The Big Picture: City Block #1013
The development process in St. Louis is all wrong. The city maintains 1940s suburban zoning codes (with absurdly high parking demands) and doesn’t attempt to connect the dots. Development isn’t about eventually having nice corridors that are pleasant to walk down. No, development is viewed as being in a vacuum — my block is completely unrelated to the blocks around me. Work the political system and you might be granted a variance to build something other than what made sense in 1950.
City block 1013 is one example out of many. Â The block, bounded by Washington, T.E. Huntley (formerly Ewing), Locust & Garrison, is owned by the Salvation Army. Â The Salvation Army, like any property owner & developer, has just gone with the flow.
From my view city leaders should have been figuring out what it would look like to connect downtown to Midtown Alley to Grand Center along four corridors: Olive, Locust, Washington & Delmar This isn’t about designing specific built;dings for specific parcels. It’s about building massing and frequency of windows and doors.
As I pointed out yesterday, I’m not a fan of just asking folks what they want — they likely don’t know what is possible. In depressed neighborhoods the idea of visioning vacant lots as active businesses (with jobs) and the sidewalks as busy & safe places just doesn’t come to mind. Vision takes leadership — something city hall is lacking.
I didn’t attend the open house but those who did said the proposed project was billed at being 75% veterans. Anyone who knows Fair Housing laws knows affordable apartments (48 in this case) can’t be restricted to veterans.
Last week I met with Gary Busiek of the Salvation Army and Andy Trivers of Trivers Architects to discuss the project. It became clear they had to work within the codes of the city and the low income tax credits for financing. The financing being used for the project doesn’t allow any retail space, something that would continue the storefronts from the blocks of Locust to the west.
The site plan I was shown shows the block would eventually have four buildings — one on each corner. The NW & SE corners are just conceptual right now — but the concept showed a community center gym at the NW corner. Blank walls would face Washington & Garrison. Instead of mandating massive quantities of parking, we need to require non-black blank walls — especially at corners.
The big picture is we should be looking at all our corridors where development will happen in the future. What form do we want future buildings to take? A one story McDonald’s on such a block would be absurd but I can see such proposals happening on other similar sites. Can we completely eliminate minimum parking requirements?
I care very little about the use of a building — I know use changes with time, The form, however, doesn’t. The form must be correct from the beginning, or at least be easily modified down the road.
 – Steve Patterson
You’re right, Steve. I’d like to see the city try out a new corridor code in which any residential building under six stories must dedicate the first to retail/commercial. Any building over that height (residential or office/commercial) must bury its parking — or, heaven forbid, not require on-site lots/garages at all!
You’re right, Steve. I’d like to see the city try out a new corridor code in which any residential building under six stories must dedicate the first to retail/commercial. Any building over that height (residential or office/commercial) must bury its parking — or, heaven forbid, not require on-site lots/garages at all!
I’m not sure Trivers is accurate, the veteran housing tax credits would not pay for storefronts, but I don’t think they would disallow them. Financing?, so bankers are now also dictating the form of the city? The tax credit housing built on South Grand near Chippewa has storefronts, it might of been elderly credits but I would think the principles are the same and clearly there is financing around to support these type of projects.
I also know the city has a process that you can bring them different designs and modify parking and so on. In short what I think is going on here is neither the client nor architect have an interest in building a good urban environment. It is about what is easiest and what makes them the most money.
I’m not sure Trivers is accurate, the veteran housing tax credits would not pay for storefronts, but I don’t think they would disallow them. Financing?, so bankers are now also dictating the form of the city? The tax credit housing built on South Grand near Chippewa has storefronts, it might of been elderly credits but I would think the principles are the same and clearly there is financing around to support these type of projects.
I also know the city has a process that you can bring them different designs and modify parking and so on. In short what I think is going on here is neither the client nor architect have an interest in building a good urban environment. It is about what is easiest and what makes them the most money.
I need to disagree with your assertion that “neither the client nor architect have an interest in building a good urban environment”. My experience is that most architects are big thinkers and will look at a range of options, and that it’s our clients that have preconceived ideas about what they want.
