View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
1/48
SUMMARYR E P O R T0 9 . 2 4 . 2 0 1 0
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
2/48
ii
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
CONTENTS
Process Summary
Participation
Reports
Jury
TAG/NPS
Competition Manager
Stage III Submittals
MVVA Team
Weiss/Manfredi Team
PWP Foster Civitas Team
SOM Hargreaves BIG Team
Behnisch Team
1
10
15
31
43
47
57
67
77
87
COMPETITION INFORMATIONwww.cityarchrivercompetition.org
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
3/48
1
SUMMARY REPORT 09
STAGE I:
PORTFOLIO
STAGE II:
TEAM QUALIFICATIONS
& INTERVIEW
STAGE III:
DESIGN CONCEPT
Registration Opens
Pre-Submittal Meeting inSt. Louis
Portfolios Submitted by LeadDesigners/Design Firms
Jury Evaluates Portfoliosand Selects Lead
Designers/Design Firms toParticipate in Stage II
Stage II Announcement
Lead Designers/DesignFirms Assemble Teams
Lead Designers/Design FirmsSubmitTeamQualications
Jury Evaluates Teamsand Selects
Stage III Participants
Pre-DesignConceptBrieng
& Meet the Design TeamsPresentations
Teams Prepare DesignConcepts
Jury Evaluates DesignConcepts, Ranks Teams &
Makes Final Selection
Teams Submit DesignConcepts
Selected Team Announced
Stage III Announcement
Jury Interviews Teams
Technical Advisory TeamReviews Submittals
Networking Session inSt. Louis
Mid-course Reviews 1 & 2
Team Presentations ofDesign Concepts to the Jury
Compliance Check byCompetition Manager
Compliance Check byCompetition Manager
Public Exhibit ofDesign Concepts
COMPETITION PROCESSFRAMING A MODERN MASTERPIECE | The City + The Arch + The River was an international design competition organized by national
park supporters, the design community and leadership from both Missouri and Illinois and funded through private contributions. The
National Park Service provided the framework for change through its Fall 2009 General Management Plan and the competition was
supportedbyfederal,stateandlocalgovernmentofcials,includingInteriorSecretaryKenSalazar.
The 10-month competition from December 2009 until September 2010 presented the opportunity of a lifetime for architects, landscape
architects and designers. The winner was announced on September 21, 2010, and engaged in a 90 day effort to evaluate the teams
design concept, review the competition area for opportunities solidify a plan, create a budget and timeline for completion and fundraising
plan. All with a completion date of October 28, 2015.
ThechallengewasgreattotakeoneofAmericasrsturbanparksitesandweaveitintothefabricoftheSt.Louisregionaswellas
connect it with both sides of the Mississippi River.
Integraltothecompetitionwastheachievementofabalancebetweennewideasandtheretentionofthecharacter-deningfeaturesof
the site, the core of which is a National Historic Landmark. The Arch and the grounds immediately surrounding it would be honored. But
the larger area surrounding the Arch, the downtown St. Louis entry ways and both the Missouri and Illinois riverfronts were open to the
inspiration of designers and architects.
The goals of the competition were to:
1. Create an iconic place for the international icon, the Gateway Arch.
2. Catalyze increased vitality in the St. Louis region.
3. HonorthecharacterdeningelementsoftheNationalHistoric
Landmark.
4. Weave connections and transitions from the City and the Archgrounds to the River.
5. Mitigate the impact of transportation systems.
6. Embrace the Mississippi River and the east bank in Illinois as an
integral part of National Park.
7. Reinvigorate the mission to tell the story of St. Louis as the
gateway to national expansion.
8. Create attractors to promote extended visitation to the Arch, the
City and the River.
9. Develop a sustainable future.
10. Enhance the visitor experience and create a welcoming and
accessible environment.
This report provides a summary and record of the competition
process.The competition was conducted as originally presented in the
Competition Manual (diagram at right).
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
4/48
2
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
STAGE I: PORTFOLIO
Registration Opens
Pre-Submittal Meeting inSt. Louis
Arepresentativeofeachdesigner/rmwasrequiredtoregisterinordertoparticipateinthe
competition. A list of the registered competitors and the date each registered was compiled.
iPre-SubmittalMeeting- 13January2010
AgendA
9:15-9:25: Welcome:
MayorFrancisSlay,Cityof St.Louis
TomBradley,Superintendent,JeffersonNational ExpansionMemorial,National ParkService
9:25-9:45: Purpose,AgendaandSchedulef orthe Day
DonaldJ. StastnyFAIAFAICP, CompetitionManager
9:45-10:15:Context andHistory ofJeffersonNational ExpansionMemorial
BobMoore,Hi storian,JeffersonNational ExpansionMemorial,National ParkService
10:15-10:45:The GeneralManagementPlan
SandraWashington,Chiefof Planning& Compliance,MidwestRegion, NationalPark Service
10:45-11:00:TheDesign Goals
WalterMetcalfe,Jr., GovernanceGroupMember
11:00-11:15: Break
11:15-11:45: TheCompetitionProcess
DonaldJ. StastnyFAIAFAICP, CompetitionManager
11:45-12:15:Questionsand Answers
12:15-1:15:Lunch Break
1:15-3:00: SiteTours
1:15:Attendeesgatherat4thStreetsideofOldCourthouse
Groupwil ldivideinhalftoembarkonwalkingandbustours.
3:00: ToursEndat OldCourthouse/MeetingEnds
** Lunch SuggeStionS **
Basedonproximity & allwithin walkingdistance:
Max& Ermas
316MarketStreet(314) 621-5815**Locatedinthe DruryHotel
BrewhouseHistoricalSportsBar
andRedKitchen & Bar
315ChestnutStreet(314) 655-1234
**BotharelocatedintheHyattHotel
Hardees/RedBurrito
601Chestnut,St. Louis(314)621-9354
JimmyJohns
508PineStreet (314)241-5000
Calecos
101NorthBroadway,St Louis(314)421-0708
**CornerofBroadway & Chestnut
St.LouisBread Company(Panera)
116North6th Street(314)588-0423
Pre-submittal meeting
WedneSdAy, 13 JAnuAry 2010
tucker theAtre, gAteWAy Arch ViSitor center
St. LouiS, Mo
Over 60 people attended the competition pre-submittal meeting held on Wednesday, January
13,2010,inSt.Louis.ThebriengwasheldintheTuckerTheatreintheGatewayArchVisitors
Centerandwasfollowedbytoursofthecompetitionsite.Thebriengincludedpresentationsby
the Competition Manager, National Park Service, and the Competition Sponsor. Video of the
entirebriengwaspostedtothecompetitionwebsite.
FRAMINGA MODERN MASTERPIECE THE CITY +THE ARCH +THE RIVER 2015
DATE REGISTRANTNAMEANDEMAILA DD RE SS F I RM N AM E ( if p r ov id ed )12/8/2009 SethHL angton[ se th @l an gt o na ss oc ia te s. co m ] L an gt onSssociates
1 2/ 8/ 20 09 J oc el yn K e ll ey [ jk el le y@ nb wl a. co m ] N el so nByrdWoltz LandscapeArchitects
1 2 /8 / 20 0 9 D u nc a n P en d le b ur y [ d pa r ch i te c tu r e@ c ox . ne t ] D u nc a nPendl eburyAIA
1 2/ 8/ 20 09 P a tr ic k Al le n [p a tr ic k@ ga b or a ll en .c om ] g ab o rallen
12/8/2009 Gi l l ianG on es [ g il li an .g o ne s@ gm ai l. co m ] G il li anGones
1 2 /8 / 20 0 9 J u li e E va n s [ ju l ie r ob e rt s ev a n s@ g ma i l. c om ] J u li eEvans
1 2 /8 / 20 0 9 B e n ja m i n An d er s o n [b e nj a m in . an d er s o n@ g m ai l .c o m] B e nj a mi nAnderson
12/8/2009 G.GregoryRei d,A IA [ gg r eg or yr ei d@ ao l. co m] G . Gr eg or y R ei d,AIA
12/10/2009 RobertC.Holland[ be st bo b@ sw bel l.n et ] R ob er tC.Holland
12/10/2009 JohnP.Miller [john.miller@kpffstl.com] KPFF
12/11/2009 MarkVogl[mark.vogl@hok.com] HOK
12/11/2009 L uc yKel ly,AIA[prb al a@ be hn is ch .c om ] B eh nis chArchitects
12/11/2009 T heoF og gy [t _f og gy @h ot ma il .co m] Th eoFoggy
12/13/2009 T ri stand ' Es tr ee S t er k [t s te rk @o ra m br a .c om ] T he O ff ic e fo rRoboticArc hitec tural Medi a&BureauforResponsiveArchitecture(ORAMBRA)
12/14/2009 MR.RAMUELCOLOMA AURELIO,Architect[arc h_aurel io@yahoo.c om] MR.RAMUELCOLOMAAURELIO,Architect
12/14/2009 HSFari dulFerdous[ hs @d em od ul or .c om ] d em od ul or
12/14/2009 c al i nbolovan[ ca li n_ bo lo va n@ ya ho o. co m] c al inbolovan
12/15/2009 SteuartG ra y[ sg ra y@ kr jd a. co m] K EV IN RO CH EJOHNDINKELOOAND ASSOCIATES
1 2 /1 5 /2 0 09 N a t e Tr e ve t ha n [ n tr e ve t ha n @m v v ai n c. c om ] M i ch a el V a nValkenburghAssociates,Inc.,
12/15/2009 c harl esanderson[ c ha r le s @c h a rl e sa n d er s on . co m ] C h ar l esAndersonLandscape Architecture
12/15/2009 kensmi th[ ks la @e ar th li nk .n et ] k en sm it hlandscapearchitect
12/15/2009 Dani elGottlieb[ dg @g ot tl ie bd es ig ns .c om ] g ot tl ie bdesign
12/16/2009 Roy B.Mann[ rm an n@ ri ve rs st ud io .c om ] T heRiversStudio, LLC
12/16/2009 Franc isc oG a rc i a I gl e si a s [ fr a n ci s co g @ op p en o ff i ce . co m ] o p p enoffice
12/16/2009 PeterKneiber[ pe te r_ kn ei be r@ ho tm a il .c om ] P et er K n ei be r
12/16/2009 Bri anG.Cotter,RL A,ASL A[CAL LCOT T ER@SBCGLOBAL .NET ] Sustai nabl eLandConsultants, LLCandCotterAssociates,LLC
12/17/2009 GerardA.Rewol inski[grewoli nski @arnol dandosheri dan.c om] Arnol d&O'Sheridan, Inc.
