Urban Alternatives For South Grand
One of the common arguments used by those trying to push a bad plan through the system is to ask, as Ald. Gregali did, “Has anyone come up with a better plan?” This statement is so infuriating as it implies if private citizens don’t go out and design alternatives they should not have a say in their immediate surroundings.
Myself and others have repeatedly said the senior housing should go on the old Sears site and the McDonald’s should rebuild on their current site. But talk is talk and as the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, I’ve got the next best thing — drawings.
Let’s look at one at a time…
Former Sears Site @ Grand & Winnebego:
Click here to view PDF of alternate Senior Housing & Street-Level Retail 3-Story building includes 56 apartments and 11,000sf of retail/restaurant space. Has 60 parking spaces to be shared with the housing and retail. I’m told that senior housing projects often have a less than 1:1 parking ratio. A slight revision is being prepared that would have the parking accessed from the alley which would eliminate the curb cuts on Winnebego and therefore keeping the on-street parking intact. This site is actually larger than the current McDonald’s site and we were only able to get in 56 units (vs 87). As we’ve not seen a site plan for the proposed senior housing at the current McDonald’s I can only speculate. One would be they were proposing considerably smaller units and/or they were expanding the site to the West. The former Sears store that was razed in the late 90’s was three stories in height so it is fitting that we put back a 3-story structure so the street has the massing it once enjoyed. In case you forgot, here is McDonald’s proposal for this site.
Current McDonald’s @ Grand & Chippewa:
Click here to view PDF of alternate McDonald’s at current location. Grand is narrowed by 10ft, closer to its original width. I’d hear this was planned for the senior housing project as everyone considers Grand to be excessively wide at this point. I’d even go along with the city helping with the infrastructure costs to narrow the street back to the way it was before the wide right turn lane was added. Current standard McDonald’s prototype is placed at corner of Grand & Chippewa and room is provided for additional street-level retail facing Grand. By using McDonald’s standard model we’ve retained their internal layout and service windows so as not to disrupt their efficient work flow. On-street parking is assumed along Grand. A section of curb may need to “bulb” out to provide a sufficient bus stop in this area. Ditto for Chippewa. A retaining wall would be required along the West edge of the property to make up for a roughly 8-10ft drop in elevation. The retaining wall need not be this high as the parking lot could have a slope to the West. Required ADA parking is provided on the flat section near Grand. The current McDonald’s has a single curb cut along each Grand & Chippewa as does this proposed concept.
These alternative plans for the two sites in question provide the housing, retail and McDonald’s in a much more urban fashion that I believe everyone could accept. The urban form being present on both sides of the street can serve as a basis for a new urban zoning overlay for the entire blighted area (1 mile from Utah to Meramec, 61 acres) that would help guide future development.
– Steve
Those possible plans look good, pretty much what we’ve been saying all along.
BTW, has anyone noticed that the McDonalds on Gravois just before Hampton has a non-prototypical architectural design, even though it is on a normal lot. There is no parking in the front though.
[REPLY – Yes, I just thought having visuals for what we’ve been saying would be helpful for doubters to understand. As for the McD on Gravois, that is their new prototype. For pictures see my Flickr site: http://flickr.com/photos/urbanreviewstl/sets/72057594137864678/ – SLP]
Steve,
I know one of the main arguments for McDonalds not to build on their current site, is because they’d like to be able to move from one facility to the next without much of (if at all) a break in being open. I’m not arguing for or against anything by stating this. Just a reason why McDonalds is so reluctant to rebuild on it’s current site. I do understand that from a business perspective. I propose they move along the Gravois corridor. That would enable them to stay close to their current location, build on a new site, and keep everybody happy.
I totally agree with the gravois/hampton McD design. why wasn’t this design being considered for the Sears site in the first place!?
Even on Steve’s proposed McD plans, there is absolutely NO need for 50 parking spaces. I don’t know how many are on current site, but I would venture to guess not even half of them are used during their rush times.
