arch competition jury summary report

8/8/2019 Arch Competition Jury Summary Report

1/48

SUMMARYR E P O R T0 9 . 2 4 . 2 0 1 0


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


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


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).


4/48

2


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 [[email protected]] KPFF

12/11/2009 MarkVogl[[email protected]] 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 [email protected] 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 [[email protected]] 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


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[[email protected]] 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 [[email protected]] 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[[email protected]] 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 [[email protected]]

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



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[[email protected]] 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



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[[email protected]] 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[[email protected]] 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.


On December 8, 2009

Mayor Francis Slay and

Superintendent Tom Bradleylaunched the design

competition.


5/48

3

SUMMARY REPORT 09

Portfolios Submitted by LeadDesigners/Design Firms

Jury Evaluates Portfoliosand Selects Lead

Designers/Design Firms toParticipate in Stage II


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


6/48

4


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: [email protected]

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


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


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


8/48

6


STAGE III: DESIGN CONCEPT



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


9/48

7

SUMMARY REPORT 09

Teams Prepare DesignConcepts

Teams Submit DesignConcepts

Mid-course Reviews 1 & 2



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


10/48

8


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.


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.


12/48

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.


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


14/48

12


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


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.


16/48

14


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


20/48

18


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).


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.


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.


21/48

19


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.


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.


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.


22/48

20


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.


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.


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.


23/48

21


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.


24/48

22


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.


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

arch competition jury summary report

Documents