12/17/2009 Mi guelRosales[ m ro s a le s @r o s al e sp a rt n er s . co m ] R o s al e s + P ar t n er s
1 2 /1 7 /2 0 09 A d r ia n A g u ir r e H . [ ad r ia n . ag u ir r e .h e rr e ra @ g ma i l. c om ] S A A
1 2/ 18 /2 00 9 v er re t [p e. ve rr et @g ma il .c om ] p ie rr eedouardverret
12/18/2009 rehaml ul u[ ar ch .r eh am lu lu @g ma il .c om ] r eh amlulu
12/18/2009 ArturoVasquez,A IA [ av a sq ue z@ sa sd es ig n .c om ] S AS /D es ig n,Inc.
12/18/2009 Y oshiFunatani [ yfu na ta ni@ gm ai l. co m] Yo sh iFunatani
12/18/2009 SaraT yl er[ st yle r@ oj b. co m] Th eO ff ice of Ja mesBurnett
12/18/2009 Gi ul ioPierattini[ gi ul io @b m rg a rq u it ec to s. cl ] b mr garquitectos
12/19/2009 L orenzoD.S a va g e , Sr . [ l or e n zo @ iv y a rc h .c o m] I v y A rc h it e ct u r al I n n ov a t io n s
12/20/2009 Adri anMarshal l[ ad ri an @s aa la .c om .a u] S tu tt er he im/Anderson LandscapeArchitecture
12/21/2009 Ronni eGensler[ Ro nn ie .G en sl er @a ru p. co m] A ru p
12/21/2009 Cl audeBoullevrayede Passill[cdep@ateliera ps is .c om ] a te li er Apsis
12/21/2009 GaryJohnson[ gj oh n so n@ pd iw or ld gr o up .c om ] P DIWorldGroup, LLC
12/21/2009 kennethschroeder [kschroeder@smngarch.com] SMNGAarchitects
12/21/2009 Ci ndaGilliland[ cg il li la nd @s wa gr ou p. co m] S WAGroup
12/21/2009 Eri kMarti g[ er ik @t ba ny .c om ] T ho ma s Ba ls le y As so ci at es
12/22/2009 Si gneN ie ls en [ si gn e@ mn la nd s ca p e. co m] M at he wsNielsenLandscape Architects
COMPETITION REGISTRATION 1OF 4
FRAMINGA MODERN MASTERPIECE THE CITY +THE ARCH +THE RIVER 2015
12/22/2009 JenniferVarner[jvarn er @bcj.co m] BohlinCywinskiJackson
12/22/2009 L i saR oo ka rd [ lr oo ka rd @s as ak i. co m] S as ak iAssociatesInc.
12/22/2009 MarkJohnson[ mj oh ns on @c iv it as in c. co m ] C iv it as ,inc.
12/23/2009 RonH en de rs on [ He nd er so n @L pl us A. ne t] L +ALandscapeArchitecture
12/23/2009 Si l viaTo rr es [s ilv ia @t ba ny .c om ] T ho ma sBalsleyAssociates
12/23/2009 T homasF ra le y [t jf ra le y@ bs u. ed u] D ep ar tm en tofLandscape Architecture,Ball StateUniversity
12/23/2009 MichelleChang[ mc ha ng @r va pc .c om ] R af ae l Vi no lyArchitects
12/23/2009 GARY BORROR[ GC BO RR OR AR CH @A TT .N ET ] G . CL IN TO NBORROR ARCHITECT/PLANNER
12/24/2009 StephenCzar[ st ep he n@ cz ar st ud io .c om ] C za rStudio
1 2 /2 4 /2 0 09 M A R CO S M U RA K AM I [ m ar k m ur a @ gm a i l. c om ] M A R CO S M U R AK A MI
12/28/2009 Pc ourtL uc[lp@spktra rc hit ec ts .b e] S PK TR ar ch it ec ts
12/28/2009 Frederic kDarryl Medl er[fdm.udfs tl@ liv e. co m] U rb anDesignForum
12/28/2009 MeeraJai n[m ja in @a rc tu ri s. co m] A rct ur is
12/29/2009 WillettMoss[ Wm os s@ cm gs it e. co m] C MG L an ds ca peArchitecture
12/31/2009 WanonaSatcher[w aj is a22 @y ah oo .co m] C DD G
1/2/2010 tal i p[ th al ee pb il gi n@ ho tm ai l. co m] b oy ut 3d
1 / 2/ 2 01 0 J a so nE ck le r [M ec kl er 47 4@ cs .c om ] J as on E ck le r
1/4/2010 Davi dMosser[dave@orphanstudio.com] OS/ATX
1/4/2010 PeterRothsc hi l d[ ro th s ch il d@ qr p ar t ne rs .c om ] Q ue nn el lRothschild&Partners
1/4/2010 Mi c haelL uk e [m ic ha el @s ai to wi tz .c om ] S ta nl eySaitowitz/NatomaArc hi tec tsInc .
1 /4 /2 01 0 U . A. S te rn [ ar ic st er n@ li ve .c om ] I nn ov at io ninDesignLLC
1/4/2010 Mi c haelC.Wakefiel d[mai l@wakefi el darc hi tec ts.com] Wakefiel dArc hitec ts
1/4/2010 Chri stopherMarc i nkoski [c marc i nkoski @fi el doperati ons.net] JamesCornerFieldOperations
1/4/2010 Chri sReed [cr@stoss.net] StossLandscapeUrbanism
1/4/2010 AnneT homson[ an ne t@ gg nl td .c om ] G us ta fs onGuthrieNichol Ltd
1 / 4/ 2 01 0 M a r y P atMattson[ mp ma tt so n@ pw pl a. co m] P et erWal kerand Partners
1 / 4/ 2 01 0 R o h anVChavan[ rc ar ch 30 6@ ya ho o. co .i n] R oh anChavanArchitect
1 /5 /2 01 0 M a rk H ur d [ mt h gr a ph ic s@ sb cg lo ba l. ne t] D an ci ngMoonGroup
1/5/2010 Bri anCuff[bcuff@lacinaheitler.com] LacinaHeitlerArchitects
1/5/2010 Charl esDi l worth[ di lw or t h@ st ud io sa r ch .c om ] S TU DI O S
1/5/2010 SangwookP ar k [w oo ki e9 8@ gm ai l. co m] S NS D
1 / 5/ 2 01 0 A m itTalwar[ a mi t. ta lw ar @a m it ta lw a r. co m ] A m itTalwarAssoc iates/Offi c eofBl urredEdges
1 / 6/ 2 01 0 P h ilH ea t on [ ph il .h ea t on @c ra ck ne ll .c om ] C r ac kn el lLandscapeArchitects
1 / 6/ 2 01 0 M e ga n N o ye s [ m no y es @ ro g er s m ar v e l. c om ] R O G ER S M A R VE LARCHITECTS,PLLC
1/6/2010 AmandaSi gafoos[ am an da @r ch st ud io s. co m] R io sClementiHale Studios
1 / 6/ 2 01 0 L i saRapoport [l is a@ br an ch pla nt .co m] P LA NTArchitectInc.
1 / 6/ 2 01 0 S Y EDIMRANAGHA [ar_imranaga@yahoo.com]
1/7/2010 AnthonySimeone[ as im eo n e@ ph .w r td es ig n .c om ] W a ll ac eRoberts&T odd
1/7/2010 Davi dM o t ze n be c ke r [ d mo t ze n be c ke r @o a a la . co m ] o s lu n d .a n d. a s so c .
1/7/2010 Amal i aGonzal esDahl[ a da h@ he nn in gl ar se n. co m] H en ni ngLarsenArchitects
1 / 8/ 2 01 0 J o shDannenberg[ d an n en b er g @ as y mp t o te . ne t ] A s ym p t ot e A r ch i te c tu r e
1 / 8/ 2 01 0 K e ll y E a st m a n [ ke l ly . ea s t ma n @ pe r ki n sw i ll . co m ] P e r ki n s+ W il l
1/8/2010 AndreasVogler[ a nd r ea s @ ar c hi t ec t ur e a nd v is i on . co m ] A r ch i te c tu r e a ndVision
1/8/2010 Ul i sesSanc hezB a r ra g a n [u l is e s@ e st u di o us b .c o m] E s tu d ioUSB
1 / 8/ 2 01 0 J o hnP at r ic k [J oh n p@ al li ed w or ks .c om ] A ll ie dWorks
COMPETITION REGISTRATION 2OF 4
FRAMINGA MODERN MASTERPIECE THE CITY +THE ARCH +THE RIVER 2015
1 / 9/ 2 01 0 J a me s B o we n [ j am e s@ b ow e na r ch i te c tu r e .c o m] b o we n a r ch i te c tu r e
1/10/2010 JohnS ta ck R os s [j st ac kr @y ah oo .c om ] S ta ck
1/11/2010 garyborror[ gc bo rr or ar ch @a tt .n et ] G .C li nt onBorror Architect
1/11/2010 SonyaJ ur y[ sju ry @b ur ns mc d. co m] B ur ns&McDonnell
1 /1 1/ 20 10 M ik e M en se [ mi ke @m m en se .c om ] m m en se Ar ch it ec ts a n dJamesBowen
1/11/2010 JoshuaA . B or en [ jo sh u a. bo r en @a ed a s. co m ] A ed asLA
1/12/2010 BrentC r it t en d en [ b cr it t en d en @u ic st l. co m] M VR DVandCentralDesign Office
1/12/2010 ShaneO 'N ei ll [ so ne il l@ pa tk au .c a] P at ka uArchitectsInc
1/12/2010 GeorgeNi kol ajevi c h[ g ni k ol a je v ic h @c a nn o n de s ig n . co m ] C a n no nDesign
1 /1 2/ 20 10 K am le sh P a ri kh [ pa r ix x@ at t .n et ] P AR IX I n te rn a ti on al
1/12/2010 JoeKol odzi ej[ jo ek @c od ec on su lt an ts .c om ] C od eConsultants, Inc.