Yes, Architects and Planners work for clients. This is one of the problems that arises when the public sector has no involvement in planning to set the framework. It’s generally a problem that has existed for decades, since the decline of the activist state, and has been written on by practtioners and academics extensively.
If tax credits for veteran housing do not allow retail then I wonder what’s the difference compared to low income tax credits?
I need to disagree with your assertion that “neither the client nor architect have an interest in building a good urban environment”. My experience is that most architects are big thinkers and will look at a range of options, and that it’s our clients that have preconceived ideas about what they want.Â
Yes, Architects and Planners work for clients. This is one of the problems that arises when the public sector has no involvement in planning to set the framework. It’s generally a problem that has existed for decades, since the decline of the activist state, and has been written on by practtioners and academics extensively.
If tax credits for veteran housing do not allow retail then I wonder what’s the difference compared to low income tax credits?
Two points. One, minimum parking requirements are all about minimizing external impacts, especially in existing neighborhoods. In the city, where we have depopulation and an excess of underused and vacant land, parking really isn’t a problem, so our minimum parking requirements may seem silly. In dense areas that are growing denser, it comes down to existing uses versus new ones – should an existing business or resident give up “their” parking (that they’ve depended on for years) so that a new business or resident can have it? The parking the Salvation Army wants to provide here has little to do with any city requirements and a whole lot to do with their business model. A certain number of their clients and employees will choose to drive and they want to accommodate them. Yes, we should look at the current ratios, to see if they still make sense, but allowing anyone to build in today’s world without considering where parking will happen is absurd!
And two, building design and its use(s) ARE interrelated. Yes, buildings can and are often retrofitted for new uses, but just as frequently they’re demolished and replaced with more user-specific ones. As to your specific concern about blank (or “black”) walls, they are but one symptom / design element in a whole panoply of elements that define a walkable urban environment. For voyueristic pedestrians, yes, windows offer an opportunity to see inside multiple structures as they amble along, likely making their trek more “interesting”, while for owners or tenants, windows create issues related to privacy, security, heat gain and heat loss, to name just a few – the reason they don’t make sense in many gyms is that they get broken by balls – duh! The question comes down to both balance (whose needs and “rights” are more important?) and enforceability / unintended consequences. Requiring glazing without requiring transparency addresses only half the issue – I can name multiple commercial buildings that have windows that have been covered over, to varying degrees, simply because they’re not needed or wanted. Unless we, as a society, are going to require transparency (which I seriously doubt), all that requiring an arbitrary number or percentage of windows does is increase costs. And even maximizing glazing, as has been done on the front of the Scottrade Center, does little to make that block more walkable when there’s nothing going on inside, which is what’s true 95%+ of the time!
Two points. One, minimum parking requirements are all about minimizing external impacts, especially in existing neighborhoods. In the city, where we have depopulation and an excess of underused and vacant land, parking really isn’t a problem, so our minimum parking requirements may seem silly. In dense areas that are growing denser, it comes down to existing uses versus new ones – should an existing business or resident give up “their” parking (that they’ve depended on for years) so that a new business or resident can have it? The parking the Salvation Army wants to provide here has little to do with any city requirements and a whole lot to do with their business model. A certain number of their clients and employees will choose to drive and they want to accommodate them. Yes, we should look at the current ratios, to see if they still make sense, but allowing anyone to build in today’s world without considering where parking will happen is absurd!
