New Development on Hampton not an Improvement
The vacant Ponderosa Steakhouse on Hampton is no more.
The job site foreman told me the building will have an ADA pedestrian access route along the north side of the property. Â That’s good, but the fact the occupied building is at the rear isn’t so good. Many falsely think a new building is better than an old one. Â The old Ponderosa was nothing worth saving but it was relatively close to the sidewalk. Adjacent commercial buildings are near the sidewalk so this new development is going against the established pattern. The existing pattern isn’t urban like downtown but it is vastly better than what is replacing the Ponderosa.
As is the case all over the city and region nobody is taking the time to set a vision for the Hampton corridor. The one exception in the region is the Delmar Loop.
 – Steve Patterson
No pedestrian access to a gas station? The horror! The horror!
No pedestrian access to a gas station? The horror! The horror!
Read my post and you will see it will have a pedestrian access route, which is good since federal civil rights law requires one. This is needed for employees that might walk or use the bus to get to work as well as customers arriving to buy items at the convenience store.
Steve, Are you saying that the Loop is the only area that is focused on having retail at sidewalk level? I know that S. Grand and Cherokee also have building at sidewalk level…and S. Grand has been redoing the streetscape to make it ADA/ped-friendly.Â
There is also The Grove.
Did I read that wrong?
Steve, Are you saying that the Loop is the only area that is focused on having retail at sidewalk level? I know that S. Grand and Cherokee also have building at sidewalk level…and S. Grand has been redoing the streetscape to make it ADA/ped-friendly.
There is also The Grove.
Did I read that wrong?
The Loop is the only place where you have a vision for the corridor which includes new construction. A number of years ago Commerce replaced a 2-story bank with a 1-story bank. An enforceable vision would have required a new 2-story structure at minimum. Joe Edwards isn’t perfect but The Loop is fortunate to have him.
Read my post and you will see it will have a pedestrian access route, which is good since federal civil rights law requires one. This is needed for employees that might walk or use the bus to get to work as well as customers arriving to buy items at the convenience store.
The Loop is the only place where you have a vision for the corridor which includes new construction. A number of years ago Commerce replaced a 2-story bank with a 1-story bank. An enforceable vision would have required a new 2-story structure at minimum. Joe Edwards isn’t perfect but The Loop is fortunate to have him.
I’m thrilled the dead space will once again have life but another petrol station…yuck.  When I saw them digging the holes for the tanks a few months back I knew what was coming.  We don’t need another place to fuel our cars (or wash them) in this area, as is demonstrated by the closure of the BP station on Chip and Childress a while back (which as of last week is now a vacant lot).
I’m thrilled the dead space will once again have life but another petrol station…yuck. When I saw them digging the holes for the tanks a few months back I knew what was coming. We don’t need another place to fuel our cars (or wash them) in this area, as is demonstrated by the closure of the BP station on Chip and Childress a while back (which as of last week is now a vacant lot).
You are wrong. There is nowhere along that corridor to get gasoline. The Sinclair Station over at the Watson-Hampton wedge is an island surrounded by stoplights. The Phillips 66 on Jamieson is almost always overpriced…especially for convenience items, but also for gasoline (proximity to highway???). There are several filling stations on Chippewa-Watson, but they are all inconvenient to me. I pass by this part of Hampton several times a day. I will save gasoline going to this station. It is a shame that we need gas stations, but we do and the more we have the less distance we have to drive to fill up. This makes economic sense. There really wasn’t much else that could be done with this site anyway. I guess they could have put a 2-story construct with street level retail to match the area around it, but then it would not match the post-streetcar landscape that exists in this part of South St. Louis.
“Chip & Childress” is now under construction – looks a lot like this site plan . . . .
Just out of curiousity, do you fly much? I never read any posts on here about our airport. Would love to get your thoughts and read some posts on that! Thanks.
Just out of curiousity, do you fly much? I never read any posts on here about our airport. Would love to get your thoughts and read some posts on that! Thanks.
So, Steve, do you think the city would have been better served if the site plan had been rotated 180 degrees, with the back of the mini-mart abutting the public sidewalk? Or, if it had been rotated 90 degrees, so the side of the mini-mart was next to the sidewalk?* This is primarily a gas station, with a large number of vehicles entering and exiting. For those few pedestrians who actually walk along Hampton, most are probably more worried about getting hit by drivers who “don’t see them” than they are about having a building next to the sidewalk.
Bigger picture, have you been watching the new Dierberg’s go up on Manchester in Des Peres, east of I-270? It appears to do a better job of respecting the sidewalk. Then again, it’s not a gas station.
*one example:Â http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qmpyhs67gqk9&lvl=19.465634140548754&dir=357.32747726445433&sty=b&where1=1250%20W%20Colfax%20Ave%2C%20Denver%2C%20CO%2080204&form=LMLTCC
So, Steve, do you think the city would have been better served if the site plan had been rotated 180 degrees, with the back of the mini-mart abutting the public sidewalk? Or, if it had been rotated 90 degrees, so the side of the mini-mart was next to the sidewalk?* This is primarily a gas station, with a large number of vehicles entering and exiting. For those few pedestrians who actually walk along Hampton, most are probably more worried about getting hit by drivers who “don’t see them” than they are about having a building next to the sidewalk.
