Downtown Partnership’s Jim Cloar Takes Action to Keep Parking off Washington Avenue
Nearly two weeks ago the Mayor’s blog reported that a new central business district traffic study was being performed. The announcement came two days after I posted that we needed parking on Washington Avenue East of Tucker.
Today Downtown St. Louis Partnership President Jim Cloar included the following in his weekly notes to members:
Curb-side parking is prohibited along Washington Avenue east of Tucker. Some “entrepreneurial” motorists realized that “No Parking” signs had not been installed and have been camping out all day, playing havoc with buses, delivery trucks and traffic in general. That has been corrected and tickets will be issued going forward.
The stupidity of his statement is so infuriating. Where does one begin?
First, these so-called “entrepreneurial” motorists see a street without any signage saying that parking is prohibited so they park on it. If I need to park somewhere and don’t see no parking signs I generally assume that street parking is permitted. I know of no street in any city that puts up signs saying, “Go ahead, it is OK to park here.” Signs are installed only when parking is not permitted. Furthermore, the lack of parking meters on a city street does not indicate that parking is prohibited, it simply says to people that you are not required to pay to park there.
So parked cars were “playing havoc with buses, delivery trucks and traffic in general.” Oh my, alert the media!!! We’d better get the traffic helicopters flying overhead to deal with the havoc. Standing at the corner of 10th Street and Washington Avenue at 5pm today (a Friday) the traffic is minimal. Looking East and West the amount of traffic is insignificant to the point where you could close the street and you wouldn’t see any major problems as a result. Remember, this is 5pm rush hour after a major ribbon cutting ceremony just West of Tucker. There is no havoc, this is simply propaganda to squelch efforts to get parking on the street.
Earlier today I had a chance to speak with Jim Cloar in person about this issue. Unfortunately, I had not read his statement above before I talked to him. I was attending the aforementioned ribbon cutting for eight new businesses along Washington Avenue between 13th and 14th. Yes, eight new businesses! I was on the sidewalk talking with downtown resident & business owner Margie Newman and local Architect Dustin Bopp when Jim Cloar passed by. After he stopped to say hello to Margie she introduced us. I asked, innocently enough, if the traffic surveys had gone out. He said they haven’t. Margie then mentions we were talking about parking on Washington as Dustin had just indicated that permanent “no parking” signs had just been installed and he saw a ticket on a car. We seized this opportunity to share our views.
Jim Cloar’s responses were pathetic at best. He mentioned concerns about buses and delivery vehicles. I said we must have on-street parking simply to provide a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. Cloar responded that he was an urban planner and understood those principals. Yet, he was advocating the status quo? The traffic study hasn’t been done yet but Cloar is quick to defend not having any parking. He said we must consider the needs of businesses.
But, that is the funny part. The businesses actually want on-street parking! As we were debating on the sitewalk Kitchen K owner Pablo Weiss walked by. Margie quickly grabbed Pablo and asked him if he wanted on-street parking on Washington Avenue in front of his restaurant at 10th street. Pablo answered with a resounding, “yes.” He mentioned having a sidewalk permit but he doesn’t use it because the buses and other traffic pass by too quickly and too close. Exactly! The sidewalk without on-street parking is not accommodating to pedestrians or alfresco diners. Parked cars provide a great buffer from passing traffic. Washington Avenue West of Tucker is flourishing with sidewalk tables but we’ve got none East of Tucker.
Cloar’s comments and tone has me convinced the city has already determined they don’t want parking on Washington East of Tucker. His job is to try to convince others we must keep the street as a major four lane thoroughfare. One might argue for a compromise such as allowing parking except during major events such as a Rams football game. After all, we don’t have that many home games. But part of the idea behind having big sporting events and conventions downtown is to get people to leave some money behind before they go home. The last thing we want to do on game day is open the streets so we have a mass exodus of the very people that are supposed to offset the massive public funding of stadiums, convention centers and money losing convention hotels.
Think of a new St. Louis visitor walking out of the convention hotel with their Starbuck’s latte. Currently they are faced with a hostile four lane road with buses, trucks and cars flying by. I’m sure many visitors to our city going between the convention center and the convention hotel look down the current Washington Avenue and conclude we have no street life downtown. Is this the message we want to send out to the rest of the country? Little do they know exciting street life exists in force just a few blocks to the West. But imagine if on-street parking were permitted all along Washington Avenue? The sidewalk, buffered from traffic, would be more more inviting. Teaming with activity, the walk would be compelled to walk down the street — something they’d never consider doing now. We can all see it.