And two, building design and its use(s) ARE interrelated. Yes, buildings can and are often retrofitted for new uses, but just as frequently they’re demolished and replaced with more user-specific ones. As to your specific concern about blank (or “black”) walls, they are but one symptom / design element in a whole panoply of elements that define a walkable urban environment. For voyueristic pedestrians, yes, windows offer an opportunity to see inside multiple structures as they amble along, likely making their trek more “interesting”, while for owners or tenants, windows create issues related to privacy, security, heat gain and heat loss, to name just a few – the reason they don’t make sense in many gyms is that they get broken by balls – duh! The question comes down to both balance (whose needs and “rights” are more important?) and enforceability / unintended consequences. Requiring glazing without requiring transparency addresses only half the issue – I can name multiple commercial buildings that have windows that have been covered over, to varying degrees, simply because they’re not needed or wanted. Unless we, as a society, are going to require transparency (which I seriously doubt), all that requiring an arbitrary number or percentage of windows does is increase costs. And even maximizing glazing, as has been done on the front of the Scottrade Center, does little to make that block more walkable when there’s nothing going on inside, which is what’s true 95%+ of the time!
You seem to want to boil wallkability down to whether a building has windows. One reason Scottrade is not a walkable environment has nothing to do with the windows and everything to do with the surrounding environment. I’ll keep this short: walkability can relate to building setbacks, fountains, street furniture, shapes, say at corners, texture on buildings, iron work, paving and much more.The old city builders had a good handle on using these tools as well as vistas, the creation of public spaces, varying street widths and so on: needless to say, windows are hardly the only tool for creating walkable environments.
No, Steve wants to: “Instead of mandating massive quantities of parking, we need to require non-black walls — especially at corners.” I agree with you.
I’ve now corrected my post to read non-blank walls, still not used to auto-correct on the computer. Having windows and doors is only one element to making buildings & neighborhoods pedestrian friendly, the list is very long.
Occupy Wall Street is protesting this project as well. Not
directly of course, but the principles of a disconnected business and
government are well evident, even on the smaller scale of city block #1013. Whether
it is businessmen, bankers, architects or the government, they are not meeting
the needs of the people. There are
important quality of life issues that should always be considered, but beyond
that, Â energy, global warming and
national security concerns loom large. In spite of the seriousness of the
situation, nothing is changing. It is a dysfunctional system of governance by
any standards.
And as you point out Steve, poorly designed urban forms are usually
with us decades, multiply by that by 5, 10 or more projects in the City and you
begin to destroy the framework to help build a new city. Misguided projects
like block #1013 break the bonds of society and civilization.
The irony is that East West Gateway is heading up a Regional Sustainable
Communities effort. (Oddly St. Louis city government seems to have minimum
involvement, the blog St. Louis Rising has an information post on the subject).
Part of the government is considering better approaches and that is fine, by
why do the citizens have to live with a ongoing process that not include
improvements of individual lives and of the city? Â Â Simple and timely debates on planning issues could influence improved
environments. This would be better than
waiting for some pronouncement from on high from the East West Gateway Council.
What Steve is saying here is really pretty simple and very
true. Â Step back and ask how Washington
Avenue should develop? The answer should be clear with Grand Center just to the
West and the busy Downtown Washington Ave district to the East. Maybe there are
areas of the city that should be full of parking lots and poorly designed
buildings, I don’t know, but it sure is hell isn’t Washington Avenue.
Of course the business as usual model is clearly
easier and has less risk: businessmen are guaranteed their profits through tax
credits, government employees get their salaries and pension, and politicians
get their “donations.†Everyone is happy but the public.
Occupy Wall Street is protesting this project as well. Not
directly of course, but the principles of a disconnected business and
government are well evident, even on the smaller scale of city block #1013. Whether
it is businessmen, bankers, architects or the government, they are not meeting
the needs of the people. There are
important quality of life issues that should always be considered, but beyond
that, energy, global warming and
national security concerns loom large. In spite of the seriousness of the
situation, nothing is changing. It is a dysfunctional system of governance by
any standards.
And as you point out Steve, poorly designed urban forms are usually
with us decades, multiply by that by 5, 10 or more projects in the City and you
begin to destroy the framework to help build a new city. Misguided projects
like block #1013 break the bonds of society and civilization.
The irony is that East West Gateway is heading up a Regional Sustainable
Communities effort. (Oddly St. Louis city government seems to have minimum
involvement, the blog St. Louis Rising has an information post on the subject).
Part of the government is considering better approaches and that is fine, by
why do the citizens have to live with a ongoing process that not include
improvements of individual lives and of the city? Simple and timely debates on planning issues could influence improved
environments. This would be better than
waiting for some pronouncement from on high from the East West Gateway Council.
What Steve is saying here is really pretty simple and very
true. Step back and ask how Washington
Avenue should develop? The answer should be clear with Grand Center just to the
West and the busy Downtown Washington Ave district to the East. Maybe there are
areas of the city that should be full of parking lots and poorly designed
buildings, I don’t know, but it sure is hell isn’t Washington Avenue.
Of course the business as usual model is clearly
easier and has less risk: businessmen are guaranteed their profits through tax
credits, government employees get their salaries and pension, and politicians
get their “donations.” Everyone is happy but the public.
You seem to want to boil wallkability down to whether a building has windows. One reason Scottrade is not a walkable environment has nothing to do with the windows and everything to do with the surrounding environment. I’ll keep this short: walkability can relate to building setbacks, fountains, street furniture, shapes, say at corners, texture on buildings, iron work, paving and much more.The old city builders had a good handle on using these tools as well as vistas, the creation of public spaces, varying street widths and so on: needless to say, windows are hardly the only tool for creating walkable environments.
No, Steve wants to: “Instead of mandating massive quantities of parking, we need to require non-black walls — especially at corners.” I agree with you.
The bigger challenge here is that a(nother) whole block in the urban core will be devoted to service delivery by a non-profit organization. We can’t sustain a city solely on investment by non-profits and the government, we also need major investments by the evil private sector. St. Louis reached its apex early in the 20th Century because businesses were successful and expanding, employing workers and building the infrastructure that many are trying to “save” and repurpose today.
The bigger challenge here is that a(nother) whole block in the urban core will be devoted to service delivery by a non-profit organization. We can’t sustain a city solely on investment by non-profits and the government, we also need major investments by the evil private sector. St. Louis reached its apex early in the 20th Century because businesses were successful and expanding, employing workers and building the infrastructure that many are trying to “save” and repurpose today.
I’m quite sure this city and many others warmly welcome “investments by the evil private sector”.
Do they always?
The so-called “evil private sector” may make untenable demands on municipalities. It is exceedingly rare for a major player to propose an initiative and say, in effect, all I want is for government, local and otherwise, to get both feet outta my bidnis. As a benevolent, visionary entrepreneur, I wish to implement my brilliant business plan unfettered by bureaucratic red tape. So, I wish to invest my private capital, make a killing, create jobs and add to the local economy. Now, please don’t get in my way with your bothersome, piddling interference.
Key projects are instead dangled directly before governments and made contingent upon what public subsidies will be supplied to minimize risk and maximize profit. So-called private enterprise routinely invites government out on a fancy date and then tries like hell to stick it (us!) with the check for dinner. Examples of this are everywhere in the USA.
We get “stuck with the check” because too many times we do say yes! I don’t blame any entity for asking for subsidies, especially if their competitors are receiving them, but I do blame our government and our elected officials for agreeing to too many of them, out of either fear or greed. Is private business skilled at crafting compelling arguments for subsidies? Absolutely! But as long as our multiple local governments are willing to buy into the arguments and to continue to try and steal investments from their neighbors, we’re going to be stuck in this zero-sum game. If there’s reason for a business to be someplace, they will always figure out a way to be there, with or without subsidies, and in spite of any governmental red tape. Demand is key, and subsidies are just an artificial (and misguided) way of increasing perceived demand.
I’ve now corrected my post to read non-blank walls, still not used to auto-correct on the computer. Having windows and doors is only one element to making buildings & neighborhoods pedestrian friendly, the list is very long.
I’m quite sure this city and many others warmly welcome “investments by the evil private sector”.Â
Do they always?