Bigger picture, have you been watching the new Dierberg’s go up on Manchester in Des Peres, east of I-270? It appears to do a better job of respecting the sidewalk. Then again, it’s not a gas station.
*one example: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qmpyhs67gqk9&lvl=19.465634140548754&dir=357.32747726445433&sty=b&where1=1250%20W%20Colfax%20Ave%2C%20Denver%2C%20CO%2080204&form=LMLTCC
Just rotating the design isn’t good enough. The new urban model should have the building fronting the sidewalk with a glass front and pedestrian entrance. The gas station function can then happen at the back of the lot. A drive on each side still allows cars to enter/exit.
You assume that a retail store wants to have more than one “front”. These mini-marts want to have 3 solid walls and one wall with glass facing the gas pumps. These are practical choices, driven by needs for security, energy efficiency, cost and interior fixture and equipment layout – you don’t want windows looking into the stock room or the back of the full-height coolers. You want to have one door for one clerk to monitor, not two or three. You want your primary customer base, those driving in for gas, to feel welcome. Whether it’s Quiktrip, BP, Circle K or this operator, there’s a reason why this model has evolved and been refined over the past 40 years – it works! If the Milwaukee example worked better, were more profitable, it would found in many more locations – it’s not!
Bigger picture, I get it, solid walls aren’t great in a pedestrian neighborhood. But an equal part of the equation here is that, besides a lack of pedestrians, there isn’t any on-street parking, either – you have four lanes of high-volume traffic. The classic book, Learning from Las Vegas, does a good job of explaining the architectural response to this micro-environment. Until you change the transportation component (98% automotive), you’re going to have a hard time changing the architectural and urban design responses. With sparse bus service, few pedestrians and even fewer cyclists, why would any developer or end user want to invest in significant changes or “improvements” that would compromise how well they meet the needs of their primary customer base?! It’s easy to make the academic argument for density and “better” urban design, but until you give people tangible reasons to get out of their SOV’s, they will continue to use them.
Here is a built example from Milwaukee: http://milwaukeestreets.blogspot.com/2007/04/urban-gas-station.html Not perfect but a vast improvement over the typical.
I like this design. Looks good.
The Milwaukee example doesn’t apprar to have a large number of pumps and that’s what the fuel stops desire more pumps. More pumps = more walk-in customers for cigarette / fountain drinks / snacks sales. Also the Milwaukee example has 2 road frontages being on a corner. I’m not sure this building design will work at the corner – much less at a mid-block location. The greater problem is moving pedestrians safely across the drivein approaches. Alot of wheels are going to cross paths.
Definitely looks more like traditional urban retail, and is likely a direct result of Grover Norquist’s efforts as mayor. Still, as the post notes, “Given the battered environment it stands in, the “urban” portion is a bit of an anomaly.” To the east is a multi-lane freeway, to the south is a large hospital, and to the north and west are blocks that are less dense than those around Hampton, here. Much like New Town St. Charles or the Boulevard across from the Galeria, it’s more of an architectural charicature than a thoughtful effort to integrate a new structure into an existing neighborhood.
There are few structures along Hampton that exceed two stories (the exception being 3-story apartment and school buildings), and most retail structures are of the one-story variety. This area really developed along an autocentric corridor following WW II. You may not like the vocabulary (it ain’t a 1920’s streetcar commercial corridor), but it IS an honest response to a specific point in time. Dropping a 3-story structure like the one in Milwaukee would be MORE out of place than the current design. You may want to reinvent the area to look more like the older parts of St. louis, but I’m guessing that most residents in the area are pretty satisfied with the current density, retail mix and architectural styles – one size doesn’t fit all!
I agree that a 3-story building is not appropriate for the development site in question. But as a resident of the neighborhood for the past 15 years, I and many of my neighbors have been disturbed by the total disregard for the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, which is/was more cohesive than a casual observer might realize.
To provide an example, construction of a new, generic Walgreens at the corner of Hampton/Chippewa (in search of the almighty drive-thru pharmacy) resulted in the demolition of beautiful art deco/moderne apartment buildings and a row of several 1930s-vintage storefronts. This negatively impacted density, retail mix, and architectural style in one swoop!
Unless there is a vision, concept, idea and future for
Hampton Ave, it is impossible to know if 3 story buildings should be in the mix
or not. The City of St. Louis has made a decision by default that the future of
Hampton is autocentric. Certainly this development is as pedestrian unfriendly
as the many surface parking lots that dot St. Louis. As Steve points out too, the
project does not even try to take transit and pedestrian concerns into account.
San Francisco has a planning process that includes the
citizens much more fully than St. Louis. Here is Eight Elements of a Great
Neighborhood. http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1704. Just the publication of these elements begins
to inform citizens of policies and goals and helps avoid these types of situations.
It is a terribly reactive situation with
the project well under construction. St. Louis should have a similar process that includes
the public with published development goals in all areas of the city.
