SEC & USPS Blamed for AG Edwards’ anti-urban headquarters campus
“The Securities and Exchange Commission has some really wacky requirements for securities firms. I am not personally aware of whether AGE’s black glass and “no stopping, standing”, etc. signs are because of SEC regulations. I have a suspicion that part of their design is most likely an effort to comply with privacy concerns and legal requirements from the SEC.”
The above are comments from a woman named Susan – the spouse of an AGE employee – in response to my critique of the AGE headquarters. from November 22, 2004. I responded to another AGE employee a few days later – click here for that response. Ok, on to my response to Susan’s comments…
You are kidding right? Oh, you’re not. Well, I have no doubt that privacy is a factor with respect to SEC regulations – I’ll give you that one. However, I seriously doubt the SEC cares if Securities Firms operate in an urban context with a pedestrian-friendly first floor that actually has a relationship to the street. They do have Securities Firms in Manhattan don’t they?
“I also am not sure if AGE ever did have a Jefferson entrance. Yet, I think this criticism is unfair–after all, the USPS designates street addresses–it’s not as if they had a choice in the matter.”
Oh come on, you are trying to make me laugh now. AGE’s address of One North Jefferson is a vanity address. As I previously mentioned, I applaud AGE for not insisting on something self serving like One Edwards Place. USPS would normally give AGE an address on Beaumont – simply based on the entrance location.
“Why should they put an entrance on Jefferson if one was never there? I understand that you are trying to apply the principles of urban planning here, yet I think you are criticizing them on some things that may have had many other contributing factors. Urban design, while important, is not the only factor in designing a corporate headquarters. I think that you may have overlooked some of these other mitigating factors.”
I was not suggesting they now build an entrance on Jefferson simply to have a door to justify the address. I was suggesting AGE and their Architect screwed up from day one – not taking advantage of a prominent city corner. AGE was not forced to place a parking garage on the prominent corner rather than a building entrance – it was a poor choice by the owners and/or architect.
My husband, and many of his coworkers, often frequent restaurants, bars, etc., in the area after work. AGE probably keeps a couple of those Mom n’ Pop bars open that are located near the campus. They have lots of happy hours, and they don’t travel out to the county for them–they patronize the businesses in the neighborhood. I don’t think it’s quite just to pan people for not patronizing art galleries on Washington. It’s just not some people’s cup of tea. Odds are that a bunch of financial geeks, business dorks, and IT workers don’t list art as their primary interest.”
True enough, art galleries are not for everyone – especially geeks, dorks and IT workers (Susan’s generalization, not mine). However, I did not see any signs of life immediately adjacent to the AGE campus. Where are these restaurants & bars you speak of? Perhaps they are a well kept secret? The fact remains, this area is devoid of street life and the AGE campus contributes to the lack of life in the area.
“However, I take issue with your assertion that places like AGE don’t encourage walking. There is a rather large city in Brazil that closed off 20 square blocks of its downtown area to auto traffic, thus making the world’s largest pedestrian mall. It has been wildly successful.”
I had to look this one up because I wasn’t aware of which city Susan was citing – Curitiba. I’m really glad she brought this up because its brings up a number of points I’d like to make. Let’s look at a few details…
• At the same time AGE was building its auto oriented headquarters Curitiba was adopting a master plan to limit auto traffic and sprawl.
• Curitiba started with a single street closed to autos and expanded as part of a master plan. However, the “street” remained opened to pedestrians. This is contrary to AGE’s campus where a number of streets have been completely removed from the grid – limiting choices for pedestrians.
• The overall density of Curitiba is similar to that of current St. Louis – however – three decades of strict land use plans have concentrated people along bus corridors to support their mass public transit over auto use.
• Car-free zones require a high density of pedestrians to be successful.
More information on Curitiba:
Curitiba, Three Decades of Thoughtful Planning
Orienting Urban Planning to Sustainability in Curitiba, Brazil
FRONTLINE: Curitiba’s Urban Experiment
I offer the following link with some reservation because I believe the site to be a pro-sprawl site. They are certainly anti-light rail. But, they have an interesting take on Curitiba – arguing how their approach to mass transit is efficient & cost-effective but the city is not the most appealing. Based on some of the pictures, I tend to agree. Curitiba: World Class Public Transport (PDF)
A great resource on creating great pedestrian-friendly places is Carfree Cities
“I applaud you for demanding better design, I would love to see more thoughtful planning and design in this city. However, I think that you have unfairly criticized AGE for things beyond its control. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I thought you might want to be aware of some facts you may not have known about, such as SEC regulations, etc.”