1/12/2010 JosephMacDonald[joe@ur bana o.com ] Urba nA&OLLC
1/12/2010 SnezanaStevanovic[ s st e va n o vi c @q u in n ev a ns . co m ] Q u in nEvansArchitects
1/12/2010 JamesCastaneda[ c as t a ne d a s. s tu d io s @ gm a il . co m ] C a s ta n ed a sStudios
1/12/2010 MarkFel ton[ ma rk _f el to n @u r sc or p. co m] U RS C o rp or a ti on
1/12/2010 Davi dS to ke s [d st ok es @j lb ru ce .c om ] J ef fr ey L .Bruc e&Company
1/12/2010 Shafi kAlsbei[ntps@ntpbg.org] NTPBulgaria
1/13/2010 Jul i oMontaner [ ju li o@ se ar ch it ec ts .c om ] S ou th ea stArchitectServices
1/13/2010 Noel Fehr[ n oe l fe h r @p l an n in g d es i gn s t ud i o. c om ] P l an n in gDesignStudio
1 /1 3/ 20 10 R an dy B ur ke tt [ ra nd y@ rb ld i. co m] R an dyBurkettLighting Design,Inc
1/13/2010 Ri c kBonasch[ rb on a sc h@ sb cg lo ba l. ne t] i nd ep en d en tcitizen
1/13/2010 andrewt r iv er s [a t ri ve rs @t r iv er s. co m] t r iv er s a ss oc ia te s
1/14/2010 T onyDuncan[ ad a rc h@ ch a rt er in t er n et . co m ] A nt ho n y Du nc anArchitect
1/14/2010 DennisP . M cG r at h [d p mc gr a th ai a@ g ma il .c om ] D en ni sP.McGrath AIAArchitect
1/14/2010 JohnM .N ew ma n[ jn ew ma n@ i1 .n et ] s ol eproprietorArchitect
1 /1 5/ 20 10 L en a K ry la to v a [l en k a@ ar t kr yl a. co m] A rt k ry la
1/15/2010 Davi dR ie d [f ab 4f an 51 88 2@ ao l. co m] R ie dDesignGroup
1 / 15 / 20 1 0 L a ur e n H la v en k a [ lh l av e nk a @h a n de l ar c hi t ec t s. c om ] H a nd e lArchtiectsLLP
1/15/2010 Hol lyMoore[hmoore@studio in si te .co m] s tu di oI NS IT E,LLC
1/15/2010 HunterB e ck h am [ h u nt e r b@ s wt d es i gn . co m ] P a r ke t D es i gn I n t er n a ti o na l /S W TDesign
1/15/2010 Si gneN ie ls en [ s ig n e@ m nl an ds ca pe .c om ] M a th ew sNielsen
1 / 15 / 20 1 0 L a wr e nc e K ea r n s [l a r ry @ wk a r ch . co m ] W h ee l er K e a r ns A r c hi t ec t s
1/16/2010 Keri movShamsudi n[ ps ar ch st ud io @g ma il .c om ] P S
1/17/2010 Junghyun,S eo [s jh 21 21 @n at e. co m] B EC OM IN GARCHITECT
1/17/2010 rajni rmal[ ma rx .a rc hi te ct ur e@ gm ai l. co m] m ar x
1 /1 7/ 20 10 P au l Ca m er on [ p sc @c am a rc h. co m] C a me ro n/ Ar ch it ec t
1/17/2010 DennisTacchi[ de nn is @d ta cc hi ar ch it ec ts .c om ] D en ni sTacchi&Associates
1/18/2010 FredericS c hw a rt z [ f sc h wa r t z@ s ch w a rt z a rc h .c o m] F r ed e r ic S c h wa r t z A rc h it e ct s
1/18/2010 SteveMc Dowel l[s mcd ow el l@b nim .c om ] B NI M
1/18/2010 GregAntey KAIDesi gn&Bui l d
1/18/2010 DonaldA.Koppy KAIDesi gn&Bui l d
1/19/2010 DanWor th BVHArchitects
1/19/2010 admi nistrator Melk
1 /1 9/ 20 10 P et er W al ke r
P WPLandscapeArchitecture
1 / 19 / 20 1 0 P a tr i ck A r m ac o st < p a rm a c os t @w e is s m an f re d i. c om > W E IS S /M A N FR E DIArchitecture/Landscape/Urbanism
COMPETITION REGISTRATION 3OF 4
FRAMINGA MODERN MASTERPIECE THE CITY +THE ARCH +THE RIVER 2015
1/19/2010 OmerShujatBhatti
< om er sh uj at @g ma il .c om > O SB
Designers
1/20/2010 FernandoM ar t n Me ni s [i nf o@ me ni s. es ] m en isarquitectosSLP
1/20/2010 MargaretPGriffin[mgri ffi n@gri ffi nenri ghtarc hitec ts.c om] Gri ffi nEnrightArchitects
1/20/2010 Ar.Ch.VamsiKrishna< v am s a na s s oc i at e s@ g m ai l .c o m> V a m si
1 /2 0/ 20 10 K ar en L a ce y H as ti ng s&Chivetta Architects
1/20/2010 EstherJ i m n ez H e r r i z < e. j im e ne z @d e la p ue r t a. c om > D ELAPUERTAYASENSIO
1/20/2010 T ooruMiyakoda[keikan t @s 6. di on .n e. jp ] K EI KA NSEKKEITOKYOCo.,Ltd.
1/21/2010 AndreyBondarenko[out_go@mail.ru] 2B2Architecture
1 /2 1/ 20 10 P am el a B ar ge r [ pb ar g er @t oo cb .c om ] O ff ic e of C h er yl B a rt o n
1/21/2010 offi ce[melk@melknyc.com] Melk
1 / 21 / 20 1 0 A n dr e P e rr o tt e [ a pe r r ot t e@ s au c ie r p er r o tt e .c o m] S a u ci e r + P er r o tt e a r ch i te c te s
1/22/2010 Ri c ardoN or to n[ in fo @r tn pl us .c om ] R TNArchitects
1/24/2010 El l aHaeyeonSung[ su ng .e ll a@ gm ai l. co m] E ll aHaeyeonSung
1/24/2010 L ayngP ew [la yn g@ wx ys tu di o. co m] W XYArchitectureand UrbanDesign
1/25/2010 adri anLuchini[ lu ch in i@ sa m fo x. wu st l. ed u ] E MB T/ LA D
1/25/2010 T heodoreJ.Wofford[ t he o do r ew o ff o r d@ s bc g lo b a l. n et ] T h eo d o reJ.Wofford
1/25/2010 SaundersSchultz[ s au n de r ss c hu l tz @ sb c gl o ba l .n e t] s c ul p to r
1/25/2010 Paul Hubbman[ pa ul @b oz oi an gr ou p. co m] B oz oi anGroupArchitects
1/25/2010 Ri c hardJ e ns e n [ ri c ha r d je n se n @w i ll b ru d er . co m ] w i llbruder+PARTNERS
1/25/2010 D.N . Ki ns ey , AS LA , A PA [ dn k5 @c or ne ll .e du ] K in se yLandscapeArchitecture
1/25/2010 Stac i eEsc ari o[ se sc ar io @m ma lt za n. co m] M ic ha elMaltzanArchitecture,Inc.
1 /2 5/ 20 10 A ma n da P en n ac ch ia [ d is co @d sr ny .c om ] D il le rScofidio+Renfro
1/25/2010 RussellDiNardo,AIA, LEEDap[ rd in a rd o @h a cb m .c om ] 2 01 5DesignCollaborative
1 / 25 / 20 1 0 Fr e d P ow e rs , A I A [f p ow e r s@ p ow e rs b ow e rs o x. c om ] P o we r s B o we r so x A s so c ia t e s,Inc.
1/25/2010 Phi l ipEnquist[ ph il ip .e nq ui st @s om .c om ] S ki dm or e,Owings&Merri l l L L P
1/25/2010 Ardeshi rN o za r i [ ar d es h ir @ no z a ri a r ch i te c ts . co m ] N o za r i+Nozari ,Arc hitec tsAIANCARB
1/25/2010 Sc ottR.Smi th[ sr sm it h@s iu e. ed u] S ou th er nIllinoisUniversityEdwardsville
1/26/2010 Al eksandraRaoni c[ al ek sa n dr a ra o ni c@ gm a il .c om ] R AU M l td
1/26/2010 Di anaBalmori [ db al mo ri @b al mo ri .c om ] B al mo riAssociates
1/26/2010 L EIGHH A RR I S [ HA R R IS 1 28 0 @Y A HO O .C O M ] L E IG H H A RR I S / F R EE L AN C E
1/26/2010 JohnChoi[ jo hn .c ho i@ ch oi ro pi ha .c om ] C ho iRopiha
1/26/2010 El i zabethMcQuaid[elizabeth.mcquaid@daniell i be s ki n d. c om ] S t ud i oDanielLibeskind
1/26/2010 MakotoT akei +ChieNabeshima[aysr@tna arch.com] TNA
1/26/2010 Wi lCarson [ wc ar so n@ mm al tz an .c om ] M ic ha elMaltzanArchitecture
1/26/2010 Davi dFletcher[ d fl e tc h er @ fl e tc h er s t ud i o. c om ] F l et c he rStudio
1/26/2010 AndreaMi chal ski[ sh m an d re a@ gm a il .c om ] A nd r ea M i ch al sk i
1/26/2010 DerekL auer[ a r ch i te c tu r e@ l au e r. c om ] L a ue r A r ch i te c tu r e P ro g r es s iv e D e si g n
1/26/2010 Mi c haelW it we r [m w it w er @t d ap la n. co m] T ho mp s onDyke& Associates,Ltd.
COMPETITION REGISTRATION 4OF 4
On December 8, 2009
Mayor Francis Slay and
Superintendent Tom Bradleylaunched the design
competition.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
5/48
3
SUMMARY REPORT 09
Portfolios Submitted by LeadDesigners/Design Firms
Jury Evaluates Portfoliosand Selects Lead
Designers/Design Firms toParticipate in Stage II
Compliance Check byCompetition Manager
STAGE I SUBMITTALS:
AmitTalwarAssociates/OfceofBlurred
Edges Henning Larsen Architects
WEST
Architecture and Vision
PWP Landscape Architecture
2015 Design Collaborative
Adjaye Associates
PhillipEnquist(SOM)etal
Urban A&O et al
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architects, PC
G. Clinton Borror Architect/ Planner Reid Design Group
Antoine Predock/PC Coen/William Morrish
Studio Daniel Libeskind
James Bowen and Mike Mense
TCRD Consortium
Behnisch Architeken
KeikanSekkeiTokyoCo.,LTD.
