Forest Park to Get “Modest” Entry Markers, Reminds Us Why Halprin Plan Was Great

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone

Forest Park entry gates - St. Louis, MO

Standing at Lindell and Kingshighway, there’s little to reaffirm a visitor that the wonders of Forest Park begins on the other side of the street. The boundary of the park fails to imprint a mental image. Yet it should, and it must if it is to fulfill its essential role of creating a place, and communicating what lies beyond.

Now, Forest Park is set to install gates at eight entrances around the perimeter of the park. The plan by SWT Design may be perfect for the ho-hum consensus building, offend no one design aesthetic of much of St. Louis, but it fails to inspire. Any project is only as good as the client, and here the city’s marquee park is set to get…well, get something done, at least.

The limestone markers, designed to vary a bit at each entry point, will help delineate the park borders. This is clearly a need and has been on the wish list of the park’s master plan for decades. But the new plan is best described by Robert Duffy of St. Louis Public Radio as “modest, respectful and unpretentious”. In that item, it oddly reads as a compliment. It shouldn’t be.

In 2001, Forest Park Forever shot down a plan by noted architect Lawrence Halprin, which would have been paid for by the Gateway Foundation. Halprin is best known for his firm’s remarkable series of fountains and squares in Portland, OR, and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, D.C. Not everyone loved his “Gates of Eden” plan for Forest Park entries, to be sure, but the gates were true landmarks by a giant of the profession, attractions themselves. The new modest, respectful, and unpretentious plan? Not so much.

{Forest Park “Gates of Eden” concept by Lawrence Halprin – used with permission from the Halprin Landscape Conservancy}

One critique at the time of the Halprin proposal was a recognition that Forest Park was conceived as an informal rural woodland expanse at the edge of the city. It’s wondering paths and expansive prairies and natural waterways expressly rejected the formal order of Victorian era parks such as Tower Grove and Lafayette Square in St. Louis. The 1904 World’s Fair brought a more formal design to a large portion of the park, but that remnant has been constrained to the Grand Basin. Unfortunately, limestone walls and columns will bring formality to the entrances that the park has avoided it for 141 years.

One excellent measure of our public spaces is the concept of “The First 100 Feet”. The Michael Van Valkenburgh led design team that won the competition to redesign the landscape at the Arch (Jefferson National Expansion Memorial), explained it well in its submission for that work.

In short, successful urban parks have “thick” edges. The MVVA submission read, “It is the experience of these first 100 feet that determines whether or not a visitor will want to venture further into the interior. A deep, penetrable, highly trafficked edge that serves as a physical and programmatic gradient between city and park is perhaps the most surefire guarantor of a park’s success.”

Forest Park entry gates - St. Louis, MO

Forest Park entry gates - St. Louis, MO

Forest Park entry gates - St. Louis, MO

Short of bigger changes at the park’s edges (one notable exception is the History Museum’s programming), this measure would be difficult to ace. However, gates as attractors and not just markers would be a great start. Today, some park entrances are more appealing than others, yet none announce that you are entering a special place, a park of amazing attractions and beauty that serves as the heart of the region’s history and culture.

Halprin very likely said it best in a Riverfront Times interview in 2001: “There was no fine definition of the place… Most of the wonderful places I’ve been were demarcated by an entrance… (T)hey were usually places where you had a very strong sense of going from the outside world, or the ‘other world,’ if you want to call it that, into this wonderful place that you’re making.” Unfortunately the new gates skip the wonder and will instead blandly say, “yep, there’s a park here,” in a “modest, respectful and unpretentious” way.

Forest Park gates - St. Louis, MO

The eight limestone gates now planned would be erected at: Skinker Boulevard/Wells Drive/I-64, Skinker/Forsyth Boulevard, DeBaliviere Avenue/Lindell Boulevard, Union Boulevard/Lindell, West Pine Boulevard/ Kingshighway Boulevard/Lindell, Hampton Avenue/I-64, Kinghighway/Clayton Avenue, and Tamm Avenue and Oakland Avenue. According to St. Louis Public Radio, the first gate erected will be near the Skinker/Wells Drive entrance, which is undergoing a pedestrian and bicycle friendly remake. The estimated cost for the gate is $300,000.

As with the lid over the I-70 depressed lanes, we’re burdened by a decade plus old idea that didn’t come to be. Now we’re doing it, but in a watered down, I mean, modest, respectful and unpretentious manner.

