Home » Accessibility »North City » Currently Reading:

McCormack Baron Salazar Gets ADA Curb Ramps All Wrong at Renaissance Place

June 11, 2009 Accessibility, North City 9 Comments

The old Bluemeyer public housing project was a combination of high-rise and low-rise buildings, all fairly disconnected from each other and the adjacent public streets.

October 2006
October 2006

The entire complex was razed( in a few phases) and the replacement project is nearing completion.  The map below shows the project area:

Everything inside the shaded area is new.  Everything from underground infrastructure to the buildings to the street grid, curbs sidewalks and curb ramps.  McCormack Baron Salazar had a clean slate to work with.  Here is how they summarize the project:

Renaissance Place at Grand | St. Louis, MO
402 units
Total Development Investment  $68,792,300

The Arthur Blumeyer public housing development, constructed in 1968, consisted of four high-rise and 42 low-rise buildings and housed 1,162 families, including 585 elderly. The development is located north of Grand Center, the mid-town arts district in Saint Louis.

The Federal Omnibus Consolidated Reconciliation Act of 1996 requires that viability assessments be performed for public housing projects of 300 or more units with vacancy rates of 10 percent or higher. This law requires units to be removed from the housing stock within five years if public housing costs exceed the cost of housing vouchers and if long-term viability of the subject property cannot be assured through reasonable revitalization plan. In 1999, Blumeyer’s two elderly high-rise buildings, 174 of the family townhouses and both of the family high rises were declared non-viable by HUD.

The St. Louis Housing Authority took the opportunity to collaborate with the larger community, and elected to pursue a strategy of transformation through HUD’s HOPE VI program. The application submission was successful and the Blumeyer public housing site was awarded $35,000,000 in HOPE VI grant funds.

Overall the new project is quite nice.

Above is one of the new street intersections, Franklin Ave & Josephine Baker Ave (map).  I’ve drawn lines to show the path at the intersection that an able-bodied person would walk — a straight line.  No surprise.  While walking with my cane I’d follow the same path as well — dealing with the curbs is preferable to the longer distance required to use the ramps.

But what if you use a wheelchair or mobility scooter?  Keep in mind that the 1st floor units are accessible.  The other day I saw two different residents using mobility scoters in the area.  So the disabled are expected in the immediate area.

Above is the same intersection with one path for wheelchair/scooter users shown in red.  Rather than being able to continue in a staright line the disabled must angle out and cross one street while being very close with traffic going parallel.

This intersection needed twice the number of ramps so that a straight path could be maintained.  Rather than a single ramp out at the corners each quadrant would have two ramps – one per direction of travel.  Keep in mind that the entire intersection is new.  We are not talking about the expense to retrofit the intersection with 8 vs 4 ramps.  The additional cost would have been minimal when this was done from scratch.

Same situation at another intersection
I just love the mis-match of ramps crossing Theresa parallel to Delmar.

In St. Louis and other cities retrofit ramps are often placed at the corners.  As cities were retrofitting ramps following the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 they had limited budgets.  Doing four ramps per corner was faster and cheaper than eight.  Additionally, obstacles like sewer inlets prevent more ideal placement of ramps.  The corner ramp was a valid retrofit compromise.

But in new construction the corner ramps are unacceptable.  There is no excuse for the way the ramps were placed in the above project.  None.  I’d like to see a public flogging of the engineers that designed these streets, sidewalks and ramps.  Better yet, they should have to live here and use a wheelchair to get around!

It may be too late but the city should not accept these streets from the developer.  Someone’s Errors & Omissions insurance policy should pay to correct these ramps.

 

Currently there are "9 comments" on this Article:

  1. samizdat says:

    Well, as inefficient as the ramps may be, the designers got one thing correct: the projections at the corners which act as traffic calming devices. I would quite like to see these on my street, as for a fairly long section it parallels Grand Ave. Not to mention the portion where it opens up adjacent to Marquette Park. A regular super-speedway, it is…and is treated as such. I’ve had a talk or two with neighbors about inquiring of the City if they could put some planters in along that wide stretch, and four in the middle of two intersections, as an ad hoc traffic calming scheme. Perhaps adding some bike lane striping would increase the effect. Back to the ramps. I can’t imagine why the design of any ramp wouldn’t simply incorporate the entire range of the corner arc. The truncated nature of this design seems to suggest that they are still designing for a retrofitted corner, not a clean slate. Hell, I wouldn’t doubt that the ramp could be a prefab slab which could be designed to ensure that everyone could travel in a straight line to their destination. Save some money in the bargain: no labor to tool drying cement. Just lift it into place, et viola! ramp. The lower costs would come from the differentiation in the rates of pay between the off-site fabrication, and in situ fabrication. Oh, and economies of scale, and all that rot. Just sayin’.

     
  2. john w. says:

    ^WOW! Unlike the geniuses at Dwell magazine and certain popular green blogs, concerning prefabrication in our built environment, someone in the real world actually GETS it! Coming soon (or eventually) to a built environment near you… prefabrication on a scale appropriate to the delivery means, and demonstrating the unequalled cost savings of economy of scale, controlled manufacturing environment, condensed schedule, etc…

     
  3. jdb says:

    Steve: there’s another issue here I think – that is, cars that pull up to an intersection will pull up to where you show the “blue lines” so as to see the traffic coming in the perpendicular street. That’s where the crosswalk should be (where you show the red line) – if it were pushed back to where you show the blue line people would likely get hit. My guess is that’s why the ramps are placed there. This is all a factor of the traffic calming devices noted above. They push forward ramp from aligning with the sidewalk. I think there were some trade offs made with this design.

     
  4. Jimmy Z says:

    No, the ramps should be in the line of travel. If someone isn’t paying attention, they’re gonna hit someone no matter where they are “legally”, and they’re more likely to hit them when they’re “around the corner, at the apex of the radius.

    Odds of getting this fixed now? Slim to none, and Slim left town weeks ago . . .

     
  5. CarondeletNinja says:

    Beating your head against the wall. Just make all wheelchairs, rascals, personal mobility devices, etc. etc. etc. , with 4 wheel drive and big swamper tires so they can go anywhere, even offroad. 20 foot antenna with orange flag and “It’s a mobility thing…you wouldn’t understand” sticker sold separately.

     
  6. Dustin Bopp says:

    ^ Very funny. Actually, that may not be far off from where some would like to go. Would outfitting all individuals with super-high-tech mobility devices that can climb stairs be more economical than retrofitting 100% of our cities and buildings? Some think so and argue that accessibility has negatively influenced design for the able-bodied. The prevailing thought, though, particularly in the accessibility community, is that we are all only “temporarily-abled” and that which is accessible to the least able of us makes it easier for all.

     
  7. Brian says:

    Ideally, it would be a raised intersection. Then you wouldn’t even need ramps.

     
  8. This is the great blog, I'm reading them for a while, thanks for the new posts!

     
  9. ed hardy clothing says:

    We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
    of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
    ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
    ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
    ed hardy board shorts , don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
    ed hardy swimwearand more,
    ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
    cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.

    our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe