The Galleria Revisited
On October 11th I posted Reaching The Galleria Not Easy For Pedestrians and noted the accessible route let to the one entrance that didn’t have automatic doors.
I wrote: “On my next visit I will see if I can go around the former Mark Shale space to reach the entry by Restoration Hardware.” I visited again on Wednesday and discovered I could reach an entrance with automatic doors.
More distance but hey I’ve traveled a long way already.
So I can access the mall without working my way through the parking lot or struggling with a manual door. Â But nobody should have to travel that far to reach an accessible entrance. Â The Galleria needs to look at building some new structures between Brentwood Blvd and the mall, aligned with the Galleria Parkway that leads to the transit station.
– Steve Patterson
I think Richmond Heights is too busy destroying the Hadley Township neighborhood to have a clue on how to capitalize on the Richmond Heights metrolink station.
IF the Galleria did build “some new structures between Brentwood Blvd and the mall, aligned with the Galleria Parkway that leads to the transit station”, how many more customers would they attract every day? And, how much more revenue would be generated? My guess would be, at best, 20 during “normal” times, and maybe 50 during the holiday crunch, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, or much, much less than 0.1%.
Unfortunately, the economic argument simply isn't there. Most people with disabilities, like most everyone else, choose to drive, not walk. Most of those who do choose transit are adept at navigating the “inaccessible” sections, on either end of their trips. And most who are both disabled and choose/are forced to use transit are viewed as customers with litlle disposable income. The costs of any improvements would be passed back to the tenants through higher rents and higher common area maintenance (CAM) fees, with little, if any, increase in revenue.
Spending $50,000 or $100,000 on hardscape improvements would likely result in much better access, accross the parking lot, to one of the main east entrances. The funamental problem is that it's not viewed as a priority. One or a dozen disgruntled customers emailing and calling won't have much impact either – management gets complaints every day about all sorts of “minor” stuff. The only three ways I know to actually see change (short of an owner that “gets it”) are:
A. bad publicity – a confrontational advocacy group stages media-friendly protests that puts the center in a bad public light (and this website doesn't count).
B. tenant requirements – a significant tenant (Apple? Cheesecake Factory? Nordstrom) refuses to sign or renew their lease until the problem is addressed.
C. government requirements – building permits are denied and/or daily fines are imposed until the problem is resolved.
Bottom line is the bottom line. These people want to make money, not lose it. Once accessibility starts costing them some real business, guess what, it WILL become a priority. But, as things stand now, with a city that apparently doesn't care, tenants that aren't motivated and “advocacy” groups that seem more willing to just go along to get along than to offend anyone, what you see is what you get. The technical “letter of the law” has been met . . .
Twenty? I've seen 20 just from one train! Add in people living at The Boulevard, working at the University Tower and others and it would be a higher number right away. In time you'd see many more pedestrians along Brentwood. The Galleria and other malls are now piercing their exterior walls to open up retail to the exterior. Utilizing the space between the mall and Brentwood would improve the image of the mall, rents would offset the costs.
20 disabled people, who actually need full ADA access. Sure, there are many more, able-bodied, people who use Metrolink every day, but they don't face the same restrictions – they just take the shortest path, over curbs and through the lanscaping, just like many of the people who park in the surface parking lot.
I'm arguing for improved pedestrian experience for everyone and you are justifying why they should do nothing.
No, I'm not justifying why they should do nothing, I'm explaining their mindset – if it doesn't result in an increase in revenue, why make the investment? In contrast, reviled Walmart provides parking for Amish shoppers and their horses and buggies where there are significant Amish communities (Google it – http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=RrzKj&page_id=168128&v=5P is one example).
Read what I originally said – just pointing out, on this website, that more people might walk if the area were more pedestrian-friendly, even if it's the right thing to do, has little impact. Money talks, and until the center's owners are hit financially, there's no incentive to make any real changes. A, B & C are all motivators, yet none seem to be in play here. This is an iner-ring, suburban area where most people drive. The center does a good job of accomodating people with disabilities who do drive.