Allied Works Architecture et al
Saucier + Perrotte Architectes
BNIM
Rogers Marvel Architects & Nelson ByrdWolfe Landscape Architects
Wallace Roberts & Tod
Fernando Menis
Rafael Vinoly et al
Balmori Associates
Perkins + Will !Melk/Snohetta (Jerry Van Eck)
Michael Maltzen Architecture/Stoss
Landscape Urbanism
OlCB-Cheryl Barton et al
Frederic Schwartz-Frederic Schwarz
Architects
Sasaki Central
Quennell Rothschild & Partners/
DillerScodo&Renfro
Wirtz International
Rios Clemente Hale Studios Asympote Architects
JamesCornereldOperations
Oslund and Associates
Gustafson Guthrie Nichol
Matthews Nielson
Weiss/Manfredi
HOK
RTN/Thomas Balsley
EMBT/LAD
Fletcher Studio
Leah Harris (Individual) Surface Design/Cannon Design
CDO-CentralDesignOfce
Derek Lauer-Lauer Architects
Progressive Design
The Competition Manager reviewed all the submittals for compliance with the Competition
Regulations. Of the 49 submittals, 40 complied with the regulations and were forwarded to the
Jury for consideration.
The Stage I Jury Session was held in St. Louis on February 3 - 5, 2010. The Jury was given a
projectbriengandsitetour.EachJurorindividuallyreviewedthesubmittalsandparticipatedin
groupdiscussion.Aftermuchstudy,debateanddeliberation,theJuryselectedninenaliststo
proceed to Stage II.
STAGE II
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
6/48
4
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
STAGE II: TEAM QUALIFICATIONS & INTERVIEW
Stage II Announcement
Networking Session inSt. Louis
STAGE II FINALISTS:
The design teams selected to advance were announced on February 10, 2010.
The Jury had the challenge of evaluating portfolios that represented designers of internationaland national recognition, emerging designers and design teams comprised of individuals that
provide great promise as collaborators, said Competition Manager Donald J. Stastny. The lead
designersanddesignteamsinvitedtoparticipateinStageIIrepresentindividualsandrmsthat
have local, national and international ties and have the potential to come up with extraordinary
solutions to the design challenges presented by the City, the Arch and the River.
The lead designers and design teams were:
Behnisch Architekten, Gehl Architects, Stephen Stimson Associates, Buro Happold,
Transsolar, Applied Ecological Services, Limno-Tech, Herbert Dreiseitl, Arne Quinze, Peter
MacKeith,EricMumford
FIT(FullyIntegratedThinking)TeamCecilBalmond-ArupAGU,DougAitkenStudio,HOKPlanningGroup,HOK
Michael Maltzan Architecture, Stoss Landscape Urbanism, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer,
Richard Sommer, Buro Happold
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Steven Holl Architects, Greenberg Consultants,
Uhlir Consulting, HR&A Advisors, Guy Nordenson and Associates, Arup, LimnoTech, Ann
HamiltonStudio,JamesCarpenterDesignAssociates,ElizabethK.Meyer,ProjectProjects
PWPLandscapeArchitecture,Foster+Partners,Civitas,NedKahn,BuroHappold
QuennellRothschildandPartnersandDillerScodio+Renfro,VishkanChakrabarti,Buro
Happold, Atelier Ten, and Nicholas Baume
Rogers Marvel Architects and Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, Urban Strategies,
Local Projects, Arup SOM, BIG, Hargreaves Associates, Jaume Plensa, URS
Weiss/Manfredi,MagnussonKlemencicAssociates,MarkDion
Over 100 people attended a networking session
on February 18, 2015. The session provided a
networking opportunity to minority, disadvantaged,
or women-owned businesses, local contractors, and
others to meet with the short-listed Design Teams
for potential teaming opportunities. The Competition
Manager and representatives of the Sponsor made
brief presentations on the process and on regulatory
compliance issues relevant to the project. The
presentations were followed by an open house to
meet the participating teams. Interest forms for
potential teaming opportunities were provided at
the event and on the website. 42 completed interest
formswereforwardedtotheninenalistteams.
TheCompetitionManagerwillcompileall Interestformsreceivedin personatthe NetworkingSessiononThursday,February18,2010or viae-mailby Monday,February22,2010. Thecompilationwill bedeliveredto allninefinalist teamsasa PDFviae-mail onthe 23rd.Whilethereisno limitationtothe typeoramount ofinformationyoumay bringtothe NetworkingSessionorgivetothe finalists, for thepurposesof this form, limit attachments tofour single-sidedpages (ortwodouble-sided).
FIRM NAME: SWT Design
OFFICE LOCATION: 7722 Big Bend Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63119
CONTACT NAME: Hunter Beckham or Ted Spaid
PHONE: 314-644-5700
E-MAIL ADDRESS: hunterb@swtdesign.com
Pleaselistthe typeof services offeredbyyour firm,specialtyservicesforthis project,andanycertifications held by your firm.
SWTDesignis aSt.Louis basedlandscapearchitectureandplanningfirm withawardwinningcivicandinstitutionalworkincludingmultipleprojectsatWashingtonUniversity, SaintLouisBotanicalGardens,ForestParkandmany otherlocationsaroundtheregion. Theownersandemployeesareintimatelyfamiliarwith the history,politicsanddesignchallengesassociatedwiththeGatewayCompetitionand theCityof SaintLouis.SWTDesignis valuedforhighquality andcreativesolutions, expertiseina broad spectrumof projects, andour commitment tostrongclientrelationships.Our award-winningdesigns,featuredacross thecountry,makeSWTDesignone ofthemost sought after firms in the Midwest. Projects needs aremet with ourexperienced,multidisciplinarystaffof professionalswhose backgroundsrangefrom horticultureto businessadministrationto urbandesign andofcourselandscapearchitecture,trails,andgreenwaydevelopment.With adiverseprojectportfolioincludingparksand recreation,campusdesign,corporateandretailplanning,andurbandesign, clientscanbe surethatwe havetheexperiencetomeetall oftheirneeds. AtSWTDesign,we arededicatedto providingourclientswiththe highestqualityenvironmentalandlandscapedesign,performance,andsatisfactionduringallphasesoflandscapearchitectureandplanningprojects.
Itis importanttorespectthe historyofwherethe cityhascome fromas wellasthe original designintentofthe SaarinenandKileydesign.It isevidentthat portionsofthePark needa faceliftandthisprojectshouldidentifyand placea priority onthoseareas.While thisis acompetitionfocusedprimarilyonthe ArchGroundsproper,embracingtheurban adjacencies,engagingtheriver andurbancommunityandweavingthe connectionsin andoutof thisprojectwill becritical.Thewinningsolutionthatframesthe modernmasterpiecewillbea projectthatinspiresandsupports thelocalcommunity,createsandstimulatestheeconomy,connectsto andimprovesthenaturalenvironmentsand providesa platformtodraw visitorsfromaroundthe globe.
Networking Session
INTEREST FORM
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
7/48
5
SUMMARY REPORT 09
Lead Designers/DesignFirms Assemble Teams
The short-listed Lead Designers/Design Teams assembled complete teams who would be
capable of executing the project design and related construction administration services.
Lead Designers/Design FirmsSubmitTeamQualications
Jury Evaluates Teamsand Selects
Stage III Participants
Jury Interviews Teams
Compliance Check byCompetition Manager
Stage II submittals were received from all nine teams on March 18, 2010.
The Competition Manager reviewed the submittals and found them all to be in compliance with
the Comeptition Regulations and forwarded them to the Jury for evaluation.
Technical Advisory Group meeting #1 took place on March 9, 2010. The focus was on
determining the issues to be addressed by the project and their interrelationships; as well as how
theissueswouldbepresentedtothedesignersattheStageIIIBriengandinfollowupsessions.
Technical Advisory Group meeting #2 took place on March 30, 2010. The purpose of the meeting
wastoidentifyTAGmemberstoparticipateintheStageIIIBriengandMid-CourseReviews;
prepareforbriengpresentations;andtogroupissuesforacohesiveandunderstandable
presentation.
The Jury met in St. Louis for its second session March 31 - April 2, 2010 to interview and
evaluateeachteam.TheJuryinterviewedfourteamsonthe31standtheremainingveteams
on the 1st. Each interview consisted of a presentation by the team up to 30 minutes followed by
anhourofquestionsandanswers.
During the Stage II Jury session, the National Park Service provided the Jury with an
informational presentation on the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Final General
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and a primer on the National HistoricPreservation Act Section 106.
The Jury evaluated the teams using the evaluation criteria as stated in the Competition Manual,
considering the team interviews and written submittals. After much debate and deliberation, the
JuryselectedvenaliststoproceedtoStageIII.
STAGE III
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
8/48
6
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
STAGE III: DESIGN CONCEPT
Pre-DesignConceptBrieng
& Meet the Design TeamsPresentations
Stage III Announcement STAGE III FINALISTS:
The teams selected to advance to Stage III were announced on April 7, 2010.
Thegoalofthersttwostepsoftheprocesswastoidentifydesignteamswiththetalent,
capacity andcommitment to create thoughtful design solutions addressing the complex issues of
the site and itsrelationship to the city, the river and the Illinois side. With this selection, that goal
has been accomplished, said Competition Manager Donald J. Stastny. The selected teams
represent local, national and international perspective, and we look forward to working withthem
over the next few months as their visions evolve and they create their designs.
Having this level of architectural, engineering and landscape design power focused on such
a visibleurban park is exciting, said Tom Bradley, superintendent of the Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial. We are committed to incorporating our parks into the life of their
surrounding communities. I look forward to seeing the designs in August.
The lead designers and design teams as listed on their submittals were:
Behnisch Architekten, Gehl Architects, Stephen Stimson Associates, Buro Happold,
Transsolar, Applied Ecological Services, Limno-Tech, Herbert Dreiseitl, Arne Quinze, Peter
MacKeith,EricMumford
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Steven Holl Architects, Greenberg Consultants,
Uhlir Consulting, HR&A Advisors, Guy Nordenson and Associates, Arup, LimnoTech, Ann
HamiltonStudio,JamesCarpenterDesignAssociates,ElizabethK.Meyer,ProjectProjects
PWPLandscapeArchitecture,Foster+Partners,Civitas,NedKahn,BuroHappold
SOM, BIG, Hargreaves Associates, Jaume Plensa, URS
Weiss/Manfredi,MagnussonKlemencicAssociates,MarkDion
Thedesignteamsattendedatwo-daybriengonApril28-29,2010.Therstdayincluded
broader information, technical issues, and a tour of the area. Beginning at the Monsanto
Research Center, Missouri Botanical Garden, the tour featured St. Louis cultural and
entrepreneurial riches. The agenda included:
Welcome and Design Goals by Superintendent Tom Bradley and Mayor Francis Slay
Presentations by TAG members:
City and Region Design and Development - Planning & Urban Design, City of St.
