St. Louis’ Planning Director Speaks on Density
This morning Rollin Stanley, St. Louis’ Director of Planning & Urban Design, spoke at the opening plenary session of the Missouri American Planning Association Conference. Stanley took the place of Mayor Francis Slay.
Stanley alluded to spending another week in London coming up shortly — winning another award from an organization that doesn’t disclose the number of entries? Click here to read last year’s post. The topic this time? Who knows. I’m sure I’ll have to do another sunshine law request to get a copy of what is touted as a city-saving plan.
But Stanley’s talk this morning was really good. He is, in fact, a really great public speaker. This morning he talked about changing demographics and how we all need to watch out for it. He indicated that increasingly we will see more and more single person households and how the country will be quickly adding another 100 million people. This led to density — and specifically the need for increased density. Or densification as term goes in planning circles.
He is right, of course. Stanley talked about the need for tax revenues to help support city services. He showed the census tracts for the Central West End and how the population has dropped since the 1970s — some 30% if I am not mistaken. A dropping population cannot support local jobs and retail services.
Yet the city continues to build low-density, often single use, projects in highly urbanized areas. Downtown St. Louis has the urban character is does not through good planning but through the re-use of existing buildings. Buildings our current zoning codes wouldn’t likely allow to be built today.
Another speaker on the plenary this morning was the Chief of Staff to Chicago’s Mayor Daly, Lori Healey. Healey shared real projects that demonstrated, for example, Chicago’s commitment to becoming a green city. Stanley, however, could only illustrate what we are not doing — pointing to the attempt to build a high rise building at the NE corner of Lindell and Euclid — that was stopped due to neighbors. Stanley pointed out the location’s proximity to transit and other amenities and asked, “If we can’t build a high rise here, where can we build a high rise?”
Of course we all know that we can actually have good densification without having high rise buildings popping up on random corners. I’d personally much rather see dense corridors, with localized transit like frequent bus service or streetcars, occupied by 4-8 story buildings their length than the occasional high rise. This discussion of what we build, where we build it and how we fund it needs to happen quickly. As you might suspect, this is really about zoning.
Much of the city is zoning one or two family. Basically, we’ve zoned ourself into low density housing. Sure, there is nothing wrong with single family housing but not everywhere. Our major commercial streets needs to be denser — excellent locations for multi-family housing.
Stanley is a smart man, he understands zoning and urbanity. Unfortunately, he has no power and seemingly little influence without our ward based politics in this city. Hell, he can’t even get nice urban projects built blocks from his house, much less throughout the city. So while he talk on the need for densification was good I just have to wonder how far he will get in city hall. Good luck.
I’m new to the city…actually I’m still in school but will move to the city in 6 months…but it seems to me from my limited time reading this blog that most of the problems with planning decisions happen in the city government. Is this true?
If that is the case, then the question becomes:
What do we need to do to get the right people into office? That seems to be the best solution…rather than trying to convince the (mostly) clueless poeple already in office. Not sure how that’s done…
Density has dropped in numerous areas, even in many of the inner burbs by the same percentage. The flight to Jeff & St Chuck counties has been harmful and has placed larger financial burdens on a smaller population. Potentially one of the most serious problems for the area will come from weaker economic fundamentals meaning more unemployment, less mall spending, and lower tax revenues.
Depending on time to generate population growth as a solution would be a mistake. StL region needs to emulate policies shown to work in cities like Chicago, Portland, Davis, etc. which emphasize quality of life issues. My suggestions would be for drastic changes, particularly in regards to transportation and parking issues, thus unpopular.
I gather from your comments that even programs like the PPS Great Cities Initiative can’t work here until a political overhaul is accomplished. I tend to agree.
