Lowe’s & Schnuck’s Customer Using Mobility Scooter Forced to Use Street; Center Lacks ADA Access
I’ve been harping for nearly a year now about the lack of ADA access for customers of the city’s newest big box shopping center, Loughborough Commons. Despite $14 million in tax incentives, not all are able to easily access the two stores that opened last year, Schnuck’s and Lowe’s.
Yesterday I spotted a person leaving Loughborough Commons by the secondary entrance along Grand. He had made purchases as I could see shopping bags in the front and back of his mobility scooter. The center has only two ways in —- one on Loughborough and this one off Grand. An ADA compliant route from either public street (and to either store) has not been provided.
Above this customer is using the wide auto drive which is also used by delivery trucks.
The customer then heads northbound on the public street. Loughborough Commons developer DESCO did not provide a public sidewalk along Grand despite a wide public right of way. This puts people most vulnerable at risk. Alderman Villa, when approving this project, could have likely required a public sidewalk within the public right of way.
I was expecting the customer on his mobility scooter to turn on one of the many streets that Loughborough Commons turns it back to. Instead, he continued north on Grand toward Loughborouh. You might ask, why didn’t he make it over to the sidewalk on the left (west) side of the street? Well, it is not ADA compliant as not all corners have ramps. A sidewalk along the east side of Grand would have added very little to the overall budget of the project which again received $14 million in public tax breaks.
The customer turned left onto Loughorough Ave, a very busy street! Above you can see him just ahead of the westbound red pickup. Due to the high volume of traffic I was unable to get across the street to get better photos as the man on the scooter approached the rear of a parked van. It was nerve racking watching him pass this parked vehicle on such a busy road.
The man then continued on westbound Loughborough and turned right into Carondelet Park (look closely and you can see him at the entrance). You may look at this image and wonder why he is not on the sidewalk shown at right. That would be a good question. Remember, sidewalks in St. Louis are only for show — not for actual users. This man had no way, from Grand, to get onto this sidewalk which would have put him out of harms way on a very busy street.
The man entered the park, most likely cutting through to get home. He continued on this road for a bit until he caught up with the internal path system where he continued west-northwest. The nice sidewalk seen in the last picture does not continue into the park.
How is it that a new from scratch $40+ million project with $14 million of that in public tax subsidies can fail to accommodate real users? Answer, lack of priority. Ald. Villa will remind us that the center is not finished even though the two stores opened last year. The large site has only two entrances and, given the grades of the main entrance, neither will meet the federal ADA requirements even when finished per their plans submitted to the city.
Yes, the new grocery store is cleaner than the old one and hey we are getting a Breadco (Panera to folks outside St. Louis) and a Starbucks soon. Do these things make up for the fact we’ve failed to ensure that people such as this man can travel safely to the store? I don’t think so.
I hope nothing happens to this man or anyone else traveling by foot, wheelchair or mobility scooter and headed to Loughborough Commons. But, I’m putting the City of St. Louis, DESCO, Schnuck’s and Lowe’s (and soon Panera, Starbucks, etc…) on notice that Loughborough Commons fails to meet the needs of the community and to meet the requirements set forth by federal civil rights legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act. If some unfortunate accident happens, I will help to make sure you are all held liable.
Steve,
We now have these fine vendors in St. Louis City! This is how we will attract residents! We shouldn’t be putting demand onto developers, especially our friend Desco. They might go somewhere else with their wonderful stores! You hecklers are simply pointing out minor details. The fact is that this will be a successful project and people will move here because its so unique. Wait and see! This is the future of the City!
Steve, as your post illustrates, the problem is a lot bigger than just Desco. This guy shouldn’t have to use Grand behind the new center, but at least he’s relatively safe on a low-traffic street. What’s really frustrating is his having to use Loughborough west of Grand (which has nothing to do with Desco). It appears that work continues on phase 2 of the center, and I would assume that many of the accessibility concerns will be addressed as the project is completed. When are you going to put similar, constant pressure on our city leaders to fix what they do directly control, like Carondolet Park and the existing sidewalks in the adjacent residential areas? Why aren’t there curb ramps along both Grand and Loughborough? I know – money! Well, instead of pushing for a sidewalk on the east of Grand here, how about spending the same amount of money to install 30 or 40 new curb ramps on the existing sidewalks in the adjacent neighborhood, where the result would be actual progress and improved mobility? How about getting the 2½ ton truck off the sidewalk on the SW corner of Grand and Loughborough (illegal under St. Louis Zoning and illegally blocking the existing sidewalk)?! It’s easy to keep beating on this one developer, but the problem is whole lot bigger than this one development!