AGE has been in control of the design of their campus from day one – no SEC or city regulation/building code required such a dreadful campus. Knowledge and willingness on the part of AGE and their architect would have resulted in a better campus.
I too would like to see better planning – it would prevent future AGE-esque atrocities.
– Steve
People’s misconceptions are quite odd.
I wonder if by nearby restaurants she means Union Station and surrounds? The only really close establishments _near_ AGE are Beffa’s, which doesn’t even have a sign, and Syberg’s, which sits behind a fenced parking lot.
I think that many Saint Louisans are accustomed to travelling distances to get anywhere that they consider Union Station and the Washington Avenue business district “next door” to AGE.
Maybe this pedestrian mall works in Curitiba but it did not work in St. Louis. Look at the N. 14th. street mall across from Crown Candy. Those businesses were struggling and when the street was blocked off and a parking lot paved adjacent to the shops, it killed off everything. People were used to driving right up to the store they wanted to visit or walking from their homes. Now shopping had to become an event instead of a necessity.
AGE has squandered a perfectly good opportunity to be the connector between midtown and downtown because of it’s anti-urban design. Walking from your office to your car in a distant parking lot or garage, within a giant closed off campus does not encourage anything but wanting to get the hell home.
Nate, you are right about the 14th street mall. These were often attempts to sound more suburban. Basically, it killed the life on the street. When I first moved to Old North St. Louis in 1991 I thought every storefront on those two blocks was vacant – because it looked that way. But, I found out businesses did exist – barely. But, perception has kept people away.
Downtown Portland OR has some streets that are only open to pedestrians and mass transit (bus & rail). These are quite successful because they’ve done many things throughout the entire region to strenghten thier downtown.
I clarified some facts before getting back to you here. As I thought, the address was assigned by USPS, as are they all. However, one thing you did not note/know is that the original building, the one AGE calls building A, was the first building on the site. This is the brick/concrete building located, yep, right on the corner of Jefferson and Market. And yes, they did orginally have their main entrance there. The campus has evolved slowly. The buildings were built one by one, not all at once, so the original address was hence, the original building. That explains one criticism you had, and, I think, does demonstrate that you are unfairly criticising them on some points. It is not, as you have asserted, a “vanity address.” It was the original address for the original building, before any of the other buildings were built. Your response to my comment was, “I was not suggesting they now build an entrance on Jefferson simply to have a door to justify the entrance. I was suggesting AGE and their Architect screwed up from day one – not taking advantage of a prominent city corner.” But, as I have noted, they did originally have the entrance here. So, I will suggest again that you have unfairly criticised AGE in some respects.
Your tone is a bit condescending as well–I responded to your rather harsh post with a well-reasoned, polite response. I get “Oh come on, you’re trying to make me laugh now…” and “You’re kidding, right?” in response? Let’s keep it civil, shall we? I didn’t even touch your characterization of all AGE employees as residents of the ‘burbs who simply drive in and drive back out at the end of the day. (We are *fiercely* proud city dwellers.) Trust me, it’s not the case.
Second, I think it is important to note that the magazine giving the award was St. Louis Construction News and Review. I think it is relatively easy to deduce that the award was based on *construction*, not design. In fact, the article states, (emphasis mine) “The technical challenges in building this project were enormous…” Technical challenges, as related to construction. I don’t think that’s a far stretch. The rest–I can take it or leave it.
Because I am a city resident and a policy wonk, I can tell you that the 1% tax AGE provides is IMMENSELY important to the city. And, yes, we should thank businesses that decide to stay. We do not make it easy for businesses to remain in the city. The suburbs have more incentives for them, litigation that is not so difficult, etc. Yes, we should thank businesses that remain in the city. I try to do so every day by patronizing city businesses.
