What Might a City “Comprehensive Plan” look like in 2009?
Shelves in cities all across North America are covered with thick “comprehensive plans.” A good many of those were produced by the St Louis firm, Harland Bartholomew & Associates. Founded in 1919, HBA produced such comprehensive plans for hundreds of cities.
St Louis is so enamored with our own 1947 plan that we’ve not bothered to take a city-wide view in the 60+ yeas since it was adopted.
This coming Saturday I’ll be starting my final elective course at Saint Louis University toward my Master of Arts in Urban Planning & Real Estate Development. The Course is called simply, Comprehensive Planning. The course instructor will be Malcolm “Mick” Drummond. Drummond started working at HBA in 1954. Mr. Drummond is a fascinating fellow to talk to, I expect to learn a great deal about the thought process that guided a generation.
I’ve spent hours in the basement at the Washington University archives in the former Clayton Famous-Barr reviewing many of these comprehensive plans developed by the firm over the decades – primarily 40s-60s.
They plans are often quite similar — adopt Eulidian zoning, have a major streets plan, a parks & schools plan, and projections of future population. Even cities that had zoning in place it was aften considered to be “incomplete” in that it didn’t limit heights of buildings or some of the other rules of the day.
I see the 21st Century Comprehensive Plan having similarities to those from 60-80 years ago. The scope would be comprehensive in nature – housing, schools, transportation, recreation, etc. Today’s major streets plan would be about widening sidewalks and applying principals of “complete streets” Looking at zoning we’d evaluate where the zoning code conflicts with creating arttractive walkable environments through, for example, excessive parking mandates. Schools might look be about evaluating student populations against existing structures. Determining if existing structures are to be retained as future schools or sold for adaptive uses such as housing. Transportation would look at all modes within the plan city as well as modes in/out.
With hindsight we know now that many planning decisions reached in the mid-20th Century were destructive and unfortunate. Our challenge moving forward in our cities is figuring out what to keep and what to toss aside from these early decades of planning. I hope to spend the balance of my life helping cities figure this out.
StL County announced last week that leadership plans to raise the speed limit on Big Bend from Forsyth south. This will make the street less safe for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians which is the opposite of the intent of Complete Streets. The damages and fallout from the New 64 continues to expand and lower the quality of life for everyone.
The City developed a strategic land use plan in 2005, available here.
.
It doesn’t have the force of law, nor is it backed up by strict zoning, but it is a starting point to guide development efforts.
.
Getting the plan on the books by ordinance is something that is the ultimate goal, but would require support by the board of aldermen.
.
If bloggers want this plan adopted, they should ask their aldermen about it.
.
If you’re not a city resident, and this issue is important to you, you should try to hook up with some city people to move the idea forward.
.
Generally, most city residents aren’t even aware that this map exists or that the city has an updated vision for its future land uses.
.
I suspect most property owners and individuals would tend to oppose placing strict limitations on future land use based on some form of general plan.
.
They like the tradition of looking at everything on an ad hoc, case by case basis, with the neighborhood group, working in concert with the alderman, hold veto power of any planned development.
.
The developers who build relationships at the neighborhood level generally don’t mind.
.
It’s just tougher for those not familiar with the St. Louis way of doing things.
I think Denver did two smart things when they redid their Comprehensive Plan about ten years ago, it was defined as a Transportation and Land Use Plan (previously, they were done separately) and they defined Areas of Stability and Areas of Change. Transportation and land use are inextricably linked – transportation corridors define and shape land uses – while in core cities, like both Denver and St. Louis, there are areas that should be left alone and maintained and there are areas where change is both appropriate and desirable. This also becomes much more critical in land-locked city counties, where annexation to accomodate new uses is out of the question.
.
St. Louis doesn’t currently face the same pressure to tear down smaller residences to be replaced by urban McMansions as some other cities face (even locally – see Kirkwood), but if the existing zoning isn’t carefully crafted, updated and matched to existing conditions, it leaves the door open for future incursions. Conversely, defining what areas of change should ultimately be layers multiple planning issues, including diverses opinions by the various private property owners, changing market trends, and political priorities. Because of this, Denver’s still trying to update their Zoning Ordinance – the broader plan is doable, the devil’s in the details.
.
And while it’s currently cool to be converting industrial and commercial structures into residential lofts, functioning industrial and commercial properties generate significantly more in taxes than do residential properties. To be a truly successful city, we need to accomodate manfacturing, transportation yards and warehousing, as well as residences, shopping, schools and parks. Residents need both the jobs and the taxes that these “less-desirable” uses generate.
