Historical April 1984 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
Forest Park has been in the news a lot lately as the Board of Aldermen debates a Master Plan for the Park and the Zoo/Farm proposal.
I have been deeply involved with these issues as a sponsor of both Board Bills, as a member of the Legislation Committee which reviewed the Zoo/Farm proposal, and as chairman of the Master Plan Subcommittee.
Since Forest Park is very dear to all of us, I would like to share some of my thoughts and observations with you.
The adoption of a Master Plan for Forest Park is a top personal priority and is extremely important to the future of the Park.
The history of the Park is one of change.
While change is not empirically good or bad, proposals should be considered within the context of the park as a whole and not only relative to any one of its many parts. Ideally, a Master Plan would provide this overall perspective. Planning is best accomplished when future changes are only hypothetical.
If various limitations, restrictions, and conditions are codified in law, by definition any subsequent proposal would have to meet these requirements.
Without such a codification, however, we are left to grapple with any new proposal on its own merits.
This unfortunate set of circumstances is exactly the context into which the Zoo/ Farm proposal has placed the Board of Aldermen.
Without an approved Master Plan, and with no guarantee that we will ever have one, the Subcommittee which I chair has been asked to give further review to the Zoo/Farm question.
The Legislation Committee has already thoroughly reviewed the proposal during three months of public debate and two lengthy public hearings. Clearly, the concept of a privately financed model farm adjacent to the Zoo has the approval of at least 25 of the 29 members of the Board, since they have agreed to sponsor the bill. What is not clear, however, is the size and scope of the project.
The con ceptual drawings for the project presented by Ralston Purina were not well received.
With this in mind, I added an amendment to the bill which, while conditionally approving the lease of land adjacent to the Zoo, reserves and demands the right of the Board to approve a detailed development plan for the project before even one tree could be removed.
The amended bill was approved by the Legislation Committee and sent to the full Board for passage.
At the request of the Zoological Commission, however, the proposal was referred to my Subcommittee on the Master Plan for further review within the Master Planning process.
So here we are!
After completing a Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team Study in 1976: a User Demand Study by the St. Louis Research Group, Inc. in 1978; the preparation of a draft Master Plan for Forest Park by a study team headed by Team Four, Inc., assisted by CHNMB Associates, the Fleming Corporation, and Jack Leisch & Associates from 1979 to 1981 (all of which cost over $100,000 under former Mayor James Conway’s administration): countless meetings and public seminars by Mayor Conway’s citizen Forest Park Master Plan Advisory Task Force; almost two years of additional work by myself, the Community Development Agency, and Team Four; four public hearings and an informal forum on the Master Plan conducted by my Aldermanic Subcommittee; we still do not have an approved Master Plan under which to evaluate the Zoo/Farm proposal! Add to this uncertainty the interesting and ironic rallying cry of various environmental groups to “Keep your hands off Forest Park!” while at the same time they demand that miles of roads be removed from the Park, and you might begin to understand the dilemma we face at the Board of Aldermen.
Since the Master Plan process began, Barnes Hospital finished their underground parking garage and received permission to expand it in the near future; the Missouri Historical Society built a new fountain and began expanding its underground facilities; the Planetarium was leased to the Science Museum; a tavern was opened in the Lindell Pavillion; the historic building across from the lower Muny parking lot was razed; experimental meadows have been allowed . to grow wild; more “sculpture” has been added to the park; River des Peres Drive has been closed to traffic; the road leading to Lindell and Kingshighway was converted to trees and grass; and the roads, bridges, lakes and buildings in the park have been allowed to deteriorate due to a lack of funds and priority planning.
With all these changes in just the last few years, is it now fair or wise to make the Zoo wait until a Master Plan is finally (if ever) adopted, at the risk of losing an excellent educational exhibit for our community financed by $4.5-million of private capital?
For all these reasons, I felt it was best to resolve the Zoo/Farm question independently of the unapproved draft Master Plan.
If it was adopted, the draft plan could have been amended accordingly and brought to the full Board for final passage.
Now the controversy over the Zoo/Farm proposal threatens the passage of any Master Plan. Hopefully, however, it will provide the catalyst to solidify public opinion that we do, indeed, need a Master Plan and thus expedite its implementation.
The draft plan revolves around the philosophy that no more open space be developed for organized athletics or institutional uses.