As Steve said, lots more than 20. Most of the people getting off the train at the Richmond Heights station are headed to the Galleria. In fact, the station needs a lot of improvements to make access to destinations in the opposite direction easier to get to. For example, if you want to go to the bowling alley, you can't just cross the track and walk the short distance to that destination. You have to walk toward the Galleria and then make a loop around. Obviously, the bowling alley does not want Metrolink users for customers or they would have opened their fence and petitioned Metro from a crossing.
If I'm not mistaken there was opposition to connecting the station to the east.
I think this goes back to failure of Richmond Heights to recognize that this area is truly ripe for more density. It might take a significant time in relation to other dense metro areas. However, you have a heavily travelled corridor with direct access to fixed tranist/light rail as well convergence of two interstates (ideally suited for Express Bus service, BRT), zoned commercial development that would only encourage more business and foot traffic if continued mixed use is embraced from office to residential to hotels (transient/business needs). As far as the East side, the bowling alley along with a number of properties are under one ownership with a long term development plan from my understanding. Unfortunately, the developer might see an opportunity if Richmond Heights would embrace a simple reality.
That long term growth in an urban environment is about maximizing space. Surface lots won't work in the long term nor will jacking up hotel and sales taxes to the point that business looks somewhere else to spend money. Which gets to a point, Richmond Heights is a mess on how it can grow itself because a crowd still wants to believe it is an outer suburb.
Unfortunately, I see the same thing in my new home in Lafayette, CA. The city is working on a downtown plan that embraces more density to take advantage of the BART station with direct service into San Fran and SFO, San Fran Airport. Instead, the upcoming city elections feature a bunch of candidates who are going to embrace the area's “rural roots” and put a halt to any such development plans for downtown. Give me a break, most the people work in office buildings and have never stepped on a farm in their life nor do answer how business support themselves without a reasonable amount of traffic. The long term consequence is higher taxes for everybody, no growth to support the stores they want to keep, and an underutilized transportation basically given to them.
I think the nuance in Richmond Heights isn't so much density as it is mixed use and multi-family. The city leaders don't seem to mind more retail square footage, but they seem to draw the line at any new housing where sales taxes could be generated and/or could be occupied by anyone making less than the median income. It's all about “protecting” the existing single-family neighborhoods from people who aren't like them and from paying any higher property taxes . . .
Rather than have their customers shopping across the street in Richmond Heights' only lifestyle center, the Galleria could build their own. And at a minimal loss of parking. Now, that's a high return (much more leasible space) on a minimal loss (slightly less parking).
While I like the concept and the visual image, my big question is who would actually occupy the space? Between the Galleria, the shopping centers to the south and east and retail in Clayton, the area seems to be pretty well served already. The other real challenge is that Brentwood Boulevard is NOT pedestrian friendly in this area, with or without buildings built up to the property lines. A lifestyle center component on the Galleria property could draw more shoppers to the site, but I doubt that many would be pedestrians, either from offsite or willing to venture to other retailers in the area. I-64, to the south, and I-170, to the north, present substantial psychological barriers, even though both have adequate pedestrian facilities.
Spend a half hour sitting at Brentwood & Galleria Parkway and you'd probably be surprised how many pedestrians there are. What I'm trying to accomplish is incrementally improving the pedestrian experience in the area. Just aligning some tall one-story structures along sidewalks would do wonders. They wouldn't even need to be continuous. The Galleria could find 3-4 tenants. Such development would help freshen the nearly 20 year old mall.
That is where Richmond Heights is missing the point. They keep pushing more retail because the holy grail of sales tax dollars instead of the fact that their is enough space to support additional office as well as mixed use residential in the immediate vicinity of of Richmond Heights metrolink station. The point being, its how you develop the space on the east side of Brentwood that matters first because office and any additional residential you can add to The Boulevards will create more foot traffic Richmond had settled for Sansone, essentially a box store retail developer and guess what. The plans to no surprise came to a halt when the economy crashed.