Where are the restaurants and bars I speak of near the AGE campus? Wow, where do I start? Well, if you stand on Market, and look to the right of the monstrous parking garage that gets your hackles up, you will see a strip mall with a Chinese place, a great restaurant called Market Street Deli, as well as numerous other businesses. Hardly a well-kept secret, these are right across the street. (Before you begin about strip malls, let me say that I agree with you, they are monstrosities. Yet, AGE didn’t build this one–let’s not blame them for that as well, eh?)
Other bars in the area? My husband says they frequently go to Syberg’s, Harry’s, and Beffa’s. These are hardly well-kept secrets, either.
I’m glad you found Curitiba. I’m surprised it’s not in urban planning texts–it should be. It is a fabulous example of sustainable urban environments. The city is incredible. However, again, I think you’re unfairly criticising AGE here. Curitiba’s city government made these decisions–they are the ones that came up with a master plan for the city centre. I doubt anyone in Brazil expected businesses to make or implement a plan such as that–they clearly could not do so, even if they wanted to do so. Are you suggesting AGE is at fault because the City of St. Louis hasn’t formulated a master plan? And, as a follow up to that question: Have you ever attended a meeting of the Board of Aldermen? Do you really think a plan of that magnitude would be feasible here? I have my doubts, as would you had you ever seen an aldermanic meeting in our fair city.
I think you have some valid points about the design, and I respect your expertise on urban planning and design. I’m told the black glass is more for environmental reasons–heating & cooling–than for anything else. But your criticism of the security issues (AGE has apparently had problems with cars being vandalized on their lots, hence the fence) is unfair. I do think you are being a bit harsh, and criticising AGE for things beyond its control. (No parking/no standing is a very standard sign, by the way. You can find them all over the city. It does not mean AGE is banning you from the sidewalk, as you implied. Also, the city–the streets department more specifically–is the entity that posts parking signs, not AGE. Again, you are blaming them for something beyond their control.)
Yes, AGE has been in control of their campus from day one. However, the type of design you are criticising is common on campuses where buildings are built, individually, as funds are available, versus campuses where all buildings are erected at the same time. Is it an ugly campus? Sure. Is AGE responsible for all of the evils you have attributed to it here? Absolutely not.
I had hoped to use this time to look at other parts of the city & region but I’ve got a city living couple on the defensive about AGE.
As Susan notes above, the first building on the AGE campus probably did have an entrance facing in the vicinity of Jefferson. In the 14+ years I’ve lived in St. Louis, however, that has not been the case. But, Susan is missing the point entirely. Even if an original entrance faced toward Jefferson the building did not and does not have any relationship with either Market or Jefferson. At the corner is a parking garage – always was and unfortunately always will be. For those of you in St. Louis – just look to the East at what I believe is an AGE brokerage office – that building recognizes the corner and has a relationship with the street corner. It has some other minor issues but overall it is not bad. Susan – it is not just about which direction a door faces but how the door relates to the street. The postal address of One North Jefferson implies the literal corner. An address of 100 North Jefferson would imply a bit further away from Market, and so on. Since the entrance was never at the literal corner – as it should have been to be at all urban – I assert the address One North Jefferson has always been a vanity address.
While I have no facts & figures so support my claim but I’d be willing to bet a dollar that at least 80% of every employee at the main campus lives outside the City of St. Louis. If true, that would mean a good many folks from other counties pay a 1% earnings tax as Susan pointed out. This is where I get upset about the big picture – the city is supposed to be happy to have big businesses so we get tons of folks driving their polluting cars from all over the region all the while other municipalities are doing their best to get these same folks to live and work (and pay taxes) in their little part of the region. On a regional level this is really fucked up. Unfortunately, this is more common in regions than not. OK, back to Susan & AGE.
Susan focuses on the construction aspect of the award given by the St. Louis Construction News & Review. But, as I pointed out in my original post on AGE the award makes reference to connecting downtown to midtown (which is does not) and improving the environment (meaning context, not pollution). Again, Susan is defensive and missing the urban points.
Susan points to a typical strip mall across Market and a few doors to the West as an example of restaurants where AGE employees eat. Fair enough, those are within walking distance. Other restaurants are toward Union Station on Market – again an easy walk. Susan is quick to point out she’ll agree with me that strip malls are “monstrosities.” But, again my point was signs of an urban life are really not present in the blocks immediately surrounding the campus. Sure a few restaurants are open for lunch and maybe dinner but that does not a lively neighborhood make. I’m going to come back to the strip malls as monstrosities comment at the end.