Every street, every neighborhood in the City of St. Louis
should have their “Eight Elements of a Great Neighborhood”. Then all that is
left is to knit everything together using transit and other design tools.
You say that this project ignores pedestrian concerns, while Steve says that it will provide the required pedestrian connections. Which is it? This is a gas station – its primary customer base is people who will be driving. And yes, there’s a bus route on Hampton and a detached sidewalk out front, for those few customers who will choose to walk – what can be done better? Should it be required to provide hitching posts and a watering trough, as well, just in case someone wants to bring their horse and buggy?!
I checked out the 8 points from San Francisco. You must be a glass half empty guy. I would say that this neighborhood easily meets 90%, if not more, of the goals stated (and more than many newer suburban areas). I’ve also been to SF, and there are neighborhoods there that are very similar to Southhampton. SF is not StL, it’s a peninsula surrounded by water on 3 sides with a thriving economy and high real estate values. If we had the same economic fundamentals, you’d be seeing a lot more density happening here.
I get it, we uneducated masses need to give up our cars. Unfortunately, it’s a chicken or egg process when it comes to transit – you need density to support good transit and you need good transit to get people out of their cars. Metro is simply not embraced by most people in St. Louis, unlike BART and the Muni in SF, and the service available here simply requires too many compromises in most people’s lives before we can begin to “knit everything together using transit and other design tools”. If you can figure out a way to double Metro’s funding and budget, to provide workable frequencies, then you might start to see the shifts that you desire. Until then, most of us are stuck with choosing between “doing the right thing” and taking 3 times as long to get from point A to point B on Metro or just driving . . . .
First of all Steve talks about the site plan and how it does not relate to pedestrians. There are two levels of pedestrians activity here: internal and external. The fact is the project does not relate to the external pedestrian environment in any way.
As far as San Francisco goes, I have been to SF also and it is considered one of the most attractive cities in America, and rightly so. But I was not comparing individual neighborhoods or transit systems as much as saying that the intentions of the city should be stated clearly. If Hampton is to become autocentric, then say so. At least then the community then has the ability to debate and discuss options, you know, like a real democracy. Allowing autocentric design as the dominate idea without discussion represents the worse form of government acting alone with their corporate sponsors. The goals of the neighborhood and Hampton Ave should be clearly stated, not arbitrarily deemed by you to be 90 per cent in compliance.
As far as Metro goes, a whole new system of priorities needs to be implemented. Aside from wars for oil and global warming, just the correct handling of quality of life issues requires a new foundation for transit. This foundation also includes city planning developed over a period of time that conforms to successful transit and movement system in the city. It will not happen overnight and it is the responsibility of the leadership in the city to provide for future, as well as current needs.
As far as your comment about horses and buggies, You can’t seem to do a comment without personal attacks can you.? Typical right wing meaningless bullshit. You attempt to portray me as a Luddite because I don’t agree with your “if you have the money, you can do anything” planning philosophy.
In fact I find it hard to believe you are an architect. You apparently have no appreciation for the impact of good design in building successful and effective cities.
So, four points. One, “the project does not relate to the external pedestrian environment in any way”. Wrong, the project makes pedestrians a secondary priority, not the primary one. That’s a rational decision when 98%+ of your customers will be arriving in their own private vehicles. As Steve noted, a safe pathway will be provided between the public sidewalk and the front door. It won’t be the shortest or the most direct path, but it will be safe.
Two, the city needs to update its master plan to both reflect the goals of the present generation and to provide a coherent vision to move forward – absolutely! Denver did that a decade ago with Blueprint Denver and it created the framework for their recent adoption of a form-based zoning ordinance. The huge hurdle here is that our aldermen will have to cede some of their “my ward” power to both professionals and citizens.
Three, your perception of personal attacks. The hitching post comment was pure sarcasm, since the likelihood of finding a horse here is only slightly less likely than finding a pedestrian. When it comes to design, I’m a pragmatist when it comes to solving problems – I want to create something that works and works well. Where we differ is not so much on politics as on the role government should play in aesthetics, versus actual paying clients. Yes, government should create the broad vision and basic framework. No, government should not have the final say on what looks pretty or ugly in a private development.
And four, your assertion that I “apparently have no appreciation for the impact of good design in building successful and effective cities” – what have you done over the course of your career? In Denver, among other efforts, I served as a co-chair of the aforementioned Blueprint Denver process, served 5 years on the Regional Transportation District Board, served on the Parks Board and as Zoning Chair for Interneighborhood Cooperation, an umbrella group for their neighborhood organizations. It’s one thing to talk the talk, it’s another thing to walk the walk and to actually change things for the better . . . .
I don’t care if you were President of the United States, if you don’t advocate sound design, it is hard to believe you are an architect. The point is that this almost built project is a mediocre design at best any level of thought and analysis. Yet, as seems to be the norm, you defend this poor design. Design expertise is needed in envisioning the optimal transit system for the City and Region. That would determine the design and future design along Hampton Ave. The breath of many lanes of Hampton could translate into dedicated bus lanes or other approaches, vs, Grand where using traffic calming methods have been instituted instead. A major concern for design should be an optimum transit system, what it might look like and how it will impact city planning, including this important site along Hampton Ave.