In addition to Sam’s comment, which is [unfortunately] sound business reasoning, remember Florida is offering the new site with tax abatement. Typical politics, we will not hear Florida, the franchise owner, or other aldermen/city officials speak to the fact that they are giving McD the tax break. Abatement is half the reason in addition to a sparkling new building and continuity of business.
If Proctor’s McDonald’s does not want a break in service, then it should simply remain in its existing building.
Corporate franchise profit should not override city redevelopment and zoning laws. Besides, I don’t think a temporary closure would hurt anyone — might give any possible vermin a chance to relocate safely and southsiders a chance to get their cholesterol levels back down.
I like those plans. Let them have 50 parking spaces if they’re hidden for the most part.
The break in service would also allow the staff to be properly trained.
Nice work Steve! Especially the McD site plan!
To Sams comment: The way Steve has the new site laid out, the new McDonald’s building would be able to be built on the corner on the south half of the existing upper parking lot and the portion of the site gained back with the elimination of the turn lane without shutting down the existing operation. Some parking would still be available on the north portion of the upper lot, on the lower lot with the drive-thru and of course… ON THE STREET. Once the new building is done, the new drive-thru could open almost immediatly since the entrance and exit from the site are close to the existing locations (with street parking still available for indoor dining). Then the existing structure can be demolished and remaining parking site work done.
[REPLY – Thanks, someone else did the drawings but I did help in the layout. As you pointed out, the new McDonald’s could be built and finished while the existing McDonald’s remains open. It would take some work to phase the construction and it might need to close for a bit to handle grading work and such. Dirt from the basements of the still to be built Keystone homes could help fill in the grade. – SLP]
This may be obvious to everyone but me but I’m rather new to all this urbanist stuff so bear with me…
It seems that the main difference between an ‘Urban’ design and a Suburban design is the fact that the parking is in the back for the former and the front for the latter.
If you took Steve’s proposed McD plan and left the street/alley names where they are but rotated the building/parking 180 and made no other changes it would be a suburban design.
I can see how the urban design is more pedestrian friendly in that people wouldn’t have to cross a parking lot to get to the restaurant, they could just walk in off the street.
The urban design also just ‘seems’ more visually appealing where you’re not looking at a parking lot full of cars in front of a building.
It does however seem that the suburban design would be safer late at night as what happens in the parking lot can be seen by people walking down the sidewalks, in their cars in the streets, in the parking lot and in the restaurant. What happens in the parking lot of the urban design can be seen by people in the lot, in the restaurant and perhaps by people on the side streets, but no longer by people going down Grand.
I wonder if the safety issue (if there is one) is why McDonalds wouldn’t want the urban design? Or do they think people won’t realize there’s parking in back so they might lose business?
It seems that all suburban stores now have parking in front. Is this because it’s easier to monitor one front entrance instead of a street entrance in front and a parking lot entrance in back?
Just curious here.
[REPLY – Good observations until you got to the suburban version being safer at night. Here is where that doesn’t hold true. In an area with the suburban parking in front you get less and less pedestrians and those whizzing by on the street really can’t tell if you are getting mugged in a parking lot. The urban version provides ample on-street parking with the lot being secondary. With a second use (another retail store) next to the McDonald’s you get more people using the area which increases safety.
Suburban stores don’t have parking in front for safety. It is just an outgrowth over the years in how that model has evolved. – SLP]
Gadfly,
Good observations, but…
Parking out front of a store on a busy road does not equal safety. I do not feel safe in the parking lot of Autozone on Kingshighway and that is visible from the street. Cars passing by are not, and cannot, know if there is crime in a praking lot.
What makes a difference in preventing crime is lots of pedestrian activity. An urban design is more likely to create pedestrain activity than a suburban design.
Steve,
GREAT JOB posting these site plan ideas! That really shuts up the people that say “if you are against the proposal, where is your plan?”