I don’t think Susan has read my post from November 25th entitled, “St. Louis – Who is at Fault?” Susan argues, correctly, that AGE is not entirely to blame if the campus got built in an anti-urban fashion. The City of St. Louis and the chaotic Board of Aldermen are more to blame because they never set out a vision for the city or guidelines to encourage/force businesses such as AGE to be more urban in the building design. This was my point in my post a week ago yesterday. But, Susan in her comments argued, “We do not make it easy for businesses to remain in the city.” I think in some cases this is true and in many others this is more urban myth. I know of a number of examples where doing business in the burbs isn’t exactly a cake walk. Try getting a building permit in Creve Coeur or Olivette – the City of St. Louis permit process is a breeze compared to these two municipalities while working from the same codes. I’ve walked a number of permits through the city process in less than an hour – the same project would take at least 5 days in either Creve Coeur or Olivette and would likely come back rejected for a minor thing like noting you can’t use aluminum wiring (well, duh). We as city residents need to stop perpetuating the city is difficult myth.
Susan also says I’m unfair about AGE regarding security – because they’ve had cars broken into. When is a car more likely to get broken into? A – when it is parked on a street with a street vendor’s door 10 feet away with pedestrians passing by on the sidewalk or, B – when the car is isolated in a vast parking lot with nobody on the street to keep an eye on things. A city, when properly designed, has lots of people milling about. This provides natural security because thieves & thugs generally don’t like an audience. AGE’s campus design contributed to the car break-ins and thus the required fences and security patrols.
Susan finishes her comments by saying the AGE campus is ugly. Frankly, I’m less concerned about aesthetics than I am about urbanity. I can overcome someone’s poor choice for aesthetics if the overall building has a pedestrian-friendly relationship with the street. Susan argues the AGE campus is a result of building the campus over time rather than at once. This is probably a factor. However, had they built the entire campus at once in the 1970s when Building A was constructed I’d tend to believe the campus would have been much worse. Although many urban principals have been ignored by this campus, I can see signs the newer buildings are making some attempts at relating to the street.
OK, back to the monstrosities known as strip malls – in particular the one on Market across from AGE. So basically I’m not allowed to be critical of one of the major employers in St. Louis because we should be thankful they stayed while at the same time Susan calls a strip mall a “monstrosity?” Susan, can you really say I’m being unfair to AGE and then say strip malls are monstrosities?
You wrote, “As Susan notes above, the first building on the AGE campus probably did have an entrance facing in the vicinity of Jefferson. In the 14+ years I’ve lived in St. Louis, however, that has not been the case. But, Susan is missing the point entirely. Even if an original entrance faced toward Jefferson the building did not and does not have any relationship with either Market or Jefferson.” I believe you are missing my point entirely, actually. This is simply not true. There was, indeed, a relationship with Jefferson–as I pointed out above, that was the original entrance, in the original building. Your critique rested on the fact that they did not have an entrance on Jefferson. I have pointed out that they did, indeed, originally have an address on Jefferson in an attempt to disprove your assertion that it is simply a “vanity address.” It is not a vanity address, they did originally have the entrance there. I have lived in St. Louis for over 30 years now, and that entrance was there for some of that time. Second, they do have an entrance on Market–two, actually. One for the training center, and one (off the parking lot, really, but as close to Market as they can get) in the newer buildings.
You wrote, “But, again my point was signs of an urban life are really not present in the blocks immediately surrounding the campus. Sure a few restaurants are open for lunch and maybe dinner but that does not a lively neighborhood make.” I completely agree. Yet restaurants open for lunch and dinner are a contributing factor in a lively urban environment, are they not? I’m sure you will agree. However, my issue was with the fact that you place all of the blame for this on AGE. I still contend that is unneccesarily harsh. Unless, that is, you are expecting AGE to open and operate restaurants and bars in the area. Then, I would say that your criticism is justified. But you can hardly hold AGE responsible for the lack of eating establishments in the area. My point was, their employees do patronize local businesses, and that was a direct counter to your assertion that they drive out to the county for meals or eat at headquarters.
Also, Syberg’s is to the east, as is Harry’s, not to the west. The Tap Room is also a hot destination, as is Panama Red’s, according to my husband. Again, my point was that your overly harsh criticism of AGE employees was unfounded–they do not “get in their cars and drive” to lunch. They do patronize neighborhood businesses. I’m sure we can agree that this is a good thing for the city.
