Chouteau Crossing Will Have Minimum Required Pedestrian Access Route
Chouteau Crossing is a green renovation of an old industrial structure at 2301 Chouteau Ave:
“Chouteau Crossing features wind turbines, geothermal heating and cooling, and a graywater system that handles the irrigation. The parking lots are illuminated by power stored from the rooftop PV array. It will be completed at the end of 2009, and 33,000 square feet have been taken already for lab space. The project is being developed by Green Street Properties.” (Jetson Green)
As I saw the work progress at the site I was concerned if provisions had been made for pedestrian access from Chouteau as all too often they are not (example). Â My concern is twofold, 1) accessibility for disabled pedestrians and 2) increasing the walkability of the city for all.
St. Louis zoning and building codes don’t require any connection to the adjacent public sidewalk which is a horrible oversight on the part of the Board of Aldermen. Â Walkable communities are appealing to most everyone, including those who always drive. Â The city is naturally the most walkable part of the region based on the 19th century street grid, transit service and population density. Â Shouldn’t we require new & renovated buildings to connect to the public sidewalk?
So I looked up Chouteau Crossing’s website to try to determine if a pedestrian route was planned.  I thought I saw a possibility but the site plan was so tiny I couldn’t be sure. I made an email inquiry to developer Green Street Properties.  I got a quick response from VP Brian Pratt saying they weren’t sure but they would check with their architect, Trenor Architects. A few days later I had my answer  – yes — and a detailed drawing of the route.
I’m glad one pedestrian access route has been planned, but this development is on a large site bounded by three public streets, has four auto entrances (three on Chouteau) and multiple tenant entrances. I’d like to see the zoning or building code require a pedestrian route from each public street and equal to the number of auto drives provided.
– Steve Patterson
First, I agree that encouraging walkability is a great thing. Second, I agree that people with disabilities need more intense and more precise infrastructure. And three, while we’re all pedestrians for some part of our trip, for the majority of us, the bulk of our trip is in our private vehicle, on the streets, highways and parking lots, and not on our public sidewalks, thus the apparent lack of focus on pedestrian amenities.
That said, there are two challenges to designing a viable walkable environment in an autocentric world, something more than just requiring an arbitrary number of connections. First, unlike designing for vehicles, designing for pedestrians is like herding cats. People walking will usually take the shortest path between two points, even if it means cutting through a parking lot, diagonally. With multiple building entry points and multiple potential site entry points, there are an exponential number of potential pedestrian paths. And as multiple built examples prove, what looks good on paper may not necessarily work well in reality.
Second, any regulations need to balance private investments with those in the public realm. In this example, the larger neighborhood remains mostly pedestrian-unfriendly. Where is the city’s commitment to adding curb ramps, enforcing current sidewalk maintenance regulations and ticketing vehicles that block sidewalks? What are we doing to fix all those missing links? What are we doing to increase densities and encourage mixed uses? And what are doing to reduce crime? Some people are simply afraid to walk in many parts of St. Louis.
True walkability is more than just more regulations, it’s about changing mindsets. It’s going to take a lot more than “build it and they will come”. Yes, we need to make the first steps, to require private owner to do more. But we also need to expect a lot more on the public side, as well. This may be a “green”, LEED-certified project, but it’s still essentially a suburban-scale, one-story strip mall surrounded by surface parking, NOT an urban, walkable project deserving of our tax subsidies. The simple truth is that 99% of the users are going to drive here, not walk. We’re not taking a wholistic approach to sustainability, we’re simply rewarding the flavor of the month!
First, I agree that encouraging walkability is a great thing. Second, I agree that people with disabilities need more intense and more precise infrastructure. And three, while we’re all pedestrians for some part of our trip, for the majority of us, the bulk of our trip is in our private vehicle, on the streets, highways and parking lots, and not on our public sidewalks, thus the apparent lack of focus on pedestrian amenities.
That said, there are two challenges to designing a viable walkable environment in an autocentric world, something more than just requiring an arbitrary number of connections. First, unlike designing for vehicles, designing for pedestrians is like herding cats. People walking will usually take the shortest path between two points, even if it means cutting through a parking lot, diagonally. With multiple building entry points and multiple potential site entry points, there are an exponential number of potential pedestrian paths. And as multiple built examples prove, what looks good on paper may not necessarily work well in reality.
Second, any regulations need to balance private investments with those in the public realm. In this example, the larger neighborhood remains mostly pedestrian-unfriendly. Where is the city’s commitment to adding curb ramps, enforcing current sidewalk maintenance regulations and ticketing vehicles that block sidewalks? What are we doing to fix all those missing links? What are we doing to increase densities and encourage mixed uses? And what are doing to reduce crime? Some people are simply afraid to walk in many parts of St. Louis.
True walkability is more than just more regulations, it’s about changing mindsets. It’s going to take a lot more than “build it and they will come”. Yes, we need to make the first steps, to require private owner to do more. But we also need to expect a lot more on the public side, as well. This may be a “green”, LEED-certified project, but it’s still essentially a suburban-scale, one-story strip mall surrounded by surface parking, NOT an urban, walkable project deserving of our tax subsidies. The simple truth is that 99% of the users are going to drive here, not walk. We’re not taking a wholistic approach to sustainability, we’re simply rewarding the flavor of the month!