And they will not “understand” until a lobby pressures them to do so. It will take nothing short of political pressure, given the campaign contributions. The power of persuasion through logic seems to fail when money and a political vacuum exists. Why would they listen to faceless bloggers? Why listen to disorganized individuals? They can easily be ignored. Unless a crisis occurs and people organize they could care less. This does not happen often, and even if it does they still have a huge chance. A formal watchdog lobby organization needs to be on the ball proactively monitoring development and mobilizing opposition before ground is broken. Currently there is a reactive loose coalition of individuals with no clear hierarchy, sense of mission, job specialization, or task definition. This makes responding to million dollar organizations and their machine politicians difficult. Moreover, working with developers and officials in order to produce urban design should also be a key goal, yet a formal lobby is best equipped. Steve and others know first hand that personal testimony is often ignored or cast aside. The legitimacy of and individual is usually always less than an individual who is a member of a formal organization and is backed by many supporters.
Steve,
Before I get to my actual point, I want to say that things should be done to improve the ADA requirements placed on the plaza. There are numerous people responsible for this. Should the builder have put in a sidewalk? Absolutely. Did the man on the scooter place himself in some harms way because there were no other path to travel? I think so.
But what bugs me more than that is that fact that this looks staged. I find it hard to believe that you just came upon this situation randomly. Next time you need someone for a story like this call me. Only instead of some groceries, I want a white chocolate mocha.
So did you stop and interview the person in the chair?
Did he give you his permission before you splattered his face all over your web site? He is entitled to his privacy, even though I’m sure many would like to know what one in that situation feels about it.
I don’t think you need to wait for an accident. They are liable now. I believe failure to comply with ADA is considered a civil rights violation.
Maurice said, “Did he give you his permission before you splattered his face all over your web site? He is entitled to his privacy, even though I’m sure many would like to know what one in that situation feels about it.”
Steve is well within his rights to photograph anyone in a public place where one must assume their picture might be taken. Now if he followed him home and started taking pictures through the window, well…It might have been nice to ask, but legally no permission is necessary. It would be interesting, though, to have interviewed him about whether he feels challenged. I suspect he does.
I live very close by and witness pedestrians (both able-bodied and disabled) trying to access this site from the public right-of-way every time I am by and it always looks perilous. I simply choose not to shop there. Even in a car the congestion from the poorly designed traffic flow is enough to keep me away. Just wait until the rest of the stores open.
Promise me, Steve, that you will never again, in conversation or in print, use the phrase “in harm’s way.”
I disagree. Even though it was an open and public space, being as he was in a wheelchair, he had no choice but to traverse the public ways. Courtesy and respect for a persons privacy should be paramount.
Who knows, perhaps he would have given his permission anyways.
Besides, how would any reader here feel if they were surfing the web one day and found their picture posted out there for everyone to see? What if it had been a battered woman escaping a wife-beater?
Hey, I use that back entrance to The Commons, as well. Be it on bike or in car, it’s the only safe and hassle-free way to get to Lowe’s (I still don’t use the Schnucks – ew).
I drive by Loughborough Commons every day, twice a day. On at least 75% those occasions, I see pedestrians (on foot or wheelchair) on Loughborough or up the drive from the shopping center, in the path of vehicular traffic. Often they are an older person with difficulty getting around, or someone with small children, or someone in a wheelchair. God help someone who is blind or deaf walk to Loughborough Commons; there is simply no way. All of these examples of people are good reasons why the ADA is MANDATED by law – it’s not the Americans in Wheelchairs Act! “Disability” comes in so many forms and degrees. How would you feel watching your 90-year old grandmother walking down Loughborough with her grocery cart, traffic screaming by 3 feet away? I’d be terrified.
This situation is unacceptable. There is no other word to describe it. Harp on, Steve, in any way you choose; I cannot believe that no one has yet to be injured or killed because the City of St. Louis is unwilling to hold a developer to even the most basic of standards, let alone the LAW, just for the sake of another one of Desco’s design debacles.
i don’t think the guys privacy has been violated. you can’t even see his face unless you have magic image processing software that can infinitely resolve any image ever taken – like they do on CSI.
“being as he was in a wheelchair, he had no choice but to traverse the public ways.”
and what alternative ways, other than the public ones, would one traverse if he/she were not in a wheelchair?
Privacy?
As pointed out this is a civil rights violation. Our City leadership’s failure to show fortitude and demand even minimum urban design standards is ruining our potential. We shouldn’t allow our opportunity to be squandered for the short term campaign goals of mediocre City officials.
The other part of the equation here is personal responsibility and choices. I agree the shoping center needs to be fixed, as do many city sidewalks – that’s a given. Choosing to motor down Loughborough in an electric wheel chair (or to ride a bicycle along Lindbergh) is a personal choice. There are parallel roads with a lot less traffic (French or Blow, in this case). Yes, they’re less direct and have more stop signs, but they’re going to have far fewer conflcts with motor vehicles, either in the street or on the parallel sidewalks. It boils down to weighing risk against reward. I drive a Miata with its top down. I used to drive a VW van with my feet on the front bumper. I ride my bicycle in urban traffic. I could be “safer”, but I find all these risks to be acceptable given the trade-offs and alternatives, including my own pleasure. My guess is that the gentleman displayed here made the same risk assessment – there were “safer” choices, but, in balance, this one met his needs . . .