As for as your sarcasm, it is a typical technique used in an attempt to discredit others, not for their ideas, but to insert false and totally unrelated issues into a discussion. I have no need for it and will not tolerate it.
JZ, you are obviously a learned man, I would challenge you to help form solutions for these problems that citizens can relate to and make their own. You know as well as me, defending this project except on the most primitive terms in no way contributes to the future challenges you and I, our children, and all of the readers of Steve’s Urban Review blog will have to face in the coming years.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve kept a low profile since moving here 7 years ago. A big part of that is not wanting to be that person who always says “that’s the way we did it in ________ and it worked better” and part of it was wanting to learn how and why things are the way they are here. And because I’ve spent a couple of decades “in the trenches” dealing with both the minutae that ultimately makes up the public process and understanding that progress always requires compromise, I’ve become a lot less idealistic.
St. Louis has some incredible opportunities and also faces some serious challenges. One fundamental challenge is simply our stagnant local economy. Cities that are leading the pack in urban design (London, SF, Portland, Vancouver, etc.) have much stronger economies, meaning that people are willing to pay more, both for better design solutions and for higher densities. Here, we’re arguing over whether or not a gas mart replacing a chain restaurant is a good thing, and it’s currently one of the biggest construction projects in this part of town!
I think you’re also confusing explaining the design with defending the design. I never said that this was, is or will be great architecture. This is plebian, mundane, background construction that does two things well, generate revenue and present a brand image (building as sign, versus building as duck). The basic design elements are a one-story retail box and x number of gas pumps under a canopy that’s bigger than the main building’s footprint. There aren’t a lot of options on how to drop these two things on the site, so we’re left debating whether it should even be “allowed” and if it’s an “improvement”, or not, over the previous, equally mundane design?
A more valuable discussion would be discussing the theory versus of the reality of the newer commercial structure on the north side of Chippewa, west of Hampton, that houses AT&T, Qdoba and Clarkson Eyecare. It was built with the elements Steve says are needed here – parking in back and glazing on all sides of the structure. Two out of the three tenants completely ignore the public sidewalk on Chippewa and have totally covered over the PC show windows with supergraphic advertising. (Similar design choices are being made at Rock Hill and Manchester.) Sure, the city can mandate that “the new urban model should have the building fronting the sidewalk with a glass front and pedestrian entrance” for the core-and-shell phase, but if they’re not going to also require that all tenant finish improvements actually use these design elements, we’re simply forcing people to waste money for no real gain in the built environment!
Finally, I think we have a fundamentally different expectation about how the normal, average person out there is going to act or react. I tend to believe that majority rules – if most people want to drive, most design solutions need to accept that reality and be designed accordingly. You seem to believe that if different, “better” solutions are forced onto people, they will somehow “see the light” and embrace them. My real world experience has been that while different can be good, too different usually ends up having to be redesigned in pretty short order.
Just rotating the design isn’t good enough. The new urban model should have the building fronting the sidewalk with a glass front and pedestrian entrance. The gas station function can then happen at the back of the lot. A drive on each side still allows cars to enter/exit.
Steve, as you know, I was FURIOUS when I saw that a gas station, convenience/liquor store, car wash was under construction at the old Ponderosa location. As was made evident in the 2010 census results, the city is so focused on the central corridor that it has failed to address stabilization of middle class neighborhoods to the north and south. Developments like this only continue and reinforce the blight of surrounding neighborhoods. Where is the master plan for the southwestern portion of the city? The aldermen in the area damned well better start thinking in the larger picture, or the city will never turn the corner on its 60-year population drain. The city seems to have such a low self-esteem that any suitor (developer) is better than no suitor at all. Just look at the travesty at Kingshighway/Chippewa. What a pity.Â
Steve, as you know, I was FURIOUS when I saw that a gas station, convenience/liquor store, car wash was under construction at the old Ponderosa location. As was made evident in the 2010 census results, the city is so focused on the central corridor that it has failed to address stabilization of middle class neighborhoods to the north and south. Developments like this only continue and reinforce the blight of surrounding neighborhoods. Where is the master plan for the southwestern portion of the city? The aldermen in the area damned well better start thinking in the larger picture, or the city will never turn the corner on its 60-year population drain. The city seems to have such a low self-esteem that any suitor (developer) is better than no suitor at all. Just look at the travesty at Kingshighway/Chippewa. What a pity.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your headline — “Not An Improvement”. Although Hampton Avenue was not laid out until the 1930s (and is therefore auto-centric), the surrounding neighborhoods are as densely populated as almost any part of the city. As development opportunities such as this arise, we need to *rethink* and aim higher — toward a more pedestrian/urban friendly environment.
Your aerial photos show the adjoining homes on Scanlan Ave. My guess is that their proximity to a brightly lit, noisy, “suburban” convenience store megaplex will not improve their market value.
Your alderman owns a car wash . . . the one next to the Hardee’s at I-44 & Hampton.
Yes, I am aware of Vaccaro’s car wash on Hampton.