Jim-Visit Dogtown. There has been significant demo for replacement, more upscale housing. Some like it. Some don’t.
.
Should such choices be based on a citywide plan, or determined at the local level?
.
In St. Louis, demolitions are only prohibited in the case of local historic districts. Places like Soulard and Lafayette Square.
.
In St. Louis Hills, with private funding, you could tear down whatever you want, charm of the neighborhood notwithstanding.
.
Chances are, the realtor types of Southwest City would rather not adopt local historic districts, or restrict private demolition activity.
.
They’d call it an infringement on private property rights.
When the public for whom you’re updating a plan has virtually all moved or died, it’s no longer an update, but a completely new plan with extensive involvement of a completely changed public. Early public identification of issues and opportunities will also help get to what is the root cause of the plan. In Charlotte, it’s reshaping new growth into more effecient patterns than decades past and using transit as the organizing force. Obviously, growth isn’t exactly a challenge in St. Louis, so what would be the plan’s purpose? To find out such answers, you begin with asking questions of St. Louisans.
dm – You’re right, I forgot about what’s happening in Dogtown. You’re also right, “Some like it. Some don’t. Should such choices be based on a citywide plan, or determined at the local level?” That, by definition, is what planning and zoning is all about. There needs to be a balance between unlimited property rights and the heavy hand of government trying to protect the value of the larger community, that proverbial pig farm next to a subdivision conundrum.
.
As both a design professional and an observer and sometime-participant in the democratic process, I need to disagree with “the tradition of looking at everything on an ad hoc, case by case basis, with the neighborhood group, working in concert with the alderman, hold[ing] veto power of any planned development . . . It’s just tougher for those not familiar with the St. Louis way of doing things.” Understanding good design is not a qualification for elected office, so expecting competence, much less excellence, from every elected official is silly. And since the built environment, both good and bad, is something that affects the community for decades, and for much longer than any elected official will serve, we simply can’t leave urban design decisions in the hands of the BoA! (It may also be one reason why we’re struggling as a city to attract new investment. Make the hurdles too obscure and/or arbitrary and investors will look for greener pastures.)
It’s happening in the Hill too just like in Dogtown.
Getting aldermen out of the development process ain’t never gonna happen (pardon the double negative). That’s how they build their resumes.
.
The more streamlined we make things, the less relevant they become. Why would they weaken their authority? Let’s be real.
.
Let whomever proposes the first progressive reform be the one to convince an alderman to get on board!
Downtown Chicago proves that good urban design works. Cooperation between residents, businesses and government helps to create a climate that generates increasingly more tax revenues, more jobs and better places for people to live, work and play. The main differences between Chicago’s success and StL failures are obvious: a unified and effective government that listens and supports new industries and residential structures, a public attitude that favors change over the status quo, and the willingness of leadership to prioritize people over motorized vehicles. In the Lou, narrower lanes/higher speed limits/expanded highways are favored over people. Our shrinking neighborhoods, job losses and population trends makes these distinctions obvious.
The biggest problem with Comprehensive Plans in almost every major city is the simple fact that they are put together by politicians and bureaucrats who know nothing about the essential elements of a well functioning city/region. Until more Architects and Urban Planners become part of the political workhorse the cycle of faster roads, wider roads, stricter height and design limitations and poor land use planning will continue. Jacksonville Florida, where I am hailing from, is one of the worst I’ve seen or heard about. I’m sure there is worse out there (surely there must be). St. Louis, count your lucky stars. I know I am.
Ciao.
Correction: Demolition is nor prohibited in local historic districts. There is no absolute prohibition of demolition in any of the city’s byzantine preservation laws. The laws specify what buildings will have demolition permits reviewed for architectural and historic merit:
-buildings located in local historic districts (which include Hyde Park and Shaw as well as the more obvious examples)
-City Landmarks
-buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing resources in districts
-buildings in wards where the aldermen have agreed to voluntary review of all demolition permits
The city’s Cultural Resources Office staff has power to deny the permits in any of these cases, or bring the permit straight to the citizen body called the Preservation Board. The Board hears appeals of denials. The Planning Commission hears appeals of Board denials. The Circuit Court gets the final appeal.
There are instances where sound buildings within local historic districts have been demolished in the last five years. The preservation laws are far too parochial to truly offer protection, or even space for comprehensive consideration. Once upon a time called 1998, we still had citywide review of demolition permits, and the system was simpler and, while imperfect in the preservationist eye, more effective at preventing egregious demolitions.