Home » Planning & Design »South City » Currently Reading:

Follow-up On Halliday

December 3, 2010 Planning & Design, South City 10 Comments

ABOVE: Halliday @ Grand in June 2007 with parking where lawn had been

In June 2007 a huge controversy began in the Tower Grove East neighborhood, on Halliday at Grand. Â A developer paved a front yard for condo parking (see Developer paves front yard for condo parking, hearing on the 6th).

ABOVE: By April 2008 the lawn was gravel rather than concrete

TheÂ Parking Nightmare on Halliday Continues! was a headline in April 2008 when the concrete paving had been removed, leaving only gravel.

ABOVE: The lawn has now been restored

ABOVE: Condo owners now have angled reserved spaces on the street

While I don’t object to angled parking on this street I hope the city didn’t give away part of the right-of-way to help this developer save face. Alderman Conway (D-8), who Â supported the developer in having parking between the sidewalk and building, is up for re-election next Spring.

- Steve Patterson

Rick

Looks like a pretty good outcome. Is everybody happy?

http://urbanreviewstl.com/ Steve Patterson

As far as I know everyone is at least accepting. This was proposed in 2007 but fought by the developer & alderman for a very long time.

al fickensher

Uhnn Steve, that ought be “right-of-way” and after you make your correction why don't you go ahead and pull off this comment.
Cb450

…so can anyone get “reserved” parking in front of their home? Where do I apply?
Salvdr

Very interesting. Most people I talk with hate when there is angled parking, such as around the Cathedral Basilica. and how can the populace determine such rights of the owners are on their property? (although I do prefer more green space.)
Scott Jones618

This is what we're concerned about? The paved parking didn't look too bad. Where's the concern about the falling down houses on the north side? Where's the concern about the empty lots filled with trash? I guess we just write off those neighborhoods.
Arandomperson

My largest problem with the original paved surface is that it appeared that longer vehicles who hang over the sidewalk; I dislike that.

I agree with Cb450. How is the City able to allow for reserved parking on the public R-O-W? I guess I'll head out now to buy a can of yellow paint and make my own reserved spot in front of my building. I suggest that you do the same.*

I also agree with Scott Jones618 provided the space is large enough so that parked vehicles do not encroach on the public R-O-W. This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to pave their yards for whatever reason–basketball court, parking, they don't like grass/mowing–my rights are not infringed upon and, therefore, I have no say in what they do.

*I take no responsiblity for your actions.
Hickory Hardscrabble

I live on this block. I do believe the owner painted those reserved signs, because the week after he painted them the first time, our street was paved. I mean, the city is sometimes daft, but if they knew they were paving? They wouldn't mark the lines and signs, right? He decided, based on word from Sir Conway, that they were reserved. I do not believe the city has ceded them to the property. It was a brooklyn bridge sale from what I understand: he sold the condo owners something he didn't own.

If you disregard the reserved signs for a moment, the folks on the street for the most part are absolutely fine with the bit of angled parking at the bottom of the street. IT's a one way that is very wide and downhill to Grand, so anything that slows folks down on their drive by my house (there are 26 children on our block) is a good thing.

Frankly, with the burglary spree of late and other neighborhood issues (like Mike Kaestner's STILL EMPTY HOUSE at Halliday and Arkansas), this is a small thing. We know the people in the condos and we like them and they are our neighbors. Now, the developer? He's not my favorite person.

And Conway? Yeah. Too bad they gerrymandered the hell out of TGE so we have no voice anymore. But that's beside the point when you're talking about day to day life on Halliday: it is good now.
Hickory Hardscrabble

Oh and one other thing: the driveway did cause larger vehicles to hang over the sidewalk. I personally witnessed a car almost back out over a pedestrian because they were parked four-deep and the pedestrian wasn't paying attention and neither was the driver. It was a hazard. And the condo owners were fond of pulling in off of Grand and essentially going the wrong way on Halliday in order to lazily pull into their driveway. It was an eyesore and a hazard.
thoughts from south grand

The paved lawn was against City of St. Louis building code 26.16.080(C)(1) which states: â€œOff-street parking or off-street loading areas in any dwelling district shall not extend beyond the building line or into the front yard area.â€

The paved lawn caused wrong way vehicle traffic from Grand east on Halliday to access the pad. Vehicles did not just hang over the sidewalk; they parked on and blocked the sidewalk and all of the pedestrian traffic from Grand and Tower Grove Park.

The paved lawn was a major hazard and eyesore that negatively affected property values on our block. It is nice to see at least a somewhat agreeable resolution.

Nice work Steve in giving this issue the attention that it deserved.

UrbanReviewSTL

Home » Planning & Design »South City » Currently Reading:

Follow-up On Halliday

Advertisement

Search UrbanReviewSTL.com

Weekly Poll (new each Sunday)

Recent Comments

National Partner

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Advertisers (local)

Blogroll

Connect with Urban Review STL

Organizations

Places

Research

Meta