__________________

Images of styrofoam mock-up added 11/14/15

Forest Park proposed gate styrofoam mock-up

Forest Park proposed gate styrofoam mock-up

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Peter Palermo
    • Alex Ihnen

      I hope it’s OK that I post your story here, and thank you so much for sharing.

      From Peter Palermo:

      The news that Forest Park Forever has finalized plans to construct new entries to the park flashed me back to 2001 in an instant. I may have related this story before – can’t remember. Warning – this story contains a four letter word, but it is integral to the tale being told.

      I was fortunate enough, during my San Francisco days, to work on the reconstruction of Stern Grove’s amphitheater. The designer of that project was the Dean of American landscape architects, Larry Halprin. Larry was nearly 90 but an amazingly vital force. In his lifetime he had created public spaces all over the west coast, from San Francisco’s Civic Center, to Portland’s Keller fountain and Freeway Park in Seattle. He also created master plans for Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis and Sea Ranch in Sonoma. He was a genius, but also a wonderful man that I came admire and hold dear to my heart.

      Larry prided himself on knowing how work through a difficult public process. He was one of the first architects to embrace public workshops as a way to inform his design. Even though he was a decorated WW2 vet, in his heart he was a hippy. He believed in People Power.

      As we were kicking off the design process for Stern Grove, Larry was just finishing designs for the new entries into Forest Park. Forest Park Forever had commissioned the work and the plan was to privately finance this project. No public money. Well, when the design proposals were shown publicly, St Louis went bananas. People who had not been involved at all during the design phase now had very strongly held opinions and the gates were eviscerated in the press. Suddenly, fractious St Louis united in a single voice, “we hate those gates!”

      Larry and Forest Park Forever were taken by complete surprise. They thought they had done their homework and had sought public input up and down the line. Clearly, they misjudged and the gate project was smothered in its crib. Larry took it pretty hard.

      On Fridays, Larry liked to finish his day with a martini in the office. On the Friday after Forest Park Forever had killed the project, we gathered around Larry in his Levi Plaza office and poured ourselves martinis. As everyone grabbed their cocktail Larry raised his glass and in his crazy, high-pitched, gravelly voice (a surgeon’s slip had damaged his vocal cords left him sounding like Elmo the muppet) he barked out “Fuck St. Louis!” We all laughed and repeated in chorus “Fuck St Louis!” It was the perfect antidote for the gloomy moment.

      As the years went on and I spent more Fridays in Larry’s office, “Fuck St. Louis!” became his office’s regular Friday night cheer. It took on a life of its own and everyone close to Larry enjoyed hoisting glass and joining him in his ceremony.

      So, Forest Park Forever unveiled their new gates and they are about as vanilla as they can get. Stripped completely of any art, they look like the entrance to a new subdivision drawn by a contractor. Beige. Everything Larry wasn’t. For comparison, I’ve attached the front gate that ended up being built at Stern Grove. Larry took a lot of the ideas for Forest Park and incorporated them into Stern Grove’s gate. St. Louis, I think you missed out.
      Miss you Larry. I’ll have a martini in your memory and intone your ceremonial chant as I take the first sip.

      • Peter Palermo

        No problem.

  • Imran

    try #2

  • Imran

    How about going even more classic with symmetrical proportions and adding some iron work. Doesn’t this read less suburban? (apologize for the sloppy drawing)

  • Presbyterian

    I’ll make a counterpoint, if I may. I’ve actually come to appreciate the proposed entry markers. Certainly, I loved Halprin’s design, but it’s not in the cards anymore.

    Here’s my perspective. I think the new markers will look like they’ve always been there. They’re pretty much what would have been built in the 1930s had we not entered the Depression. To me, they will be much like the Grand Basin design, which everyone thinks is old and original. But all those bridges and balustrades were built only recently and to a design that was meant to look timeless. I love cutting edge design — and St. Louis needs a lot more of it — but there is a place for a historically modeled granite entry pillar. I think the proposed designs make sense.

    Look at the pics if you want to remember the original Grand Basin. Sometimes historical reproduction is a wise contextual choice. In this location, I like it.