Downtown St. Louis Partnership, through Cloar, have made their position clear — no parking on Washington Avenue. I’m curious what business & property owners on and near Washington Avenue think. And what about people staying in the convention hotel? What is the official position of the Mayor’s office? What about Alderwoman Phyllis Young? Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury? What about city planning guru Rollin Stanley? I’m sure an internal city memo has already been circulated to let elected & appointed officials know what their perspective is.
I’m not going to let go of this one. Washington Avenue is too important to the success of downtown and the city. We must rescue our streets from the very organization that is charged with promoting downtown!
NOTE 7/17/05 – 7:45pm – check out the next post with a poll on parking!
– Steve
This is a shame! I can understand not allowing parking right in front of the convention center. But the rest of Washington Ave NEEDS parking badly. A friend of mine from Washington, DC stayed at the Renn Grand Hotel for a convention a few weeks ago. I gave her lots of advice on things to do. I suggested she walk up Washington to find good restaurants/bars. I was terribly disappointed that she didn’t follow my advice. She looked up Washington Avenue and saw there were no cars parked on the street. She took this to mean there were no people around. She was afraid to walk up the street. She is a city girl and not overly timid, but has common sense. If she had seen parked cars and sidewalk tables, she would have walked up Washington. The really sad thing is that she comes home to DC and reports that the streets of downtown St. Louis are dead, they roll up the sidewalks at five and therefore, a boring place for a convention. My pleading could not convince her otherwise. She saw what she saw. A vibrant Washington Avenue IS GOOD BUSINESS. The city really needs to look a this from the conventioneers point of view. They are the ones that go home and tell the world about St. Louis.
[REPLY – Thanks Scott. Your example is probably just one of thousands where people assume nothing is going on. She used good common sense, a person is much safer in a crowd and if you look down the street and see no activity then you are not sure what to expect. Had cars been along the street as indicators of activity she would have walked down the street and gone home with a much different impression of St. Louis. I hope your friend will come back to St. Louis and check out the reset of Washington Ave.
My first inclination was to also think that not having parking in front of the convention center was OK. But why I asked myself? What good would it do to have an extra lane of traffic for one block? It is good to have traffic moving by faster where thousands of people cross Washington? It is not like we have to keep the front pristine – taxi cabs line the front of the convention center now. In fact, the cab lane on the drive in front of the convention center is in the logical pedestrian path which forces the pedestrian to walk closer to the curb than they normally would. If any spot needs on-street parking as a buffer it is right there. With on-street parking there we can bring the curb line out one lane at 8th street to visually reduce the street distance that a conventioneer must walk to cross Washington. – SLP]
Steve’s comments are dead-on correct. With the wonderful streetscape improvements, Washington Avenue looks great; now it’s time to return life to it. Street parking returns vitality and inhabited-ness to the street and does little to inconvenience motorists. I doubt you’ll find a single retailer who doesn’t want the parking.
It’s so old-school to think of moving people through and out of downtown quickly as the priority here. (Of course, the irony there is that the way lights are timed on Washington, you can’t move quickly on it anyway; even on an empty Wash Ave at 5 a.m. — a time when I am too often headed for the airport — those doll-garned lights will hang you up for ten minutes between 11th and 4th).
I say put meters in from Tucker to 4th. Vive la on-street parking! Vive la pedestrian!
Margie
I agree completely with you on this Steve, and I even sent out several emails tonight. You did make one slight error though. Cloar heads the Downtown Partnership, Tom Reeves heads Downtown Now.
[REPLY – Matt, thanks for the correction. Right you are! I know better too. I’ve corrected the above to reflect the correct organizations. My apologies to Downtown Now and my sympathies to Downtown St. Louis Partnership. – SLP]
Too bad you weren’t really listening to me when we were having the brief conversation. Perhaps the fact that so much was going on all around us and I had a lot of other things on my mind at the time made for a disjointed flow of dialogue.
I do, in fact, personally agree that we should allow parallel parking along Washington. My point about being an urban planner was made to underscore that I really understand the points that were being made. Though not heading the traffic study, I did urge that one be undertaken to account for the fact that we now have growing constituency of residents and businesses. Frankly, I felt that a “wild, old west” mentality had emreged when it came to driving and parking and that the pedestrian was not being given a very high priority. I also urged that it be done comprehensively so that in addressing one problem we not create a bigger one a few blocks away.