He also listens to his voters. He’s very good at that. So people should organize for change.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your headline — “Not An Improvement”. Although Hampton Avenue was not laid out until the 1930s (and is therefore auto-centric), the surrounding neighborhoods are as densely populated as almost any part of the city. As development opportunities such as this arise, we need to *rethink* and aim higher – toward a more pedestrian/urban friendly environment.Â
Your aerial photos show the adjoining homes on Scanlan Ave. My guess is that their proximity to a brightly lit, noisy, “suburban” convenience store megaplex will not improve their market value.
Here is a built example from Milwaukee: http://milwaukeestreets.blogspot.com/2007/04/urban-gas-station.html Not perfect but a vast improvement over the typical.
I like this design. Looks good.
Your alderman owns a car wash . . . the one next to the Hardee’s at I-44 & Hampton.
Definitely looks more like traditional urban retail, and is likely a direct result of Grover Norquist’s efforts as mayor. Still, as the post notes, “Given the battered environment it stands in, the “urban” portion is a bit of an anomaly.” To the east is a multi-lane freeway, to the south is a large hospital, and to the north and west are blocks that are less dense than those around Hampton, here. Much like New Town St. Charles or the Boulevard across from the Galeria, it’s more of an architectural charicature than a thoughtful effort to integrate a new structure into an existing neighborhood.
There are few structures along Hampton that exceed two stories (the exception being 3-story apartment and school buildings), and most retail structures are of the one-story variety. This area really developed along an autocentric corridor following WW II.  You may not like the vocabulary (it ain’t a 1920’s streetcar commercial corridor), but it IS an honest response to a specific point in time. Dropping a 3-story structure like the one in Milwaukee would be MORE out of place than the current design. You may want to reinvent the area to look more like the older parts of St. louis, but I’m guessing that most residents in the area are pretty satisfied with the current density, retail mix and architectural styles – one size doesn’t fit all!
You assume that a retail store wants to have more than one “front”. These mini-marts want to have 3 solid walls and one wall with glass facing the gas pumps. These are practical choices, driven by needs for security, energy efficiency, cost and interior fixture and equipment layout – you don’t want windows looking into the stock room or the back of the full-height coolers. You want to have one door for one clerk to monitor, not two or three. You want your primary customer base, those driving in for gas, to feel welcome. Whether it’s Quiktrip, BP, Circle K or this operator, there’s a reason why this model has evolved and been refined over the past 40 years – it works! If the Milwaukee example worked better, were more profitable, it would found in many more locations – it’s not!
Bigger picture, I get it, solid walls aren’t great in a pedestrian neighborhood. But an equal part of the equation here is that, besides a lack of pedestrians, there isn’t any on-street parking, either – you have four lanes of high-volume traffic. The classic book, Learning from Las Vegas, does a good job of explaining the architectural response to this micro-environment. Until you change the transportation component (98% automotive), you’re going to have a hard time changing the architectural and urban design responses. With sparse bus service, few pedestrians and even fewer cyclists, why would any developer or end user want to invest in significant changes or “improvements” that would compromise how well they meet the needs of their primary customer base?! It’s easy to make the academic argument for density and “better” urban design, but until you give people tangible reasons to get out of their SOV’s, they will continue to use them.
To me the real problem relates to what Chris in Northhampton is saying, there is no real understanding of what direction Hampton, nor the City of St. Louis is going. JZ correctly points out a three story might be out of place at the location. But who knows without guiding concepts for future development as sites become available?
I think the public has to develop their own urban plan, utilizing the concept of Strategic Goals used by the City of London. What are the Strategic Goals for Hampton Ave? or the whole City for that matter? The answer is there are no Strategic Goals. Zoning is not a goal.
Transit and the autocentric design this project represents is another major question that needs to be confronted. What is it about the oil wars and global warming that people don’t see? Certainly the future of transit should be a major concern when considering the future of Hampton Avenue as well as the City and the Region as a whole. A complete discussion should include the role of walking, bicycles and so on. How does this influence the form of Hampton Avenue?
Where is that discussion?
Anybody hear it? I sure didn’t.
That is why the only real solution is for the public to develop their own urban plans and have their own discussions and make their own decisions.
Do you see much needed innovative solutions coming out of the current political/corporate leadership? I don’t.
To me the real problem relates to what Chris in Northhampton is saying, there is no real understanding of what direction Hampton, nor the City of St. Louis is going. JZ correctly points out a three story might be out of place at the location. But who knows without guiding concepts for future development as sites become available?
I think the public has to develop their own urban plan, utilizing the concept of Strategic Goals used by the City of London. What are the Strategic Goals for Hampton Ave? or the whole City for that matter? The answer is there are no Strategic Goals. Zoning is not a goal.
Transit and the autocentric design this project represents is another major question that needs to be confronted. What is it about the oil wars and global warming that people don’t see? Certainly the future of transit should be a major concern when considering the future of Hampton Avenue as well as the City and the Region as a whole. A complete discussion should include the role of walking, bicycles and so on. How does this influence the form of Hampton Avenue?
Where is that discussion?
Anybody hear it? I sure didn’t.
That is why the only real solution is for the public to develop their own urban plans and have their own discussions and make their own decisions.