Louis & Gateway Mall Conservancy
Transportation - MoDOT & Streets Department, City of St. Louis Regional Trail System - Great Rivers Greenway
Mississippi River Navigation, Flood Risk Management, Environmental US Army
Corps of Engineers & US Coast Guard
East Bank, Malcolm Martin Memorial Park - MetroEast Park and Recreation District
Accessibility,UniversalDesign-OfceoftheDisabled,CityofSt.Louis
Tour of St. Louis and East Bank
Presentation of St. Louis in History and Today at the Missouri History Museum
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
9/48
7
SUMMARY REPORT 09
Teams Prepare DesignConcepts
Teams Submit DesignConcepts
Mid-course Reviews 1 & 2
Pre-DesignConceptBrieng
& Meet the Design TeamsPresentations
An estimated 800 people gathered at the Roberts Orpheum Theater in downtown St. Louis the
eveningofApril28,2010forpresentationsbythevenalistteams.HostedbyJoeBuck,the
award-winning sportscaster and St. Louis native, leaders from each of the teams presented theirdesign philosophies and examples of their previous work as they begin preparation of design
conceptsforthenalphaseofthecompetition.
TheStageIIIbriengcontinuedthenextday,April29,2010,attheOdyessyTheateratthe
Gateway Arch. The second day focused on the National Park, its mission, function, and
operations. The presentations by NPS included:
General Management Plan
Resource Stewardship/Design Integrity
Program/Visitor Services
SecurityRequirementsandLawEnforcementAuthority
Operations, Concessions, Maintenance, and Events
Connectivity/Urban Interface including the Old
Cathedral
The teams had 15 weeks to prepare their designs concepts.
Each design team participated in two Mid-course Reviews with the Technical Advisory Group and
Competition Manager Team. The purpose of the reviews was to provide constructive feedback to
theteamssothatthenalproposalssubmittedwereasfeasibleandfunctionalaspossible.Each
teamwasallottedfourhourstomeetindividuallyandcondentiallywiththeTAG.Theagendafor
eachmeetingwasuptotheteam.TherstroundofMid-courseReviewstookplaceMay25-27,
2010 and the second round of reviews occurred June 29-July 1, 2010.
The teams design concept submittals were received on schedule on August 12, 2010. The
CompetitionManagerreviewedeachsubmittalandfoundallvetobecompliantwiththe
Competition Regulations.
The Jury met with the Governance Group in St. Louis
onJuly7-8,2010foranintensivetwodaybrieng
similar to the one given to the design teams at the
beginningofStageIII.Thepurposeofthebriengwas
to ensure the Jury was as informed as the design teams
and help the Jurors understand the competition DesignGoals and the Governance Groups desired outcomes
for the competition and overall project.
National Park Service
U.S.Departmentofthe InteriorJefferson National Expansion Memorial
Group Presentations
Part I
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
10/48
8
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
Public Exhibit ofDesign Concepts
The National Park Service and its consulting parties, including the State Historic Preservation
Ofce,NationalTrustforHistoricPreservation,andtheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation,
conducted a review of the submittals in order to comply with the General Management Plan and
the Record of Decision, which stated NPS would conduct a compliance review of each submittal
prior to the Jury meeting. The NPS review was a continuation of the TAG review and focused on
issues related to the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial grounds, facilities, and operations.
The review focused on how well each scheme did or did not meet current legislation and policies,
including potential adverse affects on the National Historic Landmark. The review was not an
ofcialSection106orNEPAreview,butidentiedissuesthatwouldbeofconcernorfocusin
those processes if the scheme should be chosen.
The design concept submittals were placed on display in the lobby of the Gateway Arch on
August 17, 2010. The exhibit will remain on display through September. A second traveling
exhibit has been rotating to venues throughout the region. The traveling exhibit was on display
at the Missouri Botanical Garden, Southwestern Illinois College, National Great Rivers Museum,Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Maryville University, University of Missouri St. Louis,
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Charles Community College, and the Missouri History
Museum.
Technical Advisory TeamReviews Submittals
The Technical Advisory Group met on August 13, 2010 to review each submittal. The focus of
the review was on the level of risk inherent in the design as it would affect implementation of
theconcept.TheTAGidentiednotonlyhigh-riskproposals,buttheyalsoidentiedbenecialproposals that were in harmony with or furthered current initiatives in the city and region. The
TAGs review was an object analysis of each scheme and not a comparative evaluation of the
submittals. The review was summarized in a succinct report the Jury.
SecretaryoftheInteriorKenSalazar,SenatorClaireMcCaskill,andNationalParkService
Director Jon Jarvis toured the exhibit at the Gateway Arch with Superintendent Tom Bradley and
Mayor Francis Slay. The leadership expressed their support and enthusiasm for the project and
its successful implementation.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
11/48
9
SUMMARY REPORT 09
Jury Evaluates DesignConcepts, Ranks Teams &Makes Recommendation
Selected Team Announced
Team Presentations ofDesign Concepts to the Jury
ThenalJurysessiontookplaceAugust25-27,2010.Ontherstday,theJurystudiedthe
submittals and toured the public exhibit. On the 26th, each team presented its concept to the
Jury. The presentations were held in the Ferrara Theater at the Americas Center in St. Louis.Each team was given an 1-1/2 hour time slot in which they had 45 minutes to present their
conceptfollowedby45minutesforaquestionandanswerperiodwiththeJury.Thepresentations
were open to the public for observation. The traveling exhibit of the design concept submittals
was on display in the lobby of the theater. On the third day of the session, the Jury discussed and
deliberated.
The Jury evaluated the design concepts using the evaluation criteria as stated in the Competition
Manual, considering the team presentations, boards, and written submittals. After much
debate and deliberation, the Jury ranked the teams in terms of their response to the evaluation
criteria as stated in the Competition Manual. The Jurys analysis of the design concepts and its
recommendation were summarized in the Jury Report to the Governance Group.
The Governance Group accepted the team recommendation of the Jury and the process
recommendation of the Competition Manager. The top-ranked team of MVVA was announced
to the press on September 21, 2010. A formal press conference with representatives of the
Governance Group, Competition Manager team, and the design team was held on September
24, 2010.
MVVA is an outstanding team that presented a winning combination of the ambitious and the
manageable, said Tom Bradley, Superintendent of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.
Theyshowedgreatreverenceforthebeautyandsignicanceoftheexistingsite,while
suggesting improvements and attractions in line with our competition goals. Were excited to startplanning.
DESIGN PHASE
Over a 90-day period, the design team will work in partnership with the sponsors, the City of
St.Louis,theNationalParkServiceandotherstofurtherdeneprogramrequirements;begin
developing a design that takes into account the feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions;
createaconstructionbudgetandfundraisingplan;anddenethedeliveryexpectationsfromnow
until 2015.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
12/48
10
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
PARTICIPATION
GOVERNANCE GROUP
Dedicated to sponsoring a thoughtful, inclusive and objective process one based on the National Park Service and the City of St. Louiss
directives the CityArchRiver 2015 Foundation is the sponsoring organization that is helping to see this project through its October 2015
completion.
TOM BRADLEY is the superintendent of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (popularly known as the Gateway Arch) for the
National Park Service. He reported for assignment in April 2008 and has a lengthy history with the National Park Service, beginning in
1972. During his career, Mr. Bradley has served in many distinguished roles, including superintendent at Saint Croix National Scenic
Riverway, assistant superintendent at Cuyahoga Valley National Park, assistant superintendent at the Statue of Liberty National
Monument, and superintendent of Christiansted National Historic Site/Buck Island Reef National Monument. Mr. Bradley participated in
the restoration campaign for Ellis Island, the largest privately funded effort in the National Park Service.
BRUCE LINDSEY, AIA is the Dean of the College of Architecture and Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design at Washington
University in St. Louis. He also serves on the universitys steering committee for the International Center for Advanced Renewable
Energy and Sustainability, I-CARES. Mr. Lindsey has worked on a number of environmentally sustainable projects across a variety of
scales, including a design for the Pittsburgh Glass Center that earned a gold rating under the U.S. Green Buildings Councils Leadership
in Environmental & Energy Design (LEED) guidelines. The project also received a Design Honor Award from the American Institute of
Architects (AIA) and was chosen as one of 2005s top 10 green buildings by the AIAs Committee on the Environment.
LYNN MCCLURE is the Midwest Regional Director for the National Parks Conservation Association, Americas leading voice for our
nationalparks.Ms.McClurewashiredtolaunchNPCAsMidwestofce,covering11statesandmorethan50nationalparks,in2007.She
is an award-winning strategic planning and public relations consultant who has worked on behalf of many conservation and environmental
organizations, public park agencies, and Fortune 500 companies. Ms. McClure is the 2005 recipient of the Edwin Shaughnessy Award forQualityofLifefromthePublicityClubofChicagoandaSilverAnvilnalistfromthePublicRelationsSocietyofAmericaforherroleinthe
campaign to reestablish $36 million for park and open space funding in Illinois.
WALTER METCALFE, JR.isseniorcounselatBryanCave,LLPinSt.Louis,andformerchairmanoftherm.Mr.Metcalfehasbeen
involved in numerous civic engagements representing sports franchises, including the New England Patriots National Football League
franchise and St. Louis Blues National Hockey League franchise, and development of sports and convention facilities, including Scottrade
Center and the Edward Jones Dome. He also represented the Missouri Botanical Garden, Monsanto Company, the University of Missouri
and Washington University in the organization of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. He is a member of the board of directors of
not-for-protorganizationsincludingBJCHealthCare,DanforthFoundation,PulitzerFoundationfortheArts,St.LouisChildrensHospital
and Washington University. He is a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
DEBORAH PATTERSON is the president of the Monsanto Fund and director of social responsibility for Monsanto Company, where she
leads the companys global contributions program and employee engagement programs. Prior to joining Monsanto, Ms. Patterson was
ChiefExecutiveOfceroftheSt.LouisChapterAmericanRedCross.Hercareerincludes10yearsofpublicserviceinSt.LouisCity
government. She served as executive director of the St. Louis City Employment and Training Agency and the mayors top advisor for
housing and economic development for the balance of her government career. Ms. Patterson currently serves as president of the Board-
FOCUS St. Louis, on Girl Scouts of Eastern Missouri-Presidents Council, and on the Executive Committee of United Way of Greater St.
