16
“Forest Park.” City of St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry. <http://stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/parks/parks/Forest-Park.cfm>
17
Thompson, Bill. “Land Matters.”Landscape Architecture. Feb. 2004. vol. 94, no. 2, p. 11.