However, it identified three areas, the Planetarium, the Jewel Box, and the Steinberg Rink; where new development could occur provided that there was no net loss of open space in the Parks. Any new facility would be required to effectively convert a given amount of acres of land from paved, developed; or unuseable land to passive park use, by removal of roads or substantial improvements which would make an area more useable for passive recreation.
In addition, proponents of a new facility would have to insure that the traffic for the development could be adequately handled by the park road system; the exact bounds of the development are permanently defined; the design and development guidelines are acceptable; and the development would accept responsibility for maintenance of the new area.
According to the draft plan, the guidelines used to determine acceptable new facilities should be the type of use and its relationship to existing facilities; quantity of construction; parking and vehicle access demand; visual impact of the facility; and timing of improvements.
The draft goes on to demand, There are three general selection criteria which must be considered prior to any improvement plan approval: 1. Uniqueness and Importance—Any – new facility should conform to the quality, importance, and uniqueness of the facilities already in the park.
It should . be something which is not likely to be duplicated or surpassed in the St. Louis region. 2. Reinforcement for the Park—The facility should have a correct and reinforcing position in the park.
It should be more than compatible; it should be a logical extension of park activities. 3. Long-Term Future—The facility should have a guaranteed long-term future.
This should cover both the funding of operations and the market for the facility in the region. Any facility which depends on short-term trends or preferences should be rejected.
Even though the draft recommends limiting such new facilities to the three above referenced areas, and says that, “the Zoo has no plans to expand beyond its boundaries in the park,” it paradoxically suggests that the Zoo develop the exact area now requested for the farm as a nature study center.
We now know that the statement about the Zoo’s plans is incorrect and we certainly must address the projected needs of this great institution within the Master Plan.
It would seem that all of the above conditions, guidelines, and criteria for development could be successfully applied to the Zoo/Farm proposal.
The problem is that the zoo is bounded on three sides by roads and that the only logical potential expansion area is to the west.
It is an unfortunate geographical reality that this same area is highly prized by environmentalists just as it is. Whether the area is, or is not, part of Kennedy Forest is purely academic, the fact is that much of the area is heavily treed and provides an unbroken canopy of foliage over several picnic sites and the bicycle path.
However, a large area immediately adjacent to the current Zoo boundary is a closely cropped meadow without trees and currently is a secluded and under-utilized picnic site with off-street parking.
This is the area originally presented to the members of the Board of Aldermen as the location for the farm.
If the major part of the farm could be generally limited to this area with a minimum loss of mature trees, combined with extensive planting of trees and shrubs to protect and screen the remaining passive area from intrusion from new activities, the size of the trees’ canopy would be basically unchanged and the environmental impact would be minimal.
If we add the proposed development condition that current paved areas of the Park be converted to passive use and agree that the removal of Valley Drive, which bisects Kennedy Forest, would be the logical area to be converted, the farm proposal could actually spark a net increase in the forest canopy and rid the middle of the woods of all vehicles and concomitant noise, pollution, and traffic.
The combining of these two areas of virgin forest land is both recommended in the draft plan and is a top priority of the environmentalists. Further, if the Zoo/Farm expansion is accepted, all or some of the draft plan’s “approved” expansion areas could be deleted from the final Master Plan protecting the Park from future institutional encroachment.
We are all familiar with the pros and cons of the Zoo/Farm issue itself.
No one I know of denies the value or desirability of the model farm and only the most embittered curmudgeon can question the unprecedented generosity of Ralston Purina.
The controversy is over philosophy and values … what is the best use for our Forest Park. What remains to be presented by the farm’s proponents is a detailed development plan called for by the Legislation Committee and a well-documented feasibility study recommended in the draft Master Plan, which would successfully address: —Purpose and need for the new use in Forest Park; —Alternative approaches to the facility such as other locations, less development, or no development; —Affected environment and the consequences for the Park and park users; —Relationship between the proposed facility and the long-term use of the park; —Irreversible changes to the environment; —Appropriate mitigation measures.
It will be up to the Subcommittee and ultimately the full Board of Aldermen to determine if the Zoo/Farm should be built in Forest Park, and more importantly, to draft and present to our fellow citizens a Master Plan to protect, restore, and improve our beloved Park.
Originally published in The Paper, April 1984.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1984_04.pdf, printed page(s) 1, 4; PDF page(s) 1, 4.