The so-called “evil private sector” may make untenable demands on municipalities. It is exceedingly rare for a major player to propose an initiative and say, in effect, all I want is for government, local and otherwise, to get both feet outta my bidnis. As a benevolent, visionary entrepreneur, I wish to implement my brilliant business plan unfettered by bureaucratic red tape. So, I wish to invest my private capital, make a killing, create jobs and add to the local economy. Now, please don’t get in my way with your bothersome, piddling interference.
Key projects are instead dangled directly before governments and made contingent upon what public subsidies will be supplied to minimize risk and maximize profit. So-called private enterprise routinely invites government out on a fancy date and then tries like hell to stick it (us!) with the check for dinner. Examples of this are everywhere in the USA.
  Â
We get “stuck with the check” because too many times we do say yes! I don’t blame any entity for asking for subsidies, especially if their competitors are receiving them, but I do blame our government and our elected officials for agreeing to too many of them, out of either fear or greed. Is private business skilled at crafting compelling arguments for subsidies? Absolutely! But as long as our multiple local governments are willing to buy into the arguments and to continue to try and steal investments from their neighbors, we’re going to be stuck in this zero-sum game. If there’s reason for a business to be someplace, they will always figure out a way to be there, with or without subsidies, and in spite of any governmental red tape. Demand is key, and subsidies are just an artificial (and misguided) way of increasing perceived demand.
The point is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of big business decrying “big government” while sticking its snoot a mile into the taxpayer’s trough. You don’t blame them, eh? Well, then don’t blame evil government for presuming to have a significant say in how development it heavily subsidizes gets done. Don’t blame the shoplifter who snatches some candy when the storekeeper’s back is turned. Dumb ass storekeeper should have paid attention, right?
People who want government out of business should start by calling for national TIF reform. It makes no sense for municipalities for whom TIF was originally conceived to forgo it when Repub-infested others like Creve Coeur and St. Charles County will continue to pursue it successfully and with a straight face. Making risk public and profit private is more akin to slippery goombah blackmail profiteering than traditional capitalist enterprise of risk and reward. Â
The point is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of big business decrying “big government” while sticking its snoot a mile into the taxpayer’s trough. You don’t blame them, eh? Well, then don’t blame evil government for presuming to have a significant say in how development it heavily subsidizes gets done. Don’t blame the shoplifter who snatches some candy when the storekeeper’s back is turned. Dumb ass storekeeper should have paid attention, right?
People who want government out of business should start by calling for national TIF reform. It makes no sense for municipalities for whom TIF was originally conceived to forgo it when Repub-infested others like Creve Coeur and St. Charles County will continue to pursue it successfully and with a straight face. Making risk public and profit private is more akin to slippery goombah blackmail profiteering than traditional capitalist enterprise of risk and reward.
Couldn’t agree more!
Couldn’t agree more!
“If I coach outlet online were starting now Burberry Scarf I would do things very differently,” he Coach Outlet said. “You get this feeling Chanel bags when you are out here in the Silicon Valley Louis Vuitton Outlet that you have Handbags Outlets to be out here.”While he said there Coach Purse were a lot of great resources for Gucci Shoes beginners in Silicon Valley such as Prada Handbags engineers, universities, Christian Louboutin Shoes and VCs, he tiffany rings said “it’s not the only Moncler Sale place to be, I think. If the north face outle I were starting now.
They think their Uggs Outlet look terrible as they cannot be washed or polished. According to the experienced, the reason is that Ugg Boots Outlet boots are made of sheepskin and sheep fur from Australia. Ordinary hairbrush or rag can’t wipe off blemish surface, and may hurt the sheepskin of the Cheap Ugg Boots For Women surface.So, it need skill to care about the UGG boots. In Australia, there are special caring brushes and polish paste for snow Moncler Sale boots, with a selling price of 20 dollars. Of course you can buy appropriate care products. Girls who like snow boots should consider about them. There must be a lot of dirty things on the boots for you Moncler Jackets Sale wearing it out every day. After you go back home, you have to brush away the dust on the surface carefully with special sheepskin maintain brush. For particularly dirty place, you can wipe it back and forth, and then scrub Moncler Jackets For Women it with a special soft pastern of sheepskin.