Louis.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
13/48
11
SUMMARY REPORT 09
THE HONORABLE FRANCIS SLAY, mayor of the City of St. Louis, is only the fourth St. Louis mayor to be elected to a third term. TheSlay Administration and its public and private partners have received national and international recognition for St. Louiss renaissance. In
May 2007, downtown St. Louiss revitalization was the subject of a Preserve America Presidential Award, the nations highest award for
historic preservation. Billions of dollars have been invested in neighborhoods throughout the city and property values have gone up by
almost 70 percent. Prior to being elected mayor in 2001, Mayor Slay served as a St. Louis Alderman for 10 years and then was president
oftheSt.LouisBoardofAldermenfrom1995to2001.Anattorneybytrade,SlayjoinedthelawrmofGuilfoil,PetzallandShoemakein
1981, where he practiced for 20 years and became a partner specializing in commercial law and corporate litigation.
DR. VAUGHN VANDEGRIFT is the chancellor of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He came to SIUE from Georgia Southern
University,whereheservedasprovost,vicepresidentforacademicaffairs,chiefinformationofcerandprofessorofchemistry.Dr.
Vandegrift is a member of St. Louis Civic Progress and President of Leadership Council Southwestern Illinois. He is also a member of the
Boards of Directors of University Park, SIUE, Innovate St. Louis, St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association, United Way of
Greater St. Louis, the Southern Illinois Collegiate Common Market (SICCM) and the Executive Council of The Alliance of Edwardsville-
Glen Carbon.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) served as an advisor to the Jury and provided technical overviews and expertise on the Stage III
design concept submittals.
Bi-State Development Agency
CityofSt.LouisOfceontheDisabledCity of St. Louis Planning and Urban Design Agency
City of St. Louis Streets Department
East Gateway Council of Governments
Federal Highway Administration
Great Rivers Greenway
Illinois Department of Transportation
IllinoisStateHistoricPreservationOfce
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Metro East Parks and Recreation District
Missouri Department of TransportationMissouriStateHistoricPreservationOfce
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Park Service
Port of St. Louis Harbor Master
St. Louis Archdiocesan Building and Real Estate
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Coast Guard
CONTRIBUTORS TO DESIGN COMPETITION
INDIVIDUALS
Peter Fischer
Emily Rauh Pulitzer
Anonymous
M/M David Farrell
Alison and John Ferring
John F. McDonnell
FOUNDATIONS
Gateway Center of Metropolitan
St. Louis (Malcolm Martin Trust)
Danforth Foundation
Greater St. Louis Community Foundation
National Park Foundation
BUSINESSES
Emerson
Civic Progress
Wells Fargo Advisors (Wachovia Wells Fargo Foundation)
Bryan Cave LLP
Monsanto
Bank of America
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
14/48
12
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
JURY
ROBERT CAMPBELL, FAIAis the Architecture Critic for the Boston Globe and a Contributing Editor for Architectural Record. Mr.Campbell received the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 for his work as an architecture critic for the Boston Globe. He has published more than
100 feature articles in national periodicals, and is a contributing editor and columnist for the magazine Architectural Record. His book,
Cityscapes of Boston: An American City Through Time, a collaboration with photographer Peter Vanderwarker, has achieved critical
acclaim. Mr. Campbell also reviews books on architecture, urbanism, popular culture and poetry for the New York Times. Mr. Campbell
hasbeeninprivatepracticeasanarchitectsince1975,chieyasaconsultantfortheimprovementorexpansionofculturalinstitutions.
A Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, he has received the AIAs Medal for Criticism, the Commonwealth Award of the Boston
Society of Architects, a Design Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts and grants from the Graham Foundation and the J. M.
KaplanFund.Mr.Campbellwasthe2004recipientoftheannualAwardofHonoroftheBostonSocietyofArchitects.
GERALD EARLY, PHD isanessayist,culturalcritic,educatorandpoet.HeistheMerleKlingProfessorofModernLettersandtheDirector
of the Center for the Humanities at Washington University in St. Louis. He was formerly Director of African and African American Studies.Geralds publications include One Nation Under A Groove: Motown and American Culture, Daughters: On Family and Fatherhood, Tuxedo
Junctions:EssaysonAmericanCulture,andTheCultureofBruising:EssaysonPrizeghting,LiteratureandModernAmericanCulture.
HemostrecentlyservedasserieseditorforBestAfricanAmericanEssays2010(withguesteditorRandallKennedy)andBestAfrican
AmericanFiction2010(withguesteditorNikkiGiovanni).HehasservedasaconsultantonKenBurnsdocumentarylmsBaseball,Jazz,
Unforgiveable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson and The War and he is a regular commentator on National Public Radios
Fresh Air. His essays have appeared in numerous editions of Best American Essays Series. Mr. Early has received numerous awards
including the Whiting Writers Award and a National Book Critics Circle Award for cr iticism.
DENIS P. GALVIN is a Former Deputy Director of the National Park Service. He joined the National Park Service in 1963 as a civil
engineeratSequoiaNationalPark,California,aftercompletingatwo-yearPeaceCorpsassignmentinTanzania,EastAfrica.Mr.Galvin
servedastheAssociateRegionalDirectorforOperationsandsubsequentlytheDeputyDirectorfortheRegionalOfcebasedinBoston.From that post, he transferred to Denver, Colorado, in 1978 where he was manager of the Denver Service Center, which oversees most
of the agencys planning, design and construction program. In 1985, he was selected as Deputy Director of the National Park Service. Mr.
Galvin returned to planning, design and construction in 1989 when he was named Associate Director for Planning and Development. That
positionalsoincludedpolicy,informationmanagementandlandacquisitionprograms.InSeptember1997,heacceptedare-assignment
to Deputy Director. Mr. Galvin retired from the National Park Service in January, 2002. He is currently a Trustee of the National Parks
Conservation Association and a Commissioner of the Second Century Commission, a group of nearly 30 diverse and distinguished
Americans charged with developing a 21st century vision for our National Parks. He received numerous awards throughout his career,
including the Pugsley Medal for outstanding service to parks and conservation and a Presidential Rank Award for exceptional achievement
in the career Senior Executive Service.
ALEX KRIEGER, FAIA has combined a career of teaching and practice, dedicating himself in both to understanding how to improvethequalityofplaceandlifeinourmajorurbanareas.Mr.KriegerisfoundingprincipalofChanKriegerSieniewicz,anarchitectureand
urbandesignrmbasedinCambridge,Massachusetts,since1984.Offeringservicesinarchitecture,urbandesignandplanning,therm
hasreceivedmorethantwo-dozenregional,nationalandinternationalawardsforitswork.Thermhasservedabroadarrayofclients
inover30cities,focusingprimarilyoneducational,institutional,health-careandpublicprojectsincomplexurbansettings.Mr.Krieger
is a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, where he has taught since 1977. He is Chairman of the Department of Urban
PlanningandDesign,presentlyandfrom1998-2004.Mr.Kriegersmajorpublicationsinclude:co-editingUrbanDesign(Universityof
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
15/48
13
SUMMARY REPORT 09
Minnesota Press, 2008), two volumes of Harvard Design Magazine (focusing on the evolution of urban design as a discipline), 2005-06;Remaking the Urban Waterfront, 2004; Mapping Boston, 1999; Towns and Town Planning Principles, 1994; A Design Primer for Towns and
Cities, 1990; and Past Futures: Two Centuries of Imagining Boston, 1988. He has also authored more than two-dozen essays on American
urbanizationforvariouspublications.Helecturesfrequentlyatnationalconferencesanduniversitiesandisafrequentadvisortomayors
and their planning staffs.
DAVID C. LELAND, CRE isChiefExecutiveOfcerofLelandConsultingGroup,arealestatestrategyrmheadquarteredinPortland,
Oregon. Mr. Leland is among the more knowledgeable urban strategists in the United States, with more than 45 years of experience
intherealestateindustryasaconsultant,advisor,developerandowner.AstheformerCEOofanationalrealestateacquisitionsand
developmentcompany,andeducatedinarchitecture,cityplanningandurbaneconomics,hebringsauniqueandthoroughperspective
to any project. Mr. Lelands particular interest lies in downtown revitalization, smart growth and sustainable communities, transit oriented
development,andinnovativemixed-usecenters.HehasworkedwithdevelopmentorganizationsfromprivatelyheldrmstoFortune500s,and more than 300 communities with a portfolio that includes 80 downtown revitalization and implementation strategies, 70 light rail transit
stations,45urbancorridors,andahostofsmallercenters,corridors,mainstreetsandgreeneldcommunities.Mr.Lelandsphilosophy
istobalancehisrmsworkloadbetweenpublicandprivatedeveloperclientsandtherebymaintaincontinuousawarenessoftheissues
that always arise in building successful public-private partnerships. He has served as both panelist and chair on numerous Urban Land
Institute Advisory Panels, guest lectured at universities, professional associations and conferences, and served on boards ranging from the
National Charrette Institute to Portland State Universitys School of Urban and Public Affairs.
CARA MCCARTY is Curatorial Director at the Smithsonian Institutions Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum in New York City, where
shesupervisesallexhibitionsandrelatedactivitiesinthebroadeldofdesign,includingarchitecture,environmental,landscape,and
urban design. For 14 years prior to joining the Cooper-Hewitt in 2007, Ms. McCarty was at the Saint Louis Art Museum as the Grace
L. Brumbaugh and Richard E. Brumbaugh Curator of Decorative Arts and Design. In St. Louis, Ms. McCarty served on the ExecutiveCommittee of the Saint Louis Art Museums expansion, participating in the selection of the architect and landscape architect and working
withDavidChippereld,thearchitectofthemasterplananddesign.InNewYork,sheisplayingaleadroleintheprogramming,scheduling
and redesign of Cooper-Hewitts premises. She initiated the thesis for the Museums 2010 Triennial Exhibition, Why Design Now?, which
willfocusonthelatestworldwideinnovationsintheeldsofurbanmobilityandenergyuseandsheissupervisingcuratoroftheMuseums
other forthcoming major exhibitions. In 2004, Ms. McCarty was selected to the mid-career Loeb Fellowship at Harvards Graduate School
ofDesign,attendingcoursesattheKennedySchoolofGovernmentanddoingadvanceworkinurbandesignandarchitecturebothat
Harvard and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2008 and 2009, she was the American juror for the annual Dutch Design
Awards to select the major design awards in the country, including architecture and landscape design.
LAURIE D. OLIN, RLA, FASLA is a Partner and Landscape Architect at OLIN in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. Olin is a distinguished
teacher and author and one of the most renowned landscape architects practicing today. His involvement often marks the signature ofOLINs distinguished portfolio of projects, which span the history of the studio from Bryant Park in New York City to the Brancusi Ensemble
in Romania. Recent projects include Simon and Helen Director Park in Portland, Ore., and Nationwide Childrens Hospital in Columbus,
Ohio. Mr. Olin and his fellow partners at OLIN recently received the 2008 Landscape Design Award from the Smithsonians Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum for excellence and innovation in landscape design and dedication to sustainability. Mr. Olin is currently a practice
professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, where he has taught for 30 years. He is a Fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and recipient of the 1998 Award in Architecture
from the American Academy of Arts and Letters.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
16/48
14
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
CAROL ROSS BARNEY, FAIA is founder and Principal of Ross Barney Architects. She is responsible for the design excellence of all
projectsundertakenbytherm.Dedicatedtoimprovingthebuiltenvironment,herworkhasaninternationalreputationindesignof
institutionalandpublicbuildings.Theworkofherrmhasbeenpublishedinnationalandinternationaljournals,booksandnewspapers
and has received numerous honors including four Institute Honor Awards from the American Institute of Architects and over 25 AIA
Chicago Design Awards. Her drawings have been widely exhibited and collected by the Art Institute of Chicago, the Chicago Historical
Society, The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago and the National Building Museum. Ms. Ross Barney is the recipient of the
American Institute of Architects 2005 Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture. This award recognizes excellence for a career of
architecturalachievement.Recently,Ms.RossBarneysrmreceivedanAIACOTETopTenProjectawardfortheLEEDPlatinum,Jewish
Reconstructionist Congregation in Evanston, Illinois. Ms. Ross Barney is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Following graduation, she served as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Costa Rica planning national parks. Ms. Ross Barney is a Fellow of
the American Institute of Architects, one of the highest honors the Institute bestows upon its members. She has taught at the University of
Illinois at Chicago, the University of Oklahoma (Goff Chair for Creative Architecture) and the Illinois Institute of Technology, where she is
teaching an advanced Design Studio and serves on the College Board of Overseers.
COMPETITION MANAGEMENT
TheCompetitionManagerisresponsiblefortheorganizationandexecutionoftheCompetitiontoensureanequitableandclearprocess.
As the sole contact of, and representative for, the participants throughout the Competition, the Competition Manager will facilitate all
communicationsandmeetings,receiveandchecksubmittals,andreportthendingsoftheJury.DonaldJ.Stastny,oneofthenations
most experienced competition advisors, and collaborator Jennifer Mannhard have been retained as the Competition Manager.
DONALD J. STASTNY, FAIA, FAICP, a founder and CEO of Portlands StastnyBrun Architects, Inc., has been a practicing architect, urban
designer, and process facilitator for forty years rebuilding communities, physically and culturally. Using design as a comprehensive and
strategic tool, he works toward elevating the publics understanding and expectations of architecture locally, nationally, and internationally.Don is recognized as one of the preeminent competition advisors and managers in the country. Providing a stewardship role in design
competitions,hedesignsopportunitiesforarchitectstocreateoutstandingarchitecture.In1980,heconductedhisrstdesigncompetition
forPortlandsPioneerCourthouseSquare,creatingaprocessthatwaspublishedinthe1988 AIA Guidebook for Architectural Competitions
and has become a national model. Additionally, he authored The Design Excellence Program Guide: Building a Legacyfor the U.S.
General Services Administration. He has evolved design and design/build competition processes into an art form that has resulted in
national models protecting the architect from exploitation and initiating collaboration between architects, landscape architects and artists
and raising the publics expectation of design. An award-winning architect and planner, Don has been honored with Fellowship in the
AmericanInstituteofArchitects,theAmericanInstituteofCertiedPlanners,andtheInstituteofUrbanDesign.Hewasawardedthe2006
AIANorthwestandPacicRegionsMedalofHonorandthe2009AIAThomasJeffersonAwardforPublicArchitecture.
JENNIFER MANNHARD, AICP, LEED AP is a senior urban planner and project manager at Otak, Inc., an international, award-winningdesignandplanningrm.Witheducationandexperienceinarchitecture,planning,andrealestatedevelopment,Jenniferbringsatruly
integratedapproachtoprojects.OverthepastveyearsJenniferhasworkedwithStastnyBrunArchitectstoexecutehigh-proleand
complex design competitions, serving as project manager for such competitions as the Transbay Transit Center and Tower Design and
Development Competition in San Francisco and the National Museum of African American History and Culture Design Competition for the
Smithsonian Institution. She manages the exchange of information between competitors and sponsors, develops the competition materials,
and ensures successful coordination and execution of the competition processes. A professional planner, Jennifer is a member of the
AmericanInstituteofCertiedPlannersandaLEEDAccreditedProfessional.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
17/48
15
SUMMARY REPORT 09
JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
The following report of the Jury summarizes the analysis and evaluation of the design concepts assubmitted by the five design teams that participated in Stage III of Framing a Masterpiece | The City+ The Arch + The River | 2015 | International Design Competition. The Governance Group(competition sponsor) will consider this evaluation and the recommendation of the Jury and make thefinal team selection, marking the completion of the design competition process and setting the stagefor implementation of the project.
The Jury, in response to its charge by the Governance Group, completed its process of rigorouspreparation, analysis and evaluation over a period of 60 days using the following methodology:
Step 1: Briefing of the Jury
The Jury met in St. Louis in early July 2010 for a briefing conducted by the Governance Group andthe Competition Manager. The session began with a meeting between the Jury and the GovernanceGroup to discuss the competitions design goals and the individual aspirations of members of theGovernance Group. The Jury then received an abbreviated version of the briefing given the designteams at the beginning of Stage III. This included identification of issues to be addressed in Stage IIIby the National Park Service and the Technical Advisory Group. The Jury was then given a tour ofthe competition site and St. Louis. The purpose of the Jury briefing was to provide individual Jurymembers with the same information given the design teams.
Step 2: Individual Study of Submissions
Upon receipt of the Stage III submissions by the Competition Manager, and a check for compliancewith the competition regulations, the five submittals were sent to each Juror in preparation for theJury sessions in St. Louis. The goal of this step was to have each Juror arrive with an overallunderstanding of the submittals and be able to begin work with a general knowledge of the submittalsthey would be evaluating.
Step 3: Jury Study and Discussion
The Jury met in closed session on August 25, 2010, for the purpose of individual and collective review
of the submittals. The Jury was briefed on the material submitted, the process of evaluation and thecriteria for evaluation. The Jury then toured the public exhibition of the design concepts in the lobbyof the Gateway Arch. Returning to closed session, the Competition Manager presented the TechnicalAdvisory Group (TAG) Report, which included analysis by the TAG as a whole and a more specificreport by the National Park Service as required for compliance with the Jefferson National ExpansionMemorial (JNEM) General Management Plan. The Jury was also provided a summary of publiccomments received at the exhibit as well as a compendium of media articles compiled since thedesigns were revealed to the public. Upon completion of the first day, each Juror had completed theirindividual review of each submittal and was prepared to meet with the teams to hear presentations.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
18/48
16
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
STEP 4: Public Presentations by Design Teams
Each team presented their design concept followed by a period of questions by the Jury. These presentationsand Q/A sessions were open to the public. Each presentation included a narrated electronic slide
presentation and video animation of the design concept. All teams were given an equal amount of time (90minutes) for the presentation and interaction with the Jury. The presentations gave the Jury the opportunityto further understand the intent of the teams and how each team would approach the on-going work shouldthey be selected to proceed with implementation.
Step 5: Jury Deliberation
To determine a recommendation, the Jury met in final session on August 26, 2010. Prior to any voting, eachsubmittal was discussed individually by each Juror. The discussion was framed around the Stage IIIevaluation criteria as listed in the Competition Manual, which is as follows:
Responding to the Vision and Goals
FRAMING A MODERN MASTERPIECE | The City + The Arch + The River |2015 design should embody, and interpret through the design, the vision and specificgoals of this project. The design concept should create an overall image that reflects thehistory and cultural landscape of downtown St. Louis and Arch grounds, honor theArch and its symbolic iconography, and celebrate the Mississippi River and its historicrole in the urban development of the city.
Functionality & ContractibilityThe design concept should respond to Section 106 and other applicable requirementsnecessary to deliver this project. The design concept should be easily taken from thiscompetitions conceptual stage to a buildable, cost effective design that can becompleted by October 28, 2015.
Following the discussion, the Jury went through a series of individual ballots and ongoing discussion toformulate its recommendation. Per the competition regulations, the Jury determined a ranking of the teamsto deliver to the Governance Group.
Step 6: Report of the Jury
The Jury evaluation and recommendation is recorded in this report, which completes the duties of the Juryfor the competition. This report is submitted to the Governance Group for its review and action. It doesnot portend to be a full and exhaustive record of all discussions and evaluations, but does identify and discusshow each submittal was viewed by the Jury relative to the evaluation criteria.
Evaluation of Individual Submittals
The following evaluation is presented in the order by which the teams presented to the Jury. The Jurycomments for each team are organized with respect to the competitions design goals.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
19/48
17
SUMMARY REPORT 09JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
Weiss/Manfredi Team
The proposal meets the design goals with a convincing plan. The St. Louis public may find critical elementstoo bold or too dramatic of a change. The team is very articulate and shows a great knowledge of existinglaws, regulations, and previous and current plans and sponsors.
1. Create an iconic place for the international icon, the Gateway Arch.
In its grandness, this proposal establishes a strong sense of place. It is powerful and visually stunning. Theproposal makes the case for extending west into the city and to the east bank, but may be a bit overambitious. The new west museum entrance would be a grand space. Some Jurors, however, felt it is tooaggressive and distracts from the Arch.
2. Catalyze increased vitality in the St. Louis region.
The proposal creates a variety of options for visitors and could make the region feel very proud. The urbanbluff is an exciting and inviting element; however, its implementation and maintenance is questionable. The
corridor into downtown is widened to include Washington Avenue and Walnut Street. Some Jurors doubthow well this scheme meets the goal to catalyze vitality.
3. Honor the character defining elements of the National Historic Landmark.
The new western museum entrance needs to be refined. While some Jurors felt the Arch was respected, otherfelt the deep carve into the existing berm and resulting tall retaining walls would upstage the Arch. Thereconstructed village is not necessary.