Do you see much needed innovative solutions coming out of the current political/corporate leadership? I don’t.
We seem to be involved in a circular argument here, when it comes to Hampton Avenue. Hampton is a major collector street, moving large volumes of traffic on its four lanes. What it is not is a sleepy, neighborhood street. As such, it’s not very pedestrian friendly. It’s more friendly than a freeway or a suburban arteial, but not by much. Most pedestrians looking to walk to a business here will either approach from an intersecting side street or from the nearest bus stop; the trek along Hampton itself is rarely for more than a few blocks. This is driven by two main issuse, the 1/4 – 1/2 mile most people will comfortably walk and the reality that it’s more comfortable to walk on a less busy street, of which there are many intersecting and parallel options. And, the primary reality, for better or worse, is that 98%+ choose to drive, not walk!
There are two ways to change this reality. One, we can do a Grand or a Market, adding buffers between the sidewalks, landscaped medians and more onstreet parking OR we can make transit much more attractive and make driving one’s own vehicle much less attractive. The former would require either acquiring a wider right of way or significantly reducing capacity, while the latter would require a major change in public attitudes and political will. That leaves accepting the present reality and making incremental improvements, things like minimizing curb cuts and providing better buffers between surface parking lots and the public sidewalk. And the biggest challenge remains the general perception that walking in the city is somwhat unsafe / less safe / less convenient than driving. It doesn’t matter if it’s the soccer moms and dads that surround every elementary school or me driving 3 blocks to the Huck’s on Watson – most people in the city choose to drive instead of walking, leaving their walking as either a form of exercise or something they’re forced to do to go shopping in a mall or big box store . . . .
Yes, I am aware of Vaccaro’s car wash on Hampton.
I agree that a 3-story building is not appropriate for the development site in question. But as a resident of the neighborhood for the past 15 years, I and many of my neighbors have been disturbed by the total disregard for the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, which is/was more cohesive than a casual observer might realize.
Â
To provide an example, construction of a new, generic Walgreens at the corner of Hampton/Chippewa (in search of the almighty drive-thru pharmacy) resulted in the demolition of beautiful art deco/moderne apartment buildings and a row of several 1930s-vintage storefronts. This negatively impacted density, retail mix, and architectural style in one swoop!
“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.
This is a done deal – what can we expect at Hampton & Fyler, at the vacant Indian Restaurant / old Pizza Hut? What about the garden supply place, just to the south? With the Burger King and Long John Silvers to the north? How go we create a viable vision for the west side of Hampton at this intersection? Do we move th curb line to provide space for more on-street parking? Do we push Joe to introduce overlay zoning? We’ve got 20/20 hindsight with the new gasmart; how do we lay the groundwork to actually improve the next projects?!
This is a done deal – what can we expect at Hampton & Fyler, at the vacant Indian Restaurant / old Pizza Hut? What about the garden supply place, just to the south? With the Burger King and Long John Silvers to the north? How do we create a viable vision for the west side of Hampton at this intersection? Do we move the curb line to provide space for more on-street parking? Do we push Joe to introduce overlay zoning? We’ve got 20/20 hindsight with the new gasmart; how do we lay the groundwork to actually improve the next projects?!
You are wrong. There is nowhere along that corridor to get gasoline. The Sinclair Station over at the Watson-Hampton wedge is an island surrounded by stoplights. The Phillips 66 on Jamieson is almost always overpriced…especially for convenience items, but also for gasoline (proximity to highway???). There are several filling stations on Chippewa-Watson, but they are all inconvenient to me. I pass by this part of Hampton several times a day. I will save gasoline going to this station. It is a shame that we need gas stations, but we do and the more we have the less distance we have to drive to fill up. This makes economic sense. There really wasn’t much else that could be done with this site anyway. I guess they could have put a 2-story construct with street level retail to match the area around it, but then it would not match the post-streetcar landscape that exists in this part of South St. Louis.
“Chip & Childress” is now under construction – looks a lot like this site plan . . . .
He also listens to his voters. He’s very good at that. So people should organize for change.
The Milwaukee example doesn’t apprar to have a large number of pumps and that’s what the fuel stops desire more pumps. More pumps = more walk-in customers for cigarette / fountain drinks / snacks sales. Also the Milwaukee example has 2 road frontages being on a corner. I’m not sure this building design will work at the corner – much less at a mid-block location. The greater problem is moving pedestrians safely across the drivein approaches. Alot of wheels are going to cross paths.Â
Unless there is a vision, concept, idea and future for
Hampton Ave, it is impossible to know if 3 story buildings should be in the mix
or not. The City of St. Louis has made a decision by default that the future of
Hampton is autocentric. Certainly this development is as pedestrian unfriendly
as the many surface parking lots that dot St. Louis. As Steve points out too, the
project does not even try to take transit and pedestrian concerns into account.
San Francisco has a planning process that includes the
citizens much more fully than St. Louis. Here is Eight Elements of a Great
Neighborhood. http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1704. Just the publication of these elements begins
to inform citizens of policies and goals and helps avoid these types of situations.