MONEY is an overused excuse. Of course it is necessary but it’s spending priorities which defines this outcome. StL leadership (politicians and corporate) have made it clear for the world and all of its citizens to see and understand: WE FAVOR CARS OVER PEOPLE… GET USE TO IT!
This policy has been in place for over FOUR decades. Until an organized revolt is effective, it will always be this way. Is there any question why StL region has a DEPOPULATION problem?
His choices include(d) Metro Call-a-Ride, a taxi, a friend and/or driving his own vehicle, as well as deciding whether he’s a vehicle (rolling with traffic as he did on Loughborough) or whether he’s a pedestrian (rolling against traffic, through the park). His choices included a) using a vehicle with limited range, b) patronizing a business that has poor access, and c) selectively choosing which rules to obey and which to ignore (like we all do every day). The one choice he apparently doesn’t have is walking (and maybe biking).
The purported reasons we don’t have better access around here is a lack of money, “it’s a new law” and “we don’t understand it or want it”. The real reason is simply a lack of will. There is no organizied, vocal, visible consituency pushing the issue. Bussinesses see few, if any, negative impacts (fines, lost sales) from not complying. Our local politicians don’t or can’t find the funding to fix all our curb ramps within x years simply because it’s a low priority with most of their constituents. And the reality remains that most seniors or disabled folks wouldn’t consider making a trip like this gentleman made – for every one of him, there are 20 or 100 that will drive or be driven to the shopping center!
Yes, I know it’s a chicken-or-egg situation – make things more accessible and safer and more people may walk or scoot or bike instead of driving. One it takes a consensus within our community to make it a priority. Two, and more importantly, it also means placing businesses like these closer to more pedestrians and residences – we need to move past NIMBY. As we know from transit-oriented development, the magic number for most pedestrians is a maximum ¼ mile walk, while a ½ mile is the threshold for most dedicated peds. For walking, this site sucks, with or without ADA-compliant sidewalks. It’s bordered on the north by the park, on the east and south by the freeway and on the west by a serious grade change. More than three quarters of your potential customers (when you draw ¼ and ½ mile circles) simply aren’t there – driving is the only viable option for most of them!
Jim, you raise some very good points. And there are programs out there thru various agencies that do pay for cabs as well. The ADA law, like most goverment regulations is VERY confusing. Reasonable accomidation and all that.
But many of the questions raised here could have been answered had someone stopped and asked the gentleman (and asked if he wanted his picture used).
Many handicapped people, even if out in public are very shy about their disability, and without their permission or knowledge, I find this unintentionally very cruel.
Jim,
I think you are blaming the victim here. He can’t walk. There is not sidewalk access. It’s pretty clear who is at fault. Not the person who can’t walk.
Doug – I’m not blaming the victim – he deserves a lot of support for his efforts. What I’m “blaming” is a larger attitude that accessibility isn’t that big of a problem / we’re an old city / we don’t have the money. This gentleman’s challenges were much greater once he left the shopping center (he seemed just fine with using the southern access road, and he was both visible and relatively safe from large volumes of traffic). Part of this comes from the existing city infrastructure and part of it comes from location – he apparently lives on the other side of the park. IF there were equivalent (or better) neighborhood retail on the north and west side, he wouldn’t have to traverse the park to shop in the first place! I’m not giving Desco a pass on their non-compliance – it needs to be fixed. But focusing on one new project while ignoring the rest of the neighborhood / city is ludicrous! As Steve continues to point out, having to travel outside one’s neighborhood for basic services makes life tougher and less attractive for all city residents. Keeping Shnick’s and bringing Lowe’s to the city is a good thing for both the neighborhood and the city. Yes, detail improvements need to be made to the site, but a lot more needs to be done off the site for everybody!
And Steve, as for convincing clients that complying with the ADA is “easy”, you obviously haven’t worked with any that don’t embrace the concept of accessibility. Most of us in the design profession know the rules of both the ADA and the various building codes, and where to look for the stuff we don’t use every day. We can advise and strongly recommend that our clients do the right things, but we can’t force them to. That ultimately boils down to the government. Design is full of compromises. St. Louis isn’t flat. Developers are willing to risk non-compliance to save money or to make more money. If they’re not pushed/forced to comply by local officials, what you see is what you get . . .
“WE FAVOR CARS OVER PEOPLE… GET USE TO IT!
This policy has been in place for over FOUR decades. Until an organized revolt is effective, it will always be this way. Is there any question why StL region has a DEPOPULATION problem?”
.
.
.
how would there be an organized revolt without any prior DISCUSSION?
because your post seems to be saying “it’s pointless to talk about this.”