However, it might be a blessing. Start over around University Tower by increasing available office space and get the original Buolevards phase II & III back on track (it originally included another hotel and a residential tower). In other words, no more retail on the east side of Brentwood will facilitate future pedestarian development of Galleria
Agree. Higher-density residential is a critical component to successful TOD.
Nothing about this specific situation, but the satellite maps (and many like them that you've posted in the past) make me wonder why they design places like this. It just seems so silly and obvious, I don't get it.
I have never understood why malls, big box stores, grocery stores, strip malls, etc. always put the parking lot between the store and the road. It it ugly (to me), makes the stores/signs harder to see, and makes access from sidewalks and public transit more difficult (unless it's a city with a subway that has a station under the mall, like you would see in Montreal for example). In old movies, downtown shops and department stores, having the display windows next to the sidewalk and street, showcasing the latest goods, it had a certain charm to it.
I realize those designs were for urban areas or from a time when people used public transportation or quite possibly even didn't own a car at all. I fully understand the need for parking lots, and realize building a garage or underground structure can be too costly in many cases, but why don't they put the parking lots around back? It would take up the exact same footprint on the lot, just rotate it 180 degrees and put the store next to the road, sidewalk, bus stop…
I've tried to guess about some of the reasons they do it the way they do:
– They like it better with the parking in front
– Habit/conventional thinking
– Continuity of visual landscape, if neighboring stores are set back behind a parking lot (though we sometimes see big box in the back with a restaurant near the road, taking up part of the parking lot)
– Some kind of local regulations requiring them to do it that way
– Some perceived psychological effect of seeing all those other cars there and making someone want to join the crowd
– Using the store as a noise buffer between the parking and residential bordering the store
– Don't want 2 entrances for security or purposes of “managing” the shopping experience (but most of the big box stores already have 2 entrances on each side of the front of the store…)
– People just don't care
– ???
Maybe there's a real reason and I'm too naive to see it. Please point it out if I'm foolish. 🙂
The building surrounded by parking is so ingrained in our culture, in the minds of developers and the design professionals that work for them. They are drive so that is what they plan for even though others walk or use transit.
Don't forget that the culture of private property plays a role as their is always more then one owner, more then one parcel over time. Very rarely does a property owner have incentive to design to his neighbors wants and needs. In other words, like building residential or an office tower to provide foot traffice to business next door without demand in place yet. Thus it falls back onto the community and zoning to dictate what is desired and wanted.
While a big supporter of private property rights, I do see and understand the need for strong comprehensive planning on part of the communities. The big question, how do you change gears in urban areas where you can't annex land anymore and value is in the rent not a parking spot but still have multiple owners/players trying to gain the same tenant.
You're neither naive nor foolish. There are three primary reasons why this is the typical suburban and rural model:
One, it's a proven solution. Most people who do it are successful. Most people who don't, struggle or fail.
Two, with the exception of true department stores, most businesses prefer having only one “front”, with one or two entrance points, for security, for minimal staffing during slow times and to minimize confusion on the part of the guest/customer. If the building is pulled next to the street, with the parking “behind” it, then the front becomes the back, and the back becomes the front.
And three, yes, there is a psycholigical component. People feel safer using more visible spaces, and parking lots blocked by buildings, along with parking structures, are perceived to be less safe than ones visible from the street. And, in most areas, since 90%-98% of their customers arrive by private vehicle, their needs and desires and supercede those of the small minority of pedestrians and cyclists.
You're also correct that the traditional urban model, with show windows and shoppers who don't drive, is a quaint anachronism. Between the internet, digital bilboards and cable TV, the need for, indeed the usefulness of, show windows mirrors the decline of the daily newspaper as a viable advertising vehicle. Add in the mass accessibility to the private motor vehicle (new or used), and having parking available is pretty much a requirement for economic success.
Do I, personally, like this outcome? From a visual standpoint, no. But from a consumer perspective, I have to plead guilty – like most other consumers, I tend to gravitate to businesses with convenient parking. And, for better or worse, money talks – customers vote with their debit and credit cards, with their cash and checks. The businesses who provide better parking options tend to do better, regardless of how well, or poorly, they respect and respond to the needs of non-motorists . . .