  • Bryan Castille

    The limestone gates are bland, but the “Gates of Eden” concept is the wrong aesthetic for Forest Park. I agree with the designer that the park deserves a grand entrance, especially for a city that boasts one of the grandest entrances around. Yet the park needs many improvements–new streetlamps, fewer roadways, a redesigned Hampton Ave. entrance (motorists don’t obey the yield signs, probably because they are not required to take driver’s ed.), and, as the article states, a thicker barrier along the park’s perimeter, for starters–which forces “fancy gate” down the list of priorities.

    I sometimes hear St. Louisans complain about the lack of feature in the park, and I wonder if these folks might be new to the city, projecting onto a restrained aesthetic the elaborate designs common to other major cities. The larger-than-life roping vines evokes a sense of prehistoric wonder, sure. But imagine the expectations of those visitors passing beneath the gates, only to come upon the Muny, the Boathouse, and the World’s Fair Pavilion. Not exactly baroque. The simplicity of Forest Park is part of its beauty. I suppose I’m of two minds: I want more than what appears to be the gates to a wealthy enclave, yet less than the green thing. I mean, isn’t the “Eden” concept a little too…expected?

  • STLEnginerd

    I really like Halprins gate, with two provisions.
    1) I would not wanted one at Every entrance like the understated limestone. One entrance would have been plenty.
    2) I think something about the rendering makes it look weird. Probably the background where the cars are out of scale with the perspective, and I find it weird that in 2001 he chose to render a car from 1950. Basically it looks unprofessionally done.
    3) Lastly there was no mention of cost only who would pay. Was it to be funded completely independent of other park funds or was it to be funded to the detriment of other projects?

    Other than that I love it and I’m not really an avant garde type of guy. Its sort of surrealist Dali-esque to me anyway.

    I would also be in favor of someone reconstructing the “Creation Gate” ala the worlds fair, in forest park as well but sadly you could probably never get away with that these days even if it was completely privately funded.
    https://www.pinterest.com/TiellyB/1904-worlds-fair/

  • Alex P

    Oh Lawrence Halprin… for any of you who have had the experience of walking around Springfield, MO’s Park Central Square instead of through it, that was his doing.
    So yeah, I’ve never been a fan of his work but at least he’s a designer and is actually trying to accomplish something. Forest Park is about celebrating nature (the zoo, trees, science center, etc) and celebrating aesthetic (art museum, landscape design, etc). Entry markers / signage drawing from a time when engineering and conquering nature (reversal of the Chicago river, burying the River Des Peres) were celebrated events isn’t inspiring the environmentally sustainable innovation and exploration that should take place within a 21st Century urban park.

  • Josh

    The Halprin design reminded me a lot of Hector Guimard’s entrances to the Paris Metro (https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Guimard+Metro). In my opinion, something along those lines would have been a lot more appealing than tombstones : /

    The downtown Serra sculpture doesn’t do much for me one way or the other, but in terms of form vs. function, its current function is that of a hobo restroom and should probably be removed for that reason alone.

    • T-Leb

      Cash’s or Southern Metal is a short trip, cut Serra up, barge it to a remelt furnace.

    • Adam

      I thought the same thing (about Paris’ Metro entrances). They’re quite a bit smaller than the proposed Forest Park entrances though…

  • davidnark

    I love the news and information you cover with the blog, but it seems like you view the world through an anti-establishment lens that boxes you into opinions such as the one you have articulated above. Forest Park is a gorgeous park with a wonderful blend of natural and man-made beauty. The entrances that were announced yesterday give a nod to this beauty and provide a classy, welcoming entrance that doesn’t distract from the park itself. The proposed Halprin gates completely clashed with the character of this beautiful park. Regardless of designer or cost, they would have been a mistake for this park. I applaud Forest Park Forever on the classy design they chose that will prove timeless.

    • Alex Ihnen

      Fair enough. I just think the gates are very boring and do not fit the character of the park. They’re very similar to gates found at many other large parks around the country. Forest Park could have had something different, something unique. I get that many don’t agree with that perspective. I spend a lot of time in Forest Park and sing its praises often, but there are things that could be done better.

    • Alex Ihnen

      Fair enough. I just think the gates are very boring and do not fit the character of the park. They’re very similar to gates found at many other large parks around the country. Forest Park could have had something different, something unique. I get that many don’t agree with that perspective. I spend a lot of time in Forest Park and sing its praises often, but there are things that could be done better. Below: Boston Common, Chicago’s Millennium Park, Gold Gate Park, Central Park

      • agreed… its very yawn.

      • HawkSTL

        Agreed that the new designs for Forest Park are not unique and look like other park entrances. However, making something “unique” does not automatically make it “good.” I was trying to think of something analogous to the Halprin gates interposed on something that was classic. Now I have it. See the Soldier Field renovation in Chicago. It now looks like there is something alien growing out of the top of it. To me (and most others), that is what the Halprin gates would have done to Forest Park. That is why it was controversial and Forest Park Forever declined to install them.

        • Alex Ihnen

          I think more analogous to the Halprin gates are City Museum, the STL Zoo sculpture, Cloud Gate in Millennium Park, the planetarium at the STL Science Center, City Garden, the Arch, etc.

          • HawkSTL

            I agree with davidnark’s comments and perspective. I really appreciate Alex’s news and information. But, I also can
            almost always predict where he comes out on an issue. So, let’s
            put it to the test. Alex — is Washington University’s Danforth campus better or worse off now that Mudd Hall has been demolished?

          • HawkSTL

            Note: For those unaware, I should explain that, like the Halprin gates and Serra Sculpture, Mud Hall was controversial. Mudd Hall was different than every other building on Wash. U.’s campus. Most people wanted to see it torn down for several decades. The law students (Mudd Hall was the law school) hated it. A dedicated small minority (mostly architecture professors and students) told the administration it had to stay. So, it continued to stand for a long time. To me, there are a lot of comparisons to this discussion, in that, most would agree that Mudd Hall should have never been erected in the first place.

          • Adam

            Um… couldn’t the same be said about pretty much anybody concerning matters of taste? If you had a blog we could probably guess your tastes as well, particularly given 50/50 odds. I’m not sure why anyone would expect Alex to randomly vary his perspective… to keep readers on their toes?

          • HawkSTL

            No, I’m not expecting Alex to randomly vary his perspective. But, if his perspective is only consistent with 10-20% of the public on a particular issue, that should be noted. I’ve read and admired this website for years, but the groupthink around here sometimes astounds me. Outside of the contributors and posters on this site, you should note that a large percentage of folks strongly disfavor things that are almost taken as gospel here. It is healthy to note the other side of the argument–particularly when so many people view it the other way. And, when you do that in advance, it tends to sharpen your own view.

          • Alex Ihnen

            A not insignificant reason this site exists is to provide an alternative to the groupthink of the region. The things taken as gospel in St. Louis often strike me as ridiculous. However, I don’t see the site or my perspective as knee-jerk anti-consensus. My intent/feeling is that the value a site like this can offer is to consider another take on an issue – one that doesn’t appear in the mainstream media. I’d much rather offer an alternative viewpoint (supported by facts) that spend my time typing up more of the same, or simply repeating popular opinion. In the end, I see this as a place for conversations that weren’t/aren’t happening elsewhere. I think that’s the appeal. If those opinions are stuck in a tiny minority and St. Louis at-large choose to ignore them, then so be it.

          • HawkSTL

            Alternative viewpoints is one of the strengths of this site and why I read it (along with breaking news on new developments). It seems to me that a major problem right now in discussing political and development issues is that, with the advent of cable/opinion news, we tend to divide up into distinct camps. For example, here the trend usually is: demolitions = bad, highways = bad, stadiums with any public funding = bad, compact housing = good, bike lanes = good, and so on. And, of course, a lot of people think the opposite. That being said, I think that the issues are more nuanced than that. For example, downtown still is a ghost town (though it is improving) when there is not a sporting event. The people spending money before and after Rams games won’t be spending much, if not most, of that money on a Sunday if it weren’t for the Dome or the new football stadium – and they definitely would not be spending the money in the City. Another example is bike lanes. In concept, most would agree that the push for bike lanes is a good thing. However, when you create artificial traffic jams by eliminating traffic lanes (reducing a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road), how is that safe or beneficial? That doesn’t help bring people into the City. Point being, diversity of opinion, or at least a discussion of the full ins and outs of something without resorting to talking points, is healthy.

