TOD Needed at Civic Center Transit Center
Transit-oriented development is a great concept:
A transit-oriented development (TOD) is a mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. (Wikipedia)
In St. Louis, TOD is just a dream.
We have a great need for retail around transit hubs but the design of these spaces doesn’t provide space for small businesses serving the public using transit. The number of people that pass through the Civic Center MetroBus Transit Center and MetroLink Station each day is a large number. This is the ideal space for commerce to take place. As I noticed one day, it does.
The number of riders won’t support a Walmart but a small snack shop makes sense. Even just a kiosk or two would work — the rent has to be low. Something that would allow a person to get a quick bite and water between buses/trains. Put the existing space to use.
In addition to kiosks at 14th & Spruce we need to build over the light rail lines on both sides of the 16th Street bridge. From 16th to the curve at approximately 15th and from 16th to 18th (Union Station MetroLink).
Ground floor spaces could be small retail shops and offices while upper floors could be offices and affordable workforce housing. East of 16th you might have a restaurant or two catering to the Scottrade Center/Blues hockey & The Peabody Opera House. Â Yes, this creates a long tunnel which requires expensive exhaust equipment but the value of the habitable space created would make it a worthwhile investment. Clark Ave desperately needs something to make the walk from 18th to 14th interesting.
Metro is looking to expand the MetroBus transit center because they feel the existing one isn’t big enough to handle all the buses. Now is the time to think about creating more than just a place to change transit  modes.
– Steve Patterson
Several thoughts:
1. Yes!
2. “a long tunnel which requires expensive exhaust equipment” – probably not, since Metrolink trains are electric.
Â
3. Real estate basics – supply and demand and location, location, location. Why build/rent here, and not in BPV? On Washington? Covering a tunnel is always more expensive than building on bare dirt, and we’re not lacking in bare dirt. Metro and/or Greyhound could have built their bus bays here on top of the tracks, but both chose the bare-ground option.
4. Relying on Metrolink riders as a your primary customer base can be problematic. One, Metro doesn’t allow eating or drinking on their vehicles, so unless/until that rule is changed, there’s little reason to buy snacks before one boards. And two, your business model needs to be built around erratic hours, since the primary customer base will be daily commuters, the majority who work “9-5”. Unless they work really close by, why would they return here during lunch?
5. Market saturation? There are already several vendors in the bus station, along with public restrooms. Are there enough customers to support more? Or, would the better option be pop-up operations, be they food trucks or the current cooler-based vendors, especially for sporting events? And, for offices and housing, how many other options are already available?
Don’t get me wrong, I think TOD is a great thing. But given our region’s track record, the next one needs to be both spectacular and successful. The Forest Park Station, where many riders change trains, or the Grand Station, where the busiest bus line intersects the train line, are both more likely prospects. If something happens here, great, but if public resources are going to be involved, they need to be spent on locations with the highest likelihood of success.
Several thoughts:
1. Yes!
2. “a long tunnel which requires expensive exhaust equipment” – probably not, since Metrolink trains are electric.
3. Real estate basics – supply and demand and location, location, location. Why build/rent here, and not in BPV? On Washington? Covering a tunnel is always more expensive than building on bare dirt, and we’re not lacking in bare dirt. Metro and/or Greyhound could have built their bus bays here on top of the tracks, but both chose the bare-ground option.
4. Relying on Metrolink riders as a your primary customer base can be problematic. One, Metro doesn’t allow eating or drinking on their vehicles, so unless/until that rule is changed, there’s little reason to buy snacks before one boards. And two, your business model needs to be built around erratic hours, since the primary customer base will be daily commuters, the majority who work “9-5”. Unless they work really close by, why would they return here during lunch?
5. Market saturation? There are already several vendors in the bus station, along with public restrooms. Are there enough customers to support more? Or, would the better option be pop-up operations, be they food trucks or the current cooler-based vendors, especially for sporting events? And, for offices and housing, how many other options are already available?
Don’t get me wrong, I think TOD is a great thing. But given our region’s track record, the next one needs to be both spectacular and successful. The Forest Park Station, where many riders change trains, or the Grand Station, where the busiest bus line intersects the train line, are both more likely prospects. If something happens here, great, but if public resources are going to be involved, they need to be spent on locations with the highest likelihood of success.