You wrote, “I don’t think Susan has read my post from November 25th entitled, “St. Louis – Who is at Fault?” Susan argues, correctly, that AGE is not entirely to blame if the campus got built in an anti-urban fashion.” Yes, and this is my entire point–that you are blaming AGE for many things beyond its control. It seems you agree this is true. Actually, I did read this particular post, despite your assumption. Your response to Pat was, “Pat argues it wasn’t A.G. Edwards fault that people don’t walk in St. Louis or stay downtown. Pat also suggests that keeping people downtown or encouraging walking shouldn’t be a concern for A.G. Edwards when designing their buildings/campus. Deflecting fault is the common theme to Pat’s comments.” Love the tone in that comment. It is not the fault of AGE that people don’t walk in St. Louis. However, I never asserted that encouraging walking or keeping people downtown should not be a concern for AGE. I simply stated that the blame should not be placed *entirely* with AGE, as you have done. You seem to agree in the referenced post, “The simple answer is everyone is to blame.”
You wrote, “Susan also says I’m unfair about AGE regarding security – because they’ve had cars broken into. When is a car more likely to get broken into? A – when it is parked on a street with a street vendor’s door 10 feet away with pedestrians passing by on the sidewalk or, B – when the car is isolated in a vast parking lot with nobody on the street to keep an eye on things. A city, when properly designed, has lots of people milling about.” Here you have twisted my words and deliberately misinterpreted me. I said that the fence was due to some vandalism on the parking lot, not that you are harsh on them about security in general because of car vandalism. I was adressing your criticism of the fence specifically, as I think you know. It is easy to see why they built the fence that you have criticised so heartily. It was not built, as you asserted, to be “unfriendly” or “anti-urban.” You are again blaming AGE for city design–something that is not within AGE’s power to modify. Same with the street signs–you criticised AGE for street signs put up by the Streets Department of the city. What logic explains that criticism? In your own words, “A city, when properly designed…” I still assert that city design is the responsibility of the city, not AG Edwards. I think we agree here also. It’s funny how we agree on so many points, yet are still debating this.
You wrote, “Frankly, I’m less concerned about aesthetics than I am about urbanity. I can overcome someone’s poor choice for aesthetics if the overall building has a pedestrian-friendly relationship with the street.” Yet, your criticism was mostly about design and aesthetics–at least, these were the major faults you continually dwelled upon. I am perplexed. Ugly black glass, supposedly no clear glass at street level, etc. These are design and aesthetic critiques. Again, I assert that your concerns and your criticism do not completely mesh.
You wrote, “Susan argues the AGE campus is a result of building the campus over time rather than at once. This is probably a factor. However, had they built the entire campus at once in the 1970s when Building A was constructed I’d tend to believe the campus would have been much worse. Although many urban principals have been ignored by this campus, I can see signs the newer buildings are making some attempts at relating to the street.” The fact that the campus was built building by building, rather than all at once is *definitely* a factor. Building A was constructed in the 1950s, not the 1970s. Yet, I agree with your assessment, that particular period in time was not a glorious period for architecture, and the campus would have most likely been even worse had they built the buildings all at once.
You wrote, “OK, back to the monstrosities known as strip malls – in particular the one on Market across from AGE. So basically I’m not allowed to be critical of one of the major employers in St. Louis because we should be thankful they stayed while at the same time Susan calls a strip mall a “monstrosity?” Susan, can you really say I’m being unfair to AGE and then say strip malls are monstrosities?” You have twisted my words again, attempting to give them a meaning I neither implied nor intended. I did not once say you were not allowed to be critical of AGE, I have repeatedly said that you are criticising them for things that are beyond their control. Saying that you are blaming AGE for things they have no control over and saying that you are not allowed to criticise AGE are two very different things. I am sure that if you read my comments again, you will see that not once did I ever assert that you are not *allowed* to criticise AGE. I simply pointed out some facts that posed a clear contradiction of your critiques. I have also agreed with some of your critique, including the aesthetically displeasing black glass. I am perplexed as to how you have interpreted this as saying you are not allowed to criticise AGE.