          • Alex Ihnen

            FWIW, I can generally predict the gist of a comment by looking at who wrote it. 🙂 Anyway…let’s see…aside from the non-profit and big taxpayer support of an institution with a $6B endowment, and other issues surrounding higher-ed, and considering that the good people at WUSTL employed me for 6 1/2 years, and I completely drank the Kool-Aid when there, and am perhaps only slowly weening myself off…and mix in there that I think universities should have wide latitude to do as they wish with “their” money…phwew… So Mudd Hall. I think the Washington University campus is better off now that it’s gone – and replaced. I’m a preservationist with a strong bend toward growth economic development. I’ve opposed quite a few demolitions in St. Louis largely because what replaces demo’d buildings here tends to be much worse – a surface parking lot, a grass field, or cheap building. For example, if SLU had come to the table with building permits for a $75M hospital for the Pevely site, I may very well have supported it (thought they have a lot of empty land to work with).

          • HawkSTL

            Alex — thank you for the thoughtful reply. Agreed on the Mudd Hall and Pevely examples. Not all demolitions are bad, but, at the same time, St. Louis demolishes way to many significant and reusable buildings.

      • Jeff Leonard

        I agree with Alex’s earlier statement that they’re better than nothing, but just don’t seem particularly inspired. Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen is an exmaple of a more formal style entrance to a famous park that could have be in keeping with the World’s Fair origins of Forest Park.

        • Bryan Castille

          Tivoli Gardens is an amusement park, though.

          • matimal

            I find Forest Park very amusing.

  • HawkSTL

    Alex as a point that these entrances are understated. That is fair critique. But, as a someone who lives near Forest Park, I have to say that declining to implement the Lawrence Halprin-designed gates is one of the best decisions Forest Park Forever ever made. A super majority of people looking at the Halprin gates all had the same thought: “Those are hideous.” The Halprin concept was completely out of place and did not compliment the park or the surrounding neighborhood. I liken this to the Serra Sculpture downtown. Just because a noted artist or architect performs the work does not make it good work. Hideous is hideous.

    • Guest

      Well, the Eiffel Tower was considered horrendously ugly and met with outrage from many citizens of Paris. It was to be a temporary structure…yet it still stands…and has become one of the most beloved landmarks in the world.
      No, I’m not putting the Halprin designs on such a scale, but I find them whimsical, full of movement and thought provoking. I think we could attribute those descriptive words to most of the users of a wonderful urban park such as Forest Park.
      That being said, I don’t understand how you could liken these designs to the Serra Sculpture. I see absolutely nothing in common with the two (except the controversy), the Serra Sculpture is nothing but slabs of iron and don’t speak to me at all. The Halprin designs strongly brings to my mind the Zoo entrance, similar in scale and usage of visual space. I really like them and feel they would have been a marvelous addition to the park and sad they’ve been rejected.
      We all have our own opinions.

      • HawkSTL

        The Serra Sculpture comparison = it was designed by Richard Serra, a noted artist. The rejected gates were similarly designed by a noted architect, Lawrence Halprin. City Hall is paralyzed and cannot remove the Serra Sculpture because some in the artist community complain “We can’t remove that — it was done by Richard Serra.” Nonsense. All artists perform bad work. Bad is bad. We would have been in the same position if the Halprin gates had been installed around Forest Park. The same vocal small minority would shout that they could not be removed because “Lawrence Halprin designed them.” Forest Park Forever dodged a bullet by declining the Halprin design. Again, as someone who lives right there, thank goodness.

        • T-Leb

          The Serra Twain exhibit at StLArtMuseum only strengthened my dislike of the actually display downtown.

      • Alex Ihnen

        I suppose I’m guilty of liking the Serra’s Twain as well. I think most people conflate the sculpture itself with the lack of upkeep of its surroundings, the failure to implement any kind of additional landscaping, and the general unkept feel of that corner of downtown. Now, in contrast to City Garden, it seems forlorn. If the Gateway Mall master plan had been implemented I think many would suddenly appreciate the sculpture. An analogous issue is something like the Midtown saucer building. People hated it, or thought they did, but it was poorly maintained and there were reportedly drug problems, a less than ideal tenant, and other issues around the property. The building wasn’t the problem, and now I’d guess that most like it.

        • Guest

          Maybe I’m just not art savvy enough, Alex. You bring up a thought about the area around the Serra as unkempt. That’s the way I’ve seen it, and that may be a key element for my feelings. That being said, it’s a poor homage to the artist and his work to allow it to sit on inadequately maintained grounds.

          I’ve always felt that most likely it’s rusted iron brings to mind decay and neglect…something the city has suffered with for so long. Perhaps if the sculpture were in a pristine setting with meticulously maintained grass or a reflecting pond it would come off more pleasingly and convey the idea of “Twain”.