4. Weave connections and transitions from the City and the Arch grounds to the River.
The plan extends the park landscape from Luther Ely Smith Square to Kiener Plaza enhancing the
connection of JNEM and the city. There is, however, not much development or discussion of the OldCourthouse or links to the Gateway Mall. Providing new programs in Kiener Plaza is a positive aspect, butoverall the plaza design is not adequately developed. Dispersing parking into three separate parking garagesspreads people out throughout the area, which is an effective strategy. Exiting from the garage under LutherEly Smith Square needs further resolution. Good connections to Washington Avenue are provided. Thenorth end canopies and garage refinements link well into Lacledes Landing. Some Jurors, however, feltmaintaining extensive parking on the north end would hinder the connection and visits to the city. Excellentconnections into Choteaus Landing are also provided by the trails and the underpass park. Proposed changesto the Eads Bridge deck would significantly increase pedestrian connectivity and capitalize on wonderfulviews of the Arch. The plan also proposes a shuttle bus.
5. Embrace the Mississippi River and the east bank in Illinois as an integral part of the National Park.
Creation of a visual connection to the river from inside the museum through the trainspotting window is abrilliant idea. The urban bluffs on the western waterfront are a big and intriguing solution, but are overlycomplex. The dynamic solution takes flooding into account and allows for continued use during high water;however, the peninsulas/islands add more space to the large site and would be a maintenance problem forclean up after flooding events.
The east bank proposal is also a big idea. The oxbow ribbon landform/wetland park has character. It is apowerful place with high educational and ecological potential. The cultural and ecological center
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
20/48
18
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10
4
JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
Weiss Manfredi Team continued
programming is in synch with the overall National Park Service mission. There is a good sequence of spaceand circulation to the east bank. The east riverfront is simple and in contrast to the oxbow park. The walkwaystructure is grand yet overly aggressive. Some Jurors question the lack of city building on the east bank and
what community benefit East St. Louis may gain from the proposal.
6. Reinvigorate the mission to tell the story of St. Louis as the gateway to national expansion.
The trainspotting window is an excellent way to connect the museum to the greater transportation story ofthe area on the rails and river. The new orientation center is a good idea. The Jury felt the proposal was weakin addressing this goal. The proposal implied that an expanded museum would address this design goalthrough exhibits and story-telling.
7. Create attractors to promote extended visitation to the Arch, the City and the River.
The proposal includes a large number of attractors and points of interest . The pedestrian amenities added to
the Eads and Poplar Street Bridges will transform them into attractors. The trainspotting window wouldalso become an attraction. The cultural canopies at the northern end help to energize the area withoutinvading JNEM. The park configuration below the underpasses into Choteaus Landing provides recreationand connection. Some Jurors felt the Choteaus connection is overly complex and includes too much to befeasible (i.e., wetlands and recreation around existing transportation infrastructure).
8. Mitigate the impact of transportation systems.
The modular bridge over I-70 is modest but practical and the proposal provides a good explanation of closingMemorial Drive. Dispersal of parking areas will spread people out into different areas. The couplet wouldwork and help to reinforce the grid; however, closure of Memorial Drive overturns that sense of grid.
9. Develop a sustainable future.
Limited demolition and reuse of current facilities and structures is a strong positive sustainability statement the north parking garage, maintenance facility, and Malcolm Martin Memorial Park overlook are allincorporated into the design. It suggests that future capital investment is focused on new elements whilepreserving and improving existing facilities. The east bank would be an ecological destination a powerfulplace with high educational potential. The proposal provides a strong technological approach on the eastbank reflecting an understanding of the infrastructure and stormwater management; however, it spoke little ofsustainability on the grounds or upkeep of JNEM. A photovoltaic canopy is mentioned for the north side.
10. Enhance the visitor experience and create a welcoming and accessible environment.
This proposal provided good specifics about the Old Courthouse and its role in the concept. The bridges
over Leonor K. Sullivan to the new peninsulas/islands provide an accessible route to enjoy the riverfront.There is a need to further refine the entry to the museum to make it more welcoming. The grandness of scalewould provide a memorable experience but the Jury questions if the grand scale is appropriate.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
21/48
19
SUMMARY REPORT 09JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
MVVA Team
This plan successfully addresses each of the design goals and is an appropriate fit for St. Louis. A strong teamwith solid methodology, they convey intelligence and provide clear technical support for their designproposals. This scheme appears as one that can realistically be implemented by 2015.
1. Create an iconic place for the international icon, the Gateway Arch.
As the most landscape solution, this proposal has minimal buildings. The proposed structures are woveninto the landscape. It is a superb overall plan for the original grounds with a good entry response to themuseum. There is a vagueness regarding the architectural solutions that, in their development, could add tothe iconic stature of the place. The west riverfront is an elegant and simple solution with memorable lighttowers. Continuing the JNEMs allees into the city as street trees begins to tie the grounds to the city;however, the design of Kiener Plaza and Luther Ely Smith Square needs to be developed further to bettermake the connection to the Gateway Mall.
2. Catalyze increased vitality in the St. Louis region.
The distribution of parking into three separate areas disperses people throughout the area. Parking underLuther Ely Smith square brings people into the downtown corridor. Placement of remote ticketingfacilities/kiosks throughout the city is an excellent idea that ties multiple venues together and may increasethe time visitors spend in the area. The design solutions are considered strategic moves to incentivize privatedevelopment each section should result in a positive private development reaction.
3. Honor the character defining elements of the National Historic Landmark.
The proposal shows a superior technical knowledge of the site and effectively analyzes the dilemma ofhistoric preservation versus a changing landscape. A superb overall plan for the Arch grounds, the landscaperestoration is a well thought out response to repairing the Kiley landscape that seeks to enhance the original
vision. A most thoughtful approach to the historic landscape, the design is realistic and shows muchreverence and skill. Integration of structures and a carefully scaled new entrance to the expanded museum arewoven into the landscape to provide minimal disruption to the historic landscape. The design considerssecurity and addresses how to integrate the bollards into the grounds.
4. Weave connections and transitions from the City and the Arch grounds to the River.
The proposal truly focuses on transforming the edges of JNEM to make new connections into the city. Thenew museum entry on Memorial Drive is subtle and respectful, but accomplishes the direct connection to thewest. Dispersing parking into multiple locations and reliance on existing downtown parking spreads peopleout throughout the area. The street trees along Luther Ely Smith Square and Kiener Plaza form a visualcontinuance of JNEMs allees into the city. The insertion of a plaza and new banquet/caf facility creates a
place for the Old Cathedral and provides a transition from urban downtown to the more serene JNEM.The connection through Lacledes Landing is a strong idea on how to draw the area into the overall plan;however, closing Washington Avenue is not a feasible solution. Vitality is brought to the north end byprovision of an amphitheater/civic space for people to gather. A connection is made from JNEM toChoteaus Landing by reconceiving the underpass area as a park and creating a theme of an artists district.The simple and elegant west waterfront promenade allows access to the river. A proposed bicycle loopconnects the entire area.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
22/48
20
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
MVVA Team continued
5. Embrace the Mississippi River and the east bank in Illinois as an integral part of the National Park.
The cobblestone beach is a simple and lovely, yet bold, treatment for the western river front. It recalls and
celebrates the historic waterfront of the city. Repeating this cobblestone treatment on the Memorial Drivelid shows continuity and helps link the overall site. The lighted river gauges are brilliant. The floatingpavilions are not well described and appear to be an after-thought.
An inventive response to the east bank, the design is a well-conceived bottomland and excellent contributionto restoring the environment. The park would be a natural, as opposed to urbanized, attraction. The avianemphasis has synergy with NPS conservation and biodiversity. While the elevated walkways and avian centerare beautiful, some Jurors felt the high path is not persuasive and the program does little for East St. Louisother than its positive environmental contribution. The wetland reserve could be interpreted as wastewaterinfrastructure. The program needs to be thought through more to create an invitation for East St. Louis to bepart of the region. It has a good connection to and respects the existing features of the Malcolm MartinMemorial Park, but is overall too passive regarding new development and use. Additionally, the swell along
the east waterfront is a simple, flood friendly solution for performances and temporary programming.
6. Reinvigorate the mission to tell the story of St. Louis as the gateway to national expansion.
With a well-developed museum expansion, the proposal paid some attention to the needs for temporaryexhibits and climate control. The revitalization of the cobblestone levee recalls the historical significance ofthe St. Louis waterfront.
7. Create attractors to promote extended visitation to the Arch, the City and the River.
The plan places energetic activities at the edge of JNEM to complement the calm reverence of the interior.Modest but active program creates a place for residents as well as visitors. The event/gathering space
provides a venue for programmed activity. Recreation and sports venues draw return visits. The beergarden/ice rink would be a success, but a replacement facility for maintenance is not mentioned. Theprojection of peoples shadows on the flood walls is exciting and the river gauges are intriguing.
8. Mitigate the impact of transportation systems.
The proposal calls for a modest deck across Memorial Drive to dampen the noise from I-70 and create amore pedestrian friendly environment. Closure of Washington Avenue from Memorial Drive to the river is amistake. The reasoning for that recommendation is not clear. The team cleverly analyzed the existing parkingin downtown and provided a good proposal for decentralized parking and utilizing parking throughout thedowntown. The alterations to the existing garage are not well thought out including the location of theentrance/exit in the flood zone.
9. Develop a sustainable future.
The proposal shows a strong understanding of sustainability. It is an intelligent and sensible selection ofdesign moves. This is the only team to mention geothermal possibilities in JNEM. The team has a strongunderstanding of plant materials, soil, and landscape health and what is needed to refurbish ailing plants andtrees. The proposed scheme for the grounds is designed to reduce maintenance. The east bank wetlandsreserve provides environmental remediation.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
23/48
21
SUMMARY REPORT 09JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
MVVA Team continued
10. Enhance the visitor experience and create a welcoming and accessible environment.
Remote ticketing is a good idea that makes a big change in how people who visit the Arch interact with St.
Louis. New ADA compatible routes are provided. It is a superb overall plan of original grounds with goodentry response to museum.
8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report
24/48
22
SUMMARY REPORT/24/10JURY REPORTSeptember 16, 2010
Behnisch Team
The teams capacity and talent is impressive, particularly in its strong local component. In the judgment ofthe Jury, the plan could be controversial. The material is clever and highly detailed, yet simultaneously illusiveand vague. However, the Great River Expo 2010 2015 is an interesting concept, but is undeveloped indetail as a suggestion for establishing a process for further design refinement. It could build momentum for2015 and sustained vitality beyond.
1. Create an iconic place for the international icon, the Gateway Arch.
As the most energetic and transformative scheme, the overall plan would create a memorable and iconicspace. It proposes considerable entertainment elements; however, in doing so, it re
Recommended