I fail to see any relationship between my opinion on strip malls and you criticising AGE unfairly. This is surely a straw man, if I have ever seen one. Yes, I think I can definitely say, without impunity, that you are being unfair to AGE and at the same time say that strip malls are a monstrosity. The two are hardly related, most notably because I have agreed with you that some of AGE’s campus is not very pleasing. How exactly are these two incompatible? My opinion on strip malls is based solely on aesthetics. They are ugly. I am sure you would note that they are not great contributors to an urban environment, as they do not encourage pedestrian traffic. How does this contrast with my assertion that you have neglected some facts in your criticism of AGE? I fail to see the link here.
I think that your estimation that 80% of AGE employees live in the suburbs is high. I have an email in to their media relations department to check that figure, I’ll get back to you when I hear back.
Or perhaps I won’t get back to you. You wrote, “I had hoped to use this time to look at other parts of the city & region but I’ve got a city living couple on the defensive about AGE.”
Ahh, again with the patronizing tone. I see we have decided not to engage in civil debate. Lovely. Let me note, however, that nobody is forcing you to respond here. By all means, spend your time looking at other parts of the city.
Your mocking tone is really not appreciated–again, I have addressed you with respect. You respond by mocking our pride in being city dwellers? Aren’t city dwellers a vital part of the urban environment? Is is too much to ask for respect in return? I apologize for being so tiresome in asking you to defend your own assertions. I’ll remember that should I decide to respond to you in the future. Next time, I will simply agree, and not point out those bothersome little facts that contradict what you are saying.
Susan, I greatly appreciate this dialog and the passion you bring to the table. But, for all I know I’m arguing online with the AGE marketing department or an executive VP. Who knows? I tend to have greater respect for someone that doesn’t hide behind anonymity.
OK, so AGE had a door facing Jefferson at one time to justify their Jefferson address. Fine, it is not vanity run amuck. But, AGE’s buildings have never related to the corner at Jefferson & Market – just as they’ve squandered the corner at Jefferson & Olive. The major urban corners are far more important than my flip comment about the postal address.
The presence of restaurants, just like the presence of an office building, is not necessarily signs of urban life. By that definition Manchester road in Ballwin has urban life.
Susan, we are still debating this because you are still insisting I blame AGE entirely for their campus even after I’ve said the blame is on everyone – especially the lack of a good urban code. But, the entire city was built in a very urban fashion prior to any zoning – somehow earlier generations managed to do a fine job building pedestrian communities without any regulator body telling them what to do.
AGE executives and their architect deserve part of the blame – I’m not going to split hairs debating what percentage falls to them. Just as nothing in the code required AGE to build a more urban campus from day one, very little in the code would have prevented them from voluntarily building an urban campus. Granted, parking requirements and a few other code issues would have presented challenges to building an urban campus.
Had AGE said to the city, “we want to build a pedestrian-friendly urban campus but the zoning code is a relic – change it or we leave,” I’m guessing we would have gotten a more urban code decades ago. Susan can continue focusing on what was perhaps beyond AGE’s control but I know they had plenty within their control – they just didn’t make the urban decision. They certainly didn’t do anything against the wishes of the city leaders who were willing to allow anything get torn down or built. AGE also didn’t go against the grain – they were following common practices at the time.
I hope that by pointing out the mistakes made at AGE we can move on changing our city codes and creating more friendly environments.
Susan, your arguments are well reasoned, but considering your 30 year tenure in this city, a bit naive. First of all, you are correct that much of the blame lies with the city – most notably for rolling over and ALLOWING such heinous non-urban development but also for encouraging it. Whether or not there was a plan in place for this area of the city is irrelevant because the city has a long history, sometimes for the better (i.e. 1947 comprehensive plan) of ignoring plans when politcal interests are served to do so and you can bet the AGE used its considerable muscle to build the “campus” that they wanted. I too hold AGE accountable for how poorly they interface with the urban fabric – much more so than the architect. As to your point about the city being the ones who put up the NO PARKING signs, don’t fool yourself – they may have installed them but you can bet that AGE insisted on them. As for the fences around the parking, that is the city’s fault too. It is actually an ordinance that there be planting and ornamental fencing around all parking lots. Many get a variance because it is “unfeasable” or it is ignored altogether. The reasoning, I understand, behind it is to present a continual block face in areas where parking lots now exist between two buildings up to the street and to “screen” the ugly cars from view. All in all, that is a noble effort. Unfortunately, in cases like AGE where they have large expanses of parking this has a very negative urban impact as opposed to the afformentioned positive one.