At the present time, with no regulation whatsoever, there had been a sudden and understandable influx over the past week or so of parking in an area not prepared for it. The result in some cases had been construction workers using spaces all day, some cars parked too close to the corner to allow for a safe turning radius for buses or cars, delivery vehicles parked to unload in the middle of the street, etc.
As an interim measure, the City has posted no parking in the area. I would expect and advocate that that be changed, to allow short-term parking (possibly a two-hour limit between 9 am and 4 pm) with strict enforcement as soon as practical and in conjunction with the needs and cooperation of abutting businesses and property owners.
Note that work will soon begin on redevelopment properties along the north side of the 1100 block of Washington which may impede on the traffic lanes in the area for a few months.
As we continue to make our way through the engergizing but sometimes disruptive revitalization process, I hope we will take the time to really listen to each other and not jump to conclusions about their mind set or their motives. Deep down, I believe that we all agree of the objectives.
I must add that I’m disappointed that you have painted me as the bad guy when I’m on your side. I wonder how you treat those who don’t agree with you.
[REPLY – Jim, wow this is great. I’m glad you agree – I’m sorry I didn’t get that from our conversation. Perhaps it was the belly dancers and water buffalo at Macrosun?
I’m very pleased to hear you are in support of instituting parallel parking along Washington Avenue. I’d like to see us try for all the time not just 9am-4pm. Daytime hours don’t really help places like Starbucks if someone wants to run in and grab a coffee on the way to work or the evening dinner crowd. Conventioneer’s will most likely see the street in the morning and evenings so it is important for them to be active at those times.
Thanks again for your response. I’m so glad you are in agreement that we need to have parking on Washington Avenue! – SLP]
Considering how vague this response is, how would you expect Steve – or anyone – to decipher this as a “pro-parking” statement, Jim?
“I do, in fact, personally agree that we should allow parallel parking along Washington . . .”
Doesn’t sound vague to me.
[REPLY – I agree that Cloar’s response above wasn’t vague but it is in contrast to Friday’s email quoted in the original post above. It would have been nice for the email note send out to say, “I think we need parking on Washington but until we get the traffic study done the city has put up no parking signs to bring some order to the streets.” – SLP]
The purpose of the very quick note dashed off at the end of the day was to alert folks so that they wouldn’t caught off guard. We try to do that. No one likes surprises that involve tickets. Sorry if you read anything else in it.
[REPLY – I can see how a quick note out to members would be a good idea. This isn’t your fault but it just seems odd that a streetscape that has been planned for a couple of years and finished for a couple of months didn’t have more thought put into parking or the installation of no parking signs. Again, I’m not blaming you for that. Why did it come down to you having to send out a quick last minute note as the signs were being installed? But didn’t the CID pay for the new streetscape? Was public input on the project, including parking, not obtained as part of the design stage? If you are in favor of parking on the street wouldn’t you have had a good opportunity to have this planned from day one as part of the new streetscape? Perhaps you were told by someone (CVC, City Hall, etc????) to not include parking as part of the plan? Why weren’t the no parking signs installed as part of the project? Why the months of delay?
Lots of unanswered questions about this whole process! – SLP]
I think Jim’s personally suggested “9am to 4pm” meant rush-hour restrictions for say 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm. But hopefully, this traffic study actually includes vehicle counts at various times of day. Then, folks would maybe see data showing how even rush-hour restrictions aren’t really needed. Let’s permit 24/7 activity on our streets!
[REPLY – I think you are right about the rush hour and his intentions but he was a bit vaque on that. I agree he was going for a morning & afternoon M-F rush hour ban much like the loop had at one time. I should have included as much in the poll. – SLP]
Jim- we’re going to hold you to your statements:)
also, if it’s metered from 9-4 does that mean there is no parking all the other times, or is it free unrestricted parking all the rest of the time?
[REPLY – As mentioned above I think Jim Cloar’s intent in suggesting 9am-4pm was to allow it at times except for morning and evening rush hours. – SLP]
Does anyone have a bio on Mr Cloar? I looked on the DT partnership website but didnt see one. I’m not trying to be snarky or negative at all, I’m just curious b/c he mentioned he is a planner.
I will be a little snarky and say that I agree with Steve that this isn’t a brand new project. Why wasn’t parking decided in the intial planning of WashAve? What was the thought process? Is/was the RCGA behind the parking ban? And are they the ones who should answer the questions, not Mr Cloar?