The concept of building density along existing commercial corridors is the core concept of Denver’s updated comprehensive plan, “Blueprint Denver”. Like St. Louis, it’s a city and county and land locked. It also faces many of the same NIMBY concerns facing most residential areas. But by accepting that a) growth will happen, b) you really only have two options, becoming more dense or continuing to sprawl, c) current zoning doesn’t work well, and d) getting denser doesn’t mean getting uniformly denser, positive change is starting to happen. Denver has committed to “areas of stability” (established residential neighborhoods) and “areas of change” (commercial corridors and underused industrial sites). Growth, including mixed-use, multi-story buildings is encouraged in areas of change, while the goal is to preserve areas of stability and limit the creep of McMansions. And while Denver’s Zoning Ordinance is more complex and convoluted than St. Louis’, recent additions have included zones for transit-oriented development and what they refer to as “Main Street” zoning, which is actually “good”/better mixed-use commercial-corridor zoning.
You’re right about the current dynamics here. The two other big dynamics “standing in our way” here are simple economics (there really is no financial incentive to get much denser in most parts of the city) and a real lack of empowering neighborhoods . . . without community buy-in, there’s little momentum to change the status quo. I’ve seen that it takes constituents communicating with their elected representatives and having their voices heard, welcomed and thoughtfully considered for change to happen. And as with most things governmental, until you get Joe Voter to understand a “new” concept and embrace it, the tendancy is to “just say no”. Closed/little/no communication and back room deals make voters distrustful. Many times, it’s safer/easier to deal just to with the devil you know than to trust something new . . .
Who cares about Joe Voter. If he doesn’t like density then let him vote with his feet and move to Hillsboro. St. Louis’ legislators need to realize that this isn’t Hillsboro and they shouldn’t listen to the NIMBY objections of old haggard women who are afraid their flowers may be subject to the shadow of a tall building. The economics for tall buildings are here. We should be happy that the City has made such a turnaround.
I suspect you can review almost any inner ring suburb, U City, Webster, Glendale and find that over the last 30 years population density has fallen due to smaller families, never marrieds, widows or widowers living longer etc.
That in part is why I see the woe expressed over St Louis’ falling population since WWII as a bit of a false comparison.
The density up to and immediately after WWII was an unsustainable result of no new building during the Depression and War.
Lastly, a favorable higher density will result from increasing land values in the City. Personally I would limit high rise building to DT and Clayton and restrict the rest of the city to 6+/- stories or less.
I like the idea of 4 to 8 story buildings, it creates a nice density, but not at an overwrought scale. Helsinki, Finland is entirely made up of buildings of this scale. it creates a manageable environment, great for mass transit, with great sunlight penetration (so important in northern countries). The few high rise buildings in Helsinki are in the distant suburbs.
On the other hand I just read an article about Vancouver BC and the many high rises in the interior of the city to help create an intense density. It is another approach.
In either case it requires a firm policy of building which seems to elude St. Louis. I continue to be disappointed in Rollin Stanley. I hear many good things about his thinking and urban philosophy, but when it comes to converting it into reality in St. Louis, a city that needs some direction, he seems to fall short. As Steve points out, and as is the the talk on the street, it is because he does not have the guts to stand up to the entrenched political madness that is St Louis. On one hand, who can blame him, on the other, he could become a major force in reviving St. Louis, if he only had the courage to do so.
I do feel as if this and other blogs will become more and more of a force in coming elections as time goes on. Especially considering that the failure to address the problems around density in the city stem from the auto centric environment that ignores global energy shortages that are becoming more evident every day along with global warming and the like. In short Rollin Stanley will in the end kick himself in the butt for missing an opportunity to improve the world we live in. Eventually new leaders will replace him and the rest of the clowns in city hall.
I find it amazing the political types do not see the inevitable shape of a new world in front of them. From my vantage point everyone else (the citizens) seem to know that a sea of change is coming.
A Planning Director without power has little ability to influence the built environment. Here, apparently, the power lies in aldermanic courtesy combined with the unholy alliance of politicians and developers trying to figure out how to “capture” more sales and sales taxes as cheaply as possible . . .
Part of the problem is not necessarily the NIMBYs going to the polls, what got the tower at Euclid and Lindell stopped was that those NIMBYs took OPUS to court, despite the fact that the tower had already been approved and was moving forward. OPUS went through all the normal channels that we have here in St. Louis: back room deals, public meetings, etc…and despite the objections of a few, the project was moving forward. Then, St. Louisans for Low Density Crap Housing Somewhere Away From My Home or whatever they called themselves filed suit.