“Susan, I greatly appreciate this dialog and the passion you bring to the table.” Thank you. Yet, if this were the case, would you be responding in such a patronizing manner?
Steve, while you may have respect for people who do not “hide” behind anonymity, as you put it, I have respect for people who can marshall an argument supported by facts. It does not matter to me whether I have a name or not–if someone wishes to debate in a civil manner, and if they support their claims with facts and research, things I can independently verify, they can call themselves Beatle Bob for all I care.
A VP at AGE? A marketing exec? Really–don’t you think my IP would reflect AGE if I were either of those? Do you honestly think that AGE execs have the time or the inclination during the workday to bother with *weblogs*? Just to reassure you, I am using my work proxy to post this comment. You can learn something there, however, I will request that you not reveal my workplace here. I have never used my full name on the internet, nor would I do so. More power to you if you choose to, however, I do not and will not. Too many things can come back to haunt you, and I chose to err on the side of caution, thanks. That is my choice. You could prevent people from posting anonymously, you know. Were I someone in a position of authority to speak for AGE, I would not post anonymously. As I am not, I choose to avoid any types of problems that may come from people who may think that I am attempting to speak directly for AGE. I am not, and do not want to give that impression. Nor do I want to cause my husband any problems at work. I have explained this before. I do not think these are unreasonable justifications for using a pseudonym.
“But, AGE’s buildings have never related to the corner at Jefferson & Market – just as they’ve squandered the corner at Jefferson & Olive.” Actually, if the original entrance were on Jefferson, that would not be squandering the corner there. This, again, was my point.
“The presence of restaurants, just like the presence of an office building, is not necessarily signs of urban life.” Again, Steve, you are putting words in my mouth. If you read my post, you will see that I said having restaurants and bars in an area is a *contributing factor* to a vibrant urban life.
“Susan, we are still debating this because you are still insisting I blame AGE entirely for their campus even after I’ve said the blame is on everyone – especially the lack of a good urban code.” Steve, again, this is not what I said. I said, many, many times, that you have some very good points, and that you are unfairly criticising AGE for some other factors that are beyond their control.
” Susan can continue focusing on what was perhaps beyond AGE’s control but I know they had plenty within their control – they just didn’t make the urban decision.” Ahh, again the patronizing tone. Love it, love it, I tell you! The problem, I’ll say *again*, is that your critique rests on many factors beyond their control. While AGE did have some factors within their control, and I have acknowledged these (my posts are not quite so defensive nor one-sided as you like to portray–I have conceded quite a few points to you and your expertise), the main points of your critique rested on **factors that were NOT in their realm of control**. I never said that they didn’t have anything in their control. This is clear if you read my posts without a mind for misinterpreting them. I said, again, YOUR CRITIQUE rested quite heavily on factors beyond AGE’s control–street signs, a “vanity” address, the lack of a lively neighborhood. According to you, the blame for all of these rests solely with AGE. That is neither logical nor fair. I provided facts that contradicted these assertions.
“Had AGE said to the city, “we want to build a pedestrian-friendly urban campus but the zoning code is a relic – change it or we leave,” I’m guessing we would have gotten a more urban code decades ago.” Again, here you assert that the city’s lack of urban planning is AGE’s fault. It’s overstating the case. You are placing blame in the wrong spot, and how on earth are we to fix anything if we simply find an easy scapegoat (bad, evil big corporations! They are Satan!) rather than examining the problems in depth and proposing a cooperative solution?
“I hope that by pointing out the mistakes made at AGE we can move on changing our city codes and creating more friendly environments.”
I agree. And, with that, I will respectfully decline to participate any longer.
Steve, dude, you’re still debating this because you can’t admit that you were wrong. You’ve got to give it to her, she had tons of facts that completely disproved what your saying, but you keep defending waht you have said in different words. Give it up, man.
Rob, you are right. I’m going to give it up.
Some people, even those that live in the city, can’t grasp a simple concept like an entrance facing a street doesn’t mean the building relates to the street. Not always sure why I bother…
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.