 It is a terribly reactive situation with
the project well under construction. St. Louis should have a similar process that includes
the public with published development goals in all areas of the city.
Every street, every neighborhood in the City of St. Louis
should have their “Eight Elements of a Great Neighborhoodâ€. Then all that is
left is to knit everything together using transit and other design tools.
Â
You say that this project ignores pedestrian concerns, while Steve says that it will provide the required pedestrian connections. Which is it? This is a gas station – its primary customer base is people who will be driving. And yes, there’s a bus route on Hampton and a detached sidewalk out front, for those few customers who will choose to walk – what can be done better? Should it be required to provide hitching posts and a watering trough, as well, just in case someone wants to bring their horse and buggy?!
I checked out the 8 points from San Francisco. You must be a glass half empty guy. I would say that this neighborhood easily meets 90%, if not more, of the goals stated (and more than many newer suburban areas). I’ve also been to SF, and there are neighborhoods there that are very similar to Southhampton. SF is not StL, it’s a peninsula surrounded by water on 3 sides with a thriving economy and high real estate values. If we had the same economic fundamentals, you’d be seeing a lot more density happening here.
I get it, we uneducated masses need to give up our cars. Unfortunately, it’s a chicken or egg process when it comes to transit – you need density to support good transit and you need good transit to get people out of their cars. Metro is simply not embraced by most people in St. Louis, unlike BART and the Muni in SF, and the service available here simply requires too many compromises in most people’s lives before we can begin to “knit everything together using transit and other design tools”. If you can figure out a way to double Metro’s funding and budget, to provide workable frequencies, then you might start to see the shifts that you desire. Until then, most of us are stuck with choosing between “doing the right thing” and taking 3 times as long to get from point A to point B or just driving . . . .
 First of all Steve talks about the site plan and how it does not relate to pedestrians. There are two levels of pedestrians activity here: internal and external. The fact is the project does not relate to the external pedestrian environment in any way.
As far as San Francisco goes, I have been to SF also and it is considered one of the most attractive cities in America, and rightly so. But I was not comparing individual neighborhoods or transit systems as much as saying that the intentions of the city should be stated clearly. If Hampton is to become autocentric, then say so. At least then the community then has the ability to debate and discuss options, you know, like a real democracy. Allowing autocentric design as the dominate idea without discussion represents the worse form of government acting alone with their corporate sponsors. The goals of the neighborhood and Hampton Ave should be clearly stated, not arbitrarily deemed by you to be 90 per cent in compliance.
As far as Metro goes, a whole new system of priorities needs to be implemented. Aside from wars for oil and global warming, just the correct handling of quality of life issues requires a new foundation for transit. This foundation also includes city planning developed over a period of time that conforms to successful transit and movement system in the city. It will not happen overnight and it is the responsibility of the leadership in the city to provide for future, as well as current needs.
As far as your comment about horses and buggies, You can’t seem to do a comment without personal attacks can you.? Typical right wing meaningless bullshit. You attempt to portray me as a Luddite because I don’t agree with your “if you have the money, you can do anything” planning philosophy.
In fact I find it hard to believe you are an architect. You apparently have no appreciation for the impact of good design in building successful and effective cities.Â
So, four points. One, “the project does not relate to the external pedestrian environment in any way”. Wrong, the project makes pedestrians a secondary priority, not the primary one. That’s a rational decision when 98%+ of your customers will be arriving in their own private vehicles. As Steve noted, a safe pathway will be provided between the public sidewalk and the front door. It won’t be the shortest or the most direct path, but it will be safe.
Two, the city needs to update its master plan to both reflect the goals of the present generation and to provide a coherent vision to move forward – absolutely! Denver did that a decade ago with Blueprint Denver and it created the framework for their recent adoption of a form-based zoning ordinance. The huge hurdle here is that our aldermen will have to cede some of their “my ward” power to both professionals and citizens.
Three, your perception of personal attacks. The hitching post comment was pure sarcasm, since the likelihood of finding a horse here is only slightly less likely than finding a pedestrian. When it comes to design, I’m a pragmatist when it comes to solving problems – I want to create something that works and works well. Where we differ is not so much on politics as on the role government should play in aesthetics, versus actual paying clients. Yes, government should create the broad vision and basic framework. No, government should not have the final say on what looks pretty or ugly in a private development.
And four, your assertion that I “apparently have no appreciation for the impact of good design in building successful and effective cities” – what have you done over the course of your career? In Denver, among other efforts, I served as a co-chair of the aforementioned Blueprint Denver process, served 5 years on the Regional Transportation District Board, served on the Parks Board and as Zoning Chair for Interneighborhood Cooperation, an umbrella group for their neighborhood organizations. It’s one thing to talk the talk, it’s another thing to walk the walk and to actually change things for the better . . . .
We seem to be involved in a circular argument here, when it comes to Hampton Avenue. Hampton is a major collector street, moving large volumes of traffic on its four lanes. What it is not is a sleepy, neighborhood street. As such, it’s not very pedestrian friendly. It’s more friendly than a freeway or a suburban arteial, but not by much. Most pedestrians looking to walk to a business here will either approach from an intersecting side street or from the nearest bus stop; the trek along Hampton itself is rarely for more than a few blocks. This is driven by two main issuse, the 1/4 – 1/2 mile most people will comfortably walk and the reality that it’s more comfortable to walk on a less busy street, of which there are many intersecting and parallel options. And, the primary reality, for better or worse, is that 98%+ choose to drive, not walk!