I agree that there needs to be some systematic change. The problem is that those in power have no real reason to change it. I say, we just vote them all out. But that’ll never happen.
Who is Rollin Stanley?
Jokes- but really. what has this guy done? I was excited like everyone else when he came from Toronto….then nothing.
also, if they will not allow high rises in the CWE, then what do they call that little building at laclede & euclid? the seal has been broken.
oh, and I hate Clayton- please don’t feed the monster. I just had to get that in.
a
Hey Sam,
Did you know that Forbes magazine rates St. Louis the 4th best city in the country for affordably living well? It rated higher than San Antonio, Austin, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, and just about everywhere else in the country. St. Louis is a smart money move.
Bragging because you come cheap is the Blu-Light special at KMart. Locals has bragged about this for decades and it still used by those who don’t know any better.
Sillylocal-
You totally missed the point. The index rated affordably living *WELL*. There’s affordability in lots of places. But to be able to *live well* at an *affordable price*, that’s getting hold of life’s brass ring. And this isn’t locals making the list; it’s a respected national magazine. Nice try tho at maintaining our regional low esteem. Funny. It really does seem to take an outsider to appreciate the comparative advantages of St. Louis.
The solution to this mess is obviously a non-for-profit lobbying organization advocating for an urban built environment and preservation.
A “good” planning director is the ultimate politician. It’s one thing to “know your stuff” and to be able to create the right vision for an urban area. It’s even better if you can convince the development community and the elected politicians of the wisdom of your vision. It takes “winning” many small battles every day – landscaping here, sidewalks there – more than creating grand visions. From what I can tell Mr. Stanley “knows his stuff”. What I can’t tell is how effective he is in getting it implemented locally, where thsoe obstacles lie, and what I, as a voter, can do to change things for the better . . .
I think that one element that is missing, or I missed amongst the pithy comments, was the “need” for higher density on commercial streets or anywhere for that matter. Is there a public in st.louis clamoring to live on Hampton Avenue in a 4 to 6 story high building?
My fear is that you build it and no one comes- take a look at the gian vacant condo/loft/retail area in Dogtown that was foreclosed on a few months ago.
With the exception of downtown and some “hipper” areas the necessity for density doesnt seem to be there for anywhere else(south or north). The housing market is still ripe with good starter homes for those folks who could realistically skip the lofts and settle in- (which is what we want them to do in st.louis hello!)
Am I wrong? if so why?
Josh,
Great questions and observations. St. Louis is growing in its marketability for a number of reasons. Is increased density one of them? Probably not. Do people like increased density? Sometimes. Like when it makes housing affordable (think Clayton condos versus SF homes). What’s the rate of occupancy on the loft apartments built at the site of the old Arena? There seems to be a lot of empties. I liked it better when the empties there were all the Busch beer cans littering the place after a good Blues Blackhawks contest ;-). And I bet we’d be more marketable as a city with a restored Arena than another urban infill project!
And the award for World’s Best Ghostwritten Mayoral Blog goes to…
But seriously, what has Rollin Stanley done?
Once the Gateway was a world class city with an international airport, edgy entertainment, and an economy with numerous corporate headquarters, but no more. Whether it’s McDon-Douglas, TWA, Boatmens’ Bank, May Co., AG Edwards, the list goes on and on. By virtually closing their doors, these jobs disappeared and so did density and growth. Residents still want to claim that “living well” is a sufficient standard and scream victory, that’s silliness to an extreme.
Outsiders can easily see these problems and the same magazine ranks the business climate 81/100 (because of low costs) and down from previous years. Even crime ridden Camden NJ is ranked 26 and Gary IN is catching up quickly.
In fact, even the electric company cannot manage its infrastructiure reliably, few corporations find it advantageous to stick around or locate headquarters there, the school system is now unaccredited, crime remains high, and jobs continue to leave the city. With over fifty years of decay, depopulation, loss of jobs, and the lowering of local standards, certainly locals can live “affordably”. The same is true in Detroit and numerous other cities led by dense leaders. Dense people are proud of this and simple lectures will not wake up residents to their silliness. Ms Healy speaks proudly while “Stanley could only illustrate what we are not doing”.