MetroBus riders use the Civic Center station during all hours Metro has service, seven date a week. The tunneled section as part of the Shrewsbury extension has ventilation, likely a safety requirement in case of fire.
If you are constructing a tunnel over the existing tracks, the ventilation equipment will be the smallest expense on the project.
1. When development occurs within X-meters (say, 400-800 meters, 1/4 to 1/2 a mile, a good walkable distance) of a Metro stop it should be required to be dense and accessible to the Metro stop. Express Scripts is always sad to me–so close to the Metrolink, but hard to access from the stop that’s an easier sell than more complicated development over the top of the existing line. It’s complicated to change the existing development ordinances, especially since the Metrolink spans the city and county, but it should be done. While it will take years for any development to really fill in, there’s no reason to allow sparse development near the stops. Built it in stages, if necessary. Anything built at Ballpark Village, Northpark, near Grand, Maplewood (also kind of a sad stop) should be built to allow for dense development on/around it.
2. What about allowing more street vendors, who can work with flexible hours, migrating populations, etc.? If they are successful, demonstrating a market there, convincing brick-and-mortar places to open up may be easier.
1. When development occurs within X-meters (say, 400-800 meters, 1/4 to 1/2 a mile, a good walkable distance) of a Metro stop it should be required to be dense and accessible to the Metro stop. Express Scripts is always sad to me–so close to the Metrolink, but hard to access from the stop that’s an easier sell than more complicated development over the top of the existing line. It’s complicated to change the existing development ordinances, especially since the Metrolink spans the city and county, but it should be done. While it will take years for any development to really fill in, there’s no reason to allow sparse development near the stops. Built it in stages, if necessary. Anything built at Ballpark Village, Northpark, near Grand, Maplewood (also kind of a sad stop) should be built to allow for dense development on/around it.
2. What about allowing more street vendors, who can work with flexible hours, migrating populations, etc.? If they are successful, demonstrating a market there, convincing brick-and-mortar places to open up may be easier.
Agreed with both points. The problem is our stops (bus & rail) are designed to prohibit development anywhere nearby that would allow the transit user to buy a botte of water or magazine in between their stops. Street vendors would be ideal. The attitude sees to be retail must mean something the size of a Walgreens then they try to figure out parking, which defeats the purpose of TOD.
Actually, the biggest challenge is legal. Metro, much like RTD, likely requires a bidding process, an insane amount of insurance, a multi-year contract and personal guarantees or a bond, even for a small-time vendor. It’s a mindset that can be changed, but you’re dealing with an entity that is focused on running a transit system where million-dollar line items are nothing in the budget, and a potential $400 or $1000 a month ground lease is viewed as more of a hassle than it’s worth in new revenue.
They can sell the land.
To a hot dog cart?!
Civic Center is the prime example of large amounts of land to provide “open space” rather than needed commerce.
Agree. There are actually two discussions in play here, the need for TOD and the potential to include small-scale, entrepreneurial users. In this thread, I was focused on the legal challenges facing the latter. The presence of open space, here and at other stations, is both buzz kill and an opportunity. Metro needs to work with the development community, and likely from outside the region, to bring “real” TOD to St. Louis. Small-time vendors are a start, but they ain’t TOD!
Agreed with both points. The problem is our stops (bus & rail) are designed to prohibit development anywhere nearby that would allow the transit user to buy a botte of water or magazine in between their stops. Street vendors would be ideal. The attitude sees to be retail must mean something the size of a Walgreens then they try to figure out parking, which defeats the purpose of TOD.
MetroBus riders use the Civic Center station during all hours Metro has service, seven date a week. The tunneled section as part of the Shrewsbury extension has ventilation, likely a safety requirement in case of fire.
Actually, the biggest challenge is legal. Metro, much like RTD, likely requires a bidding process, an insane amount of insurance, a multi-year contract and personal guarantees or a bond, even for a small-time vendor. It’s a mindset that can be changed, but you’re dealing with an entity that is focused on running a transit system where million-dollar line items are nothing in the budget, and a potential $400 or $1000 a month ground lease is viewed as more of a hassle than it’s worth in new revenue.
If you are constructing a tunnel over the existing tracks, the ventilation equipment will be the smallest expense on the project.
Just a thought – did we experience a moment of TOD when CVS built their store across from the Hampton & Gravois Transit Center? (It replaced a gas station.)
Just a thought – did we experience a moment of TOD when CVS built their store across from the Hampton & Gravois Transit Center? (It replaced a gas station.)
That CVS isn’t a TOD anymore than the existing Schnucks.
That CVS isn’t a TOD anymore than the existing Schnucks.
 They can sell the land.Â
When thinking of TOD, they could move the metrobus centre back downtown around existing retail. I don’t think this is a good location for TOD considering the wide arterial and highway.  Â
When thinking of TOD, they could move the metrobus centre back downtown around existing retail. I don’t think this is a good location for TOD considering the wide arterial and highway.
Major transit centers are not necessarily conducive to TOD, since they generate a lot of peak-hour bus trips. What actually works better are intersecting high-frequency routes, be they bus or rail – the Grand Station is an ideal example – that are busy closer to 24/7. You want to be carfree most of the time, not just at rush hour. And what’s really needed here is better local connections – a free circulator shuttle, bike rentals, maybe pedicabs . . .
If you look at schedules there are buses coming into Civic Center every 10-15 minutes throughout the entire day (5am-midnight?). Plus you have MetroLink trains on the same frequency, Amtrak and Greyhound. Those of us that use the stop on a regular basis know how busy a place it is.
Plenty of TOD has been built in Clayton/Richmond Heights. Why? Because it’s a desirable location even without transit, and transit makes it a super-desirable location, which justifies (to developers) the higher expense of TOD.
Civic Center is not a desirable enough location for TOD, even with transit. However, that will change once a high-speed rail terminal exists next door. Until that happens, though, there is not much point in dumping money into nearby development.
Plenty of TOD has been built in Clayton/Richmond Heights. Why? Because it’s a desirable location even without transit, and transit makes it a super-desirable location, which justifies (to developers) the higher expense of TOD.
Civic Center is not a desirable enough location for TOD, even with transit. However, that will change once a high-speed rail terminal exists next door. Until that happens, though, there is not much point in dumping money into nearby development.
There is no good TOD in the region, especially Clayton & Richmond Heights. Brentwood is a good example of anti-TOD with a planned disconnect from the adjacent MetroLink station.
A huge amount of dense development has taken place near the Forsythe and Galleria Metrolink stations (to name two that I’ve been to). Not sure why it is not “good” enough to meet your standards. (Besides the unavoidable freeway next to the Galleria station.)
Most of the anti-TOD at the Brentwood station predates the building of the station.
Try taking the Metrolink to get anywhere on Eager Road, and you’ll change your tune. It’s transit-adjacent, sure, but in no way are any of those developments oriented to the Metro station.
See my reply to Steve.
To a hot dog cart?!
Major transit centers are not necessarily conducive to TOD, since they generate a lot of peak-hour bus trips. What actually works better are intersecting high-frequency routes, be they bus or rail – the Grand Station is an ideal example – that are busy closer to 24/7. You want to be carfree most of the time, not just at rush hour. And what’s really needed here is better local connections – a free circulator shuttle, bike rentals, maybe pedicabs . . .
There is no good TOD in the region, especially Clayton & Richmond Heights. Brentwood is a good example of anti-TOD with a planned disconnect from the adjacent MetroLink station.
If you look at schedules there are buses coming into Civic Center every 10-15 minutes throughout the entire day (5am-midnight?). Plus you have MetroLink trains on the same frequency, Amtrak and Greyhound. Those of us that use the stop on a regular basis know how busy a place it is.
Civic Center is the prime example of large amounts of land to provide “open space” rather than needed commerce.
Agree. There are actually two discussions in play here, the need for TOD and the potential to include small-scale, entrepreneurial users. In this thread, I was focused on the legal challenges facing the latter. The presence of open space, here and at other stations, is both buzz kill and an opportunity. Metro needs to work with the development community, and likely from outside the region, to bring “real” TOD to St. Louis. Small-time vendors are a start, but they ain’t TOD!
While the wikipedia definition portrays TOD as a simple definition of a mixed used area combined with transit, the reality is that what is apparently expected is capitalist developers to have the vision to create good public space. It happens sometimes, especially in large scale projects, but the rents are high and the area usually exclusive.
The planning arms government have to take a more active role in forming public space and creating foundation for success.
So when vendors are discussed, make a plaza for them to sell their wares. Other cities and countries I have been to do a much better job of accommodating small scale, vendor sized venues. Hell, London shuts down streets for a day to turn them into economic spaces for vendors.
Plazas in other cities are merely relatively inexpensive paving that can generate buildings later. It is a platform for a type of economic democracy that does exist here in St. Louis, or in much of America.
But to have a train or bus stop and expect TOD to miraculously appear is ridiculous. That is what urban design does, it shapes a city and helps give it meaning through public space, vistas and other design tools.
Nor does there seem to be any skill in creating a threshold of transit, where stops can become true transit centers along with properly planned urban density surrounding the location that will in fact support vendors on a plaza.
At this point, with the endemic failure we witness, it should be clear East West Gateway, city and county planning agencies, Metrobus and Metrolink and the rest of the regional “leadership” does have not a clue, not one, of what they are doing. I hate to be harsh, but the results speak for themselves.
This area you speak of around 16th and Clark needs big time help to ever hope to achieve any semblance of a real transit center. The whole area is essentially hostile to walking, and it is also transit unfriendly unless you are going to a few specific venues. With the current governance unable to even create modest and successful public space with TOD, I hardly think they have the the ability design anything of significance. Maybe they should try Washington U. Professor Bob Hansman and his first year design class. I’m sure they could come up with solutions.
While the wikipedia definition portrays TOD as a simple definition of a mixed used area combined with transit, the reality is that what is apparently expected is capitalist developers to have the vision to create good public space. It happens sometimes, especially in large scale projects, but the rents are high and the area usually exclusive.
The planning arms government have to take a more active role in forming public space and creating foundation for success.
So when vendors are discussed, make a plaza for them to sell their wares. Other cities and countries I have been to do a much better job of accommodating small scale, vendor sized venues. Hell, London shuts down streets for a day to turn them into economic spaces for vendors.
Plazas in other cities are merely relatively inexpensive paving that can generate buildings later. It is a platform for a type of economic democracy that does exist here in St. Louis, or in much of America.
But to have a train or bus stop and expect TOD to miraculously appear is ridiculous. That is what urban design does, it shapes a city and helps give it meaning through public space, vistas and other design tools.
Nor does there seem to be any skill in creating a threshold of transit, where stops can become true transit centers along with properly planned urban density surrounding the location that will in fact support vendors on a plaza.
At this point, with the endemic failure we witness, it should be clear East West Gateway, city and county planning agencies, Metrobus and Metrolink and the rest of the regional “leadership” does have not a clue, not one, of what they are doing. I hate to be harsh, but the results speak for themselves.
This area you speak of around 16th and Clark needs big time help to ever hope to achieve any semblance of a real transit center. The whole area is essentially hostile to walking, and it is also transit unfriendly unless you are going to a few specific venues. With the current governance unable to even create modest and successful public space with TOD, I hardly think they have the the ability design anything of significance. Maybe they should try Washington U. Professor Bob Hansman and his first year design class. I’m sure they could come up with solutions.
Chicken or egg? Do 8th & Pine and the Convention Center stations qualify as TOD, simply by coincidence? The CWE station is definitely dense, but is it TOD, since it “only” mixes medical and education? Does one size fit all?
I’m not entirely clear what you are asking, but transit in already heavily developed areas has a different role than in situations that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. The late Edmund Bacon in his book Design of Cities talks extensively about the “relation of simultaneous movement systems to city design” It is a sophisticated relationship that goes beyond merely running transit through existing commercial corridors. I mention the creation of new public space above, but also, again quoting Bacon, “Movement systems….can serve to emphasize, dignify, or give new meaning to churches and spires, to public buildings, and to historic monuments that have special significance in the community.”
The failure of TOD, as I state above, is the unwillingness (or inability) to utilize transit to not only to shape commercial opportunities, but also to build cities, as the quote from Bacon indicates. (This also should indicate how narrow and one dimensional TOD is as a concept).
If I understand what you are asking, it is not a chicken or egg issue, as much as a design issue. The bumbling that is the governance of this city is startling and allows the comedy of St. Louis City planning to continue.
As a result, the desirability of the city as a destination suffers, the quality of life suffers, small business suffers, the demand for city property suffers, the citizens suffer and on and on. All due to overwhelming incompetence and other problems of governance.
You would think, with all of the vacant land the city has, it should be a golden age for rebuilding the city and its movement systems. Instead, all I see are the same actions that put St. Louis into this position in the first place.
Downtown grew up around a robust streetcar transit system, so it was TOD. The streetcars went away, and years later Metrolink was built – bringing T (back) to D – does that qualify as TOD? Or, is it only D after T?
The “failure of TOD” here, in the city, has less to do with transit investments and the city’s planning efforts and more to do with real estate investments, and the lack thereof. You can plan until you’re blue in the face, but until and unless stuff is being built, you won’t see TOD.
BPV and the Bottle District are both classic examples of pretty good plans that remain just that, good ideas. At this station, the only thing that’s been built since Metrolink was completed is the bus and train station. At many other stations, unlike in many other cities, the transit investment is in place, but the private development has yet to happen. Is that because our local developers don’t see a market for TOD or because we chose to invest in and place rail transit in communities that are so economically stressed that any reinvestment is a challenge, in and of itself? (The silver bullet assumption.)
I would argue that TOD in St. Louis faces two big challenges on the transit side, perceptions and funding / frequency. A core tenet of TOD is using transit to replace the SOV. If transit isn’t frequent and doesn’t run late, it’s not attractive. If it’s viewed as something for middle class people to avoid, it’s not attractive. Young professionals embrace the El in Chicago and light rail in Dallas, San Diego, Salt Lake and Denver; I don’t see the same “love” happening here. Until that market here embraces T, they won’t be embracing TOD any time soon.
You are missing the point. Even modest buildings require planning, planning is a precursor to building. And of course there are many good plans that are never implemented. However lousy planning cannot lead to successful projects. You are correct that transit needs to be attractive, frequent and usable to become successful. What does that require? Good design is the key element, good design requires good planning and good implementation.
The reason developers don’t see a market for private development is because of poor urban design. I have stated this many times, including in the posts above. It is not because the city is inherently flawed.
It seems you are arguing that St. Louis should stand pat, not use any
critical thought of analysis and wait until the capitalists anoint St.
Louis with their largess to move forward.
To suggest real estate investment does not react to good design is folly.
It can be shown over and over that well planned transit coupled with
good urban design attracts investment. One quick example is the Portland, Oregon trolley, it spurred millions in real estate investment.
St. Louis can build all of the crappy train and bus stations in the world, but if they are poorly designed, developers, nor citizens are going to participate in their use. That’s the state of transit and urban planning in St. Louis right now. The failure is in the governance and their apparent inability to understand and observe settled concepts in urban design. These are design concepts used successfully all over the world.
There is no excuse for the crap and stupidity foisted off on the people of the region. It is almost as if they are designing for failure. At least that’s one place they have succeeded–failure.
I think we pretty much agree – “Good design is the key element, good design requires good planning and good implementation.” I guess the question is who should lead, who should get us from academic discussions to development actually happening? Who led the charge with the Portland trolley? And which came first, the trolley, the larger urban design plan or private developers buying land and building dense, urban projects? And without Portland being a cool place to be, who would be willing to pay the freight to live in the Pearl District? My experience in Denver is that there is no one answer, no “silver bullet”, to move from mundane to cool. It takes transit becoming viewed as something for everybody, something to choose, not something one is forced to use because there is no other choice. It takes growth and congestion, to justify building newer and denser. It takes people willing to consider something other than what is right in front of them – vision. It takes leadership, a willingness to make an argument for better, then to go after the money to make it happen. And it takes a growing economy, one that raises people’s incomes and makes property more valuable, to make investment make sense.
The two big challenges I see here are a stagnant economy and parochial politics. There’s little reason to invest in TOD (or a new strip mall or apartment complex) if there aren’t many customers for the product. And if there’s no big vision, you’ll continue to get multiple projects trying to canibalize off of existing ones, just to score something for “my” ward / neighborhood / community. Ball Park Village will steal tenants from Union Station and Laclede’s Landing. The Peabody will steal shows from the Fox and Robert’s Orpheum. Family Arena and the Chafitz Center are stealing events from Scottrade and America’s Center. Walmart, Schnuck’s and Dierbergs are all playing the TIF game with multiple suburban communities. This week, a developer announced plans to redevelop the Foodland on Jefferson, buts wants (and will most likely get) TIF help in the range of 20%-25%. Until we get our economy back on track, get people moving here to work and to live, there’s little rational reason to invest in new stuff, good, bad or otherwise! We can’t just keep rearranging the deck chairs, we need to grow and to grow denser!
A huge amount of dense development has taken place near the Forsythe and Galleria Metrolink stations (to name two that I’ve been to). Not sure why it is not “good” enough to meet your standards. (Besides the unavoidable freeway next to the Galleria station.)
Most of the anti-TOD at the Brentwood station predates the building of the station.
Chicken or egg? Do 8th & Pine and the Convention Center stations qualify as TOD, simply by coincidence? The CWE station is definitely dense, but is it TOD, since it “only” mixes medical and education? Does one size fit all?
Try taking the Metrolink to get anywhere on Eager Road, and you’ll change your tune. It’s transit-adjacent, sure, but in no way are any of those developments oriented to the Metro station.
There are plenty of TODs in St. Louis, Sheraton City Center, Cupples Station, Busch Stadium, 8th & Pine area, Old Post Office District, Plaza in Clayton, numerous Delmar Loop projects, Renaissance Grand Hotel, 600 Washington (MX District), Washington University Medical Center projects, CORTEX, various Metro East projects, Skinker Blvd. etc. I think one’s interpretation of the definition of what is a TOD is going to vary from person-to-person. The Delmar Loop owes a lot of its success, new development and foot traffic to Metrolink. St. Louis may not have the “wow” factor when it comes to TOD development, but that’s because as JZ71 suggested, much of the original system was built through areas where there was little need for new gleaming TODs – just some polishing of existing infrastructure in the areas served by the line. However, the only exception for gleaming TODs would be along the Shrewsbury line. Trianon in Clayton was put on hold because of the economy. More could be done there, but there are plans on the drawing boards for both lines.
There are plenty of TODs in St. Louis, Sheraton City Center, Cupples Station, Busch Stadium, 8th & Pine area, Old Post Office District, Plaza in Clayton, numerous Delmar Loop projects, Renaissance Grand Hotel, 600 Washington (MX District), Washington University Medical Center projects, CORTEX, various Metro East projects, Skinker Blvd. etc. I think one’s interpretation of the definition of what is a TOD is going to vary from person-to-person. The Delmar Loop owes a lot of its success, new development and foot traffic to Metrolink. St. Louis may not have the “wow” factor when it comes to TOD development, but that’s because as JZ71 suggested, much of the original system was built through areas where there was little need for new gleaming TODs – just some polishing of existing infrastructure in the areas served by the line. However, the only exception for gleaming TODs would be along the Shrewsbury line. Trianon in Clayton was put on hold because of the economy. More could be done there, but there are plans on the drawing boards for both lines.
I’m not entirely clear what you are asking, but transit in already heavily developed areas has a different role than in situations that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. The late Edmund Bacon in his book Design of Cities talks extensively about the “relation of simultaneous movement systems to city design” It is a sophisticated relationship that goes beyond merely running transit through existing commercial corridors. I mention the creation of new public space above, but also, again quoting Bacon, “Movement systems….can serve to emphasize, dignify, or give new meaning to churches and spires, to public buildings, and to historic monuments that have special significance in the community.”
The failure of TOD, as I state above, is the unwillingness (or inability) to utilize transit to not only to shape commercial opportunities, but also to build cities, as the quote from Bacon indicates. (This also should indicate how narrow and one dimensional TOD is as a concept).
If I understand what you are asking, it is not a chicken or egg issue, as much as a design issue. The bumbling that is the governance of this city is startling and allows the comedy of St. Louis City planning to continue.
As a result, the desirability of the city as a destination suffers, the quality of life suffers, small business suffers, the demand for city property suffers, the citizens suffer and on and on. All due to overwhelming incompetence and other problems of governance.
You would think, with all of the vacant land the city has, it should be a golden age for rebuilding the city and its movement systems. Instead, all I see are the same actions that put St. Louis into this position in the first place.
See my reply to Steve.
Downtown grew up around a robust streetcar transit system, so it was TOD. The streetcars went away, and years later Metrolink was built – bringing T (back) to D – does that qualify as TOD? Or, is it only D after T?
The “failure of TOD” here, in the city, has less to do with transit investments and the city’s planning efforts and more to do with real estate investments, and the lack thereof. You can plan until you’re blue in the face, but until and unless stuff is being built, you won’t see TOD.
BPV and the Bottle District are both classic examples of pretty good plans that remain just that, good ideas. At this station, the only thing that’s been built since Metrolink was completed is the bus and train station. At many other stations, unlike