[REPLY – I couldn’t find a bio on Cloar either. He said he is a planner so I’ll take him at his word. I’m not sure who should be answering questions about this issue. The Downtown Partnership? Downtown Now!? RCGA? CVC? Streets Dept? Alderman? I’ve yet to find anyone in office that says they support a parking ban yet the city is working hard to enforce it. It just makes no sense that a newlyl planned streetscape didn’t have parking as a consideration. – SLP]
[REPLY #2 I just found this on St. Louis Commerce’s site, “Cloar Named President of Downtown Saint Louis Partnership
The Downtown Saint Louis Partnership selected James Cloar as its new president and CEO. He assumed his new position in St. Louis in December 2001.
Since 1992, Cloar has been president of the Tampa Downtown Partnership. He has been a consultant or advisor to more than 40 cities in the U.S. and Europe. CloarÂ’s accomplishments in Tampa include assembling land and commissioned pre-development studies for the Ice Palace; establishing the Downtown special assessment district; positioning the Tampa Downtown Partnership as a transportation management organization; developing Lykes Gaslight Square; and facilitating a “choice” elementary school in downtown.” – SLP]
I met Jim Cloar last year at a Metropolis Leadership luncheon. Given his understanding of urban vitality shared then, I’d tend to believe him. Likewise, Rollin is also an urbanite. It’s PE’s roomie you have to look out for. Granted, Barb likes to park on the streets (and not feed meters). But I guess Pablo Weiss hasn’t donated enough to Fran to get any special attention. I mean we’re talking about reaching out to folks maliciously suing Roger and Marcia– what a mindset!
[REPLY – You may have hit the nail on the head! I’m not going to add anything at the risk of getting myself in trouble. – SLP]
Jim Cloar said:
“Note that work will soon begin on redevelopment properties along the north side of the 1100 block of Washington which may impede on the traffic lanes in the area for a few months.”
Does that mean they will be allowed to close the sidewalk on the north side of Washington? The sidewalk on the south side of Washington was closed for over a year when Van Guard building was being worked on. Even when no one was working, the sidewalk was closed. Pedestrians were expected to cross Washington Ave. or walk in the street.
Downtown sidewalks should only be closed when there is iminent danger. So if no one is working on the building, the sidewalk should be open for pedestrians.
Covered scaffolds were used on Olive when they worked on the buidling with City Grocers so you can’t use the excuse that the work may endanger people even when no one is there.
Can Mr. Cloar take on this issue?
I was a kid living part time in San Francisco when the City was going through its skyscraper construction boom of the late 60s and 70s.
I can’t begin to remember the countless number of blocks we walked where sidewalks were under scaffolding. Often it would be many blocks in a row, sometimes in multiple directions. Especially in the heart of downtown.
RB
A little traffic congestion can be a very good thing (as at some times would be caused by cars parking on Washington). Urban retailers like to have some congestion because it causes people to notice their busineses as they drive by at a slower speed. A perfect example of this is Delmar in the Loop east of Skinker. Prior to narrowing the street to one lane of traffic each way plus parking on both sides, people drove very fast until reaching Skinker, then had to slow down as the right of way narrows west of Skinker and has always had only one traffic lane each way. Now that the traffic moves slower east of Skinker, and the new wider sidewalks and streetscape are in place, retailers and restaurants are continuing to move into this area where very little retail occured before (at least since I have been alive). As everyone knows, the Loop is very pedestrian friendly, which is also a key factor in attracting and retaining retail and restaurants. Isn’t this what we want on Washington East of Tucker?!! All we have to do is look west (on Washington and on Delmar) and see how it is working, and could work east of Tucker.
Steve thanks for raising this topic a while back. Has anything changed on this? I have noticed that Copia uses the outer eastbound lane for valet parking. I walk by this stretch of Washington every workday and the whole situation really annoys me. It’s so simple. Couldn’t the city do an experiment and allow parallel parking for a year or two on a trial basis? Kitchen K might finally make use of their sidewalk dining permit. I guarantee there would be more people out on the sidewalk, and retailers like Lee J’s would appreciate that. People would finally be convinced that parallel parking is the right approach.
[REPLY – This has been on my list to revisit. Yes, Copia uses a long section of one lane for valet parking. All is well except that people think the lane is open until they see the orange cones. The solution is to allow parking on-street and then limit the amount of space given over to the valets. This area could be so much more vibrant, especially on evenings and weekends. – SLP]