          HawkSTL…I’m not qualified to judge a work of art worthy or unworthy. But I agree with you on the idea that just because it was done by a well noted artist doesn’t mean we should “continue as usual”. Like I said, maybe a more fitting location should be selected and moved there. And then maybe just some TLC of the grounds might greatly improve it’s presence.
          But as for the Halprin…I disagree. Yet I yield to your opinion because it’s in your neighborhood and I respect that.

  • Db

    whomever quoted them $300,000 per gate should be arrested and next to North Korea.

    • Db

      sent*

  • Tysalpha

    Nice subdivision entrance monuments for Forest Park!

    • Alex Ihnen

      To be fair, suburban subdivision gate design has gotten better, but yes, these aren’t too far from many of these:

  • Imran

    I love classical elements in parks. I like the rather standard wrought iron benches that were installed along the walk/bike paths. Not everything needs to scream ‘look at me!’

    • Marr62

      I totally agree. If you’re too stupid to understand where Forest Park begins, maybe you shouldn’t be wondering around in it.

    • Imran

      And the Post article they are planning to build these out of full blocks of Indiana limestone. Liking this even more.

    • Alex Ihnen

      I think classical elements in classical parks makes sense. And I think to many, great city parks are Victorian parks. Forest Park, aesthetically, is quite muddled. With various institutions doing their own (mostly historical-ish) thing, there’s an airport hanger turned horse stable, massive steel zoo sculpture, perhaps contemporary additions to the zoo across the highway, the Mid-Century planetarium, modern ice-skating rink, contemporary addition to the art museum, recent addition to the history museum…and still the rural nature of the park grounds itself. All-in-all it’s a place that is home to many styles and is better off for being so. These historic-ish gates are disappointing, but still probably two steps forward and one step back, rather than the inverse.

      • Imran

        I favor an 1800s-inspired Victorian framework made up of bridges, benches, light posts, signs, gates, paths connecting the various formal focal points ( art museum, grand basin, history museum, the Muny, World’s fair pavilion, Cabanne house, the old zoo buildings, the Jewel box ). Heck even the rectangular shape of FP speaks to a formality and discipline of design. There is certainly room for the avant garde but I would rather see it in calculated doses, as accents or exclamation points. (btw, I love the Serra downtown).

  • Chris Naffziger

    Those new gate designs are based roughly off of the old Vandeventer Place gates which sit near the Jewel Box.

    http://stlouispatina.com/vandeventer-place-gates/

  • Alex Ihnen

    Interestingly, I was just told that these gates are a huge improvement over signage that was proposed for Forest Park entrances. That signage “belonged along a highway”. Perhaps we’re lucky?

  • Jeff Leonard

    I wasn’t here when the Halprin proposals were debated. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I would have been open to something “immodest, outrageous and pretentious”!

    The bigger point I want to share to this group is that other cities go through exactly this kind of debate, and often end with the same conclusions. Columbus, who in many ways is the uninhibited and forward-leaning city we’d all like St. Louis to be, went through a very similar debate 15 years ago when one of the main bridges over the Scioto River was getting rebuilt. There was a public competition for artwork on the bridge, and the top by far was to recreate a serpent-shaped Indian burial mound from southern Ohio as a canopy over the bridget. Totally over the top, totally cool, and totally 86’d by the otherwise progressive civic leadership. It happens.

  • guest

    I agree with the sentiment of the article and we do need monumental and interesting design in STL, but I don’t think the Halprin designed gates were the solution. I do like the material he proposed and the scale and overarching aspect of the design…but the design itself could’ve used some work.

    • Richard O

      The Halprin designed gates are too avant-garde for the cultural institutions in Forest Park perhaps some other location but I do agree there could be more decorative ornamentation on what is proposed but I do like the limestone touch

  • T-Leb

    Seems weird to debate the design of these entrances other than a waste of money when there are various critical needs inside the park. The Halprin entrances look terrible btw.

    • John R

      $300K per pop is pretty pricey,

  • Guest

    Sadly, all too typical of our outdated, incompetent civic leaders. Do it boring, bland and cheap. We sure as hell don’t want anyone to think anything really cosmopolitan could ever happen here.

  • Guest

    Welcome to St. Louis, where the river meets the mehh.

  • Benjamin Aronov

    Last two lines say it all.