There are two ways to change this reality. One, we can do a Grand or a Market, adding buffers between the sidewalks, landscaped medians and more onstreet parking OR we can make transit much more attractive and make driving one’s own vehicle much less attractive. The former would require either acquiring a wider right of way or significantly reducing capacity, while the latter would require a major change in public attitudes and political will. That leaves accepting the present reality and making incremental improvements, things like minimizing curb cuts and providing better buffers between surface parking lots and the public sidewalk. And the biggest challenge remains the general perception that walking in the city is somwhat unsafe / less safe / less convenient than driving. It doesn’t matter if it’s the soccer moms and dads that surround every elementary school or me driving 3 blocks to the Huck’s on Watson – most people in the city choose to drive instead of walking, leaving their walking as either a form of exercise or something they’re forced to do to go shopping in a mall or big box store . . . .
I don’t care if you were President of the United States, if you don’t advocate sound design, it is hard to believe you are an architect. The point is that this almost built project is a mediocre design at best any level of thought and analysis. Yet, as seems to be the norm, you defend this poor design. Design expertise is needed in envisioning the optimal transit system for the City and Region. That would determine the design and future design along Hampton Ave. The breath of many lanes of Hampton could translate into dedicated bus lanes or other approaches, vs, Grand where using traffic calming methods have been instituted instead. A major concern for design should be an optimum transit system, what it might look like and how it will impact city planning, including this important site along Hampton Ave.
As for as your sarcasm, it is a typical technique used in an attempt to discredit others, not for their ideas, but to insert false and totally unrelated issues into a discussion. I have no need for it and will not tolerate it.
JZ, you are obviously a learned man, I would challenge you to help form solutions for these problems that citizens can relate to and make their own. You know as well as me, defending this project except on the most primitive terms in no way contributes to the future challenges you and I, our children, and all of the readers of Steve’s Urban Review blog will have to face in the coming years.
 Â
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve kept a low profile since moving here 7 years ago. A big part of that is not wanting to be that person who always says “that’s the way we did it in ________ and it worked better” and part of it was wanting to learn how and why things are the way they are here. And because I’ve spent a couple of decades “in the trenches” dealing with both the minutae that ultimately makes up the public process and understanding that progress always requires compromise, I’ve become a lot less idealistic.
St. Louis has some incredible opportunities and also faces some serious challenges. One fundamental challenge is simply our stagnant local economy. Cities that are leading the pack in urban design (London, SF, Portland, Vancouver, etc.) have much stronger economies, meaning that people are willing to pay more, both for better design solutions and for higher densities. Here, we’re arguing over whether or not a gas mart replacing a chain restaurant is a good thing, and it’s currently one of the biggest construction projects in this part of town!
I think you’re also confusing explaining the design with defending the design. I never said that this was, is or will be great architecture. This is plebian, mundane, background construction that does two things well, generate revenue and present a brand image (building as sign, versus building as duck). The basic design elements are a one-story retail box and x number of gas pumps under a canopy that’s bigger than the main building’s footprint. There aren’t a lot of options on how to drop these two things on the site, so we’re left debating whether it should even be “allowed” and if it’s an “improvement”, or not, over the previous, equally mundane design?
A more valuable discussion would be discussing the theory versus of the reality of the newer commercial structure on the north side of Chippewa, west of Hampton, that houses AT&T, Qdoba and Clarkson Eyecare. It was built with the elements Steve says are needed here – parking in back and glazing on all sides of the structure. Two out of the three tenants completely ignore the public sidewalk on Chippewa and have totally covered over the PC show windows with supergraphic advertising. (Similar design choices are being made at Rock Hill and Manchester.) Sure, the city can mandate that “the new urban model should have the building fronting the sidewalk with a glass front and pedestrian entrance” for the core-and-shell phase, but if they’re not going to also require that all tenant finish improvements actually use these design elements, we’re simply forcing people to waste money for no real gain in the built environment!
Finally, I think we have a fundamentally different expectation about how the normal, average person out there is going to act or react. I tend to believe that majority rules – if most people want to drive, most design solutions need to accept that reality and be designed accordingly. You seem to believe that if different, “better” solutions are forced onto people, they will somehow “see the light” and embrace them. My real world experience has been that while different can be good, too different usually ends up having to be redesigned in pretty short order.
The U-Gas is now open. The architecture and the urban design is what it is. The accessible route is in place along the north property line and, unlike QT, there’s an automatic door at the main entrance (both good things). Where they did miss, however, is that the two accessible parking spaces aren’t flat, as required by ADA regulations.
The U-Gas is now open. The architecture and the urban design is what it is. The accessible route is in place along the north property line and, unlike QT, there’s an automatic door at the main entrance (both good things). Where they did miss, however, is that the two accessible parking spaces aren’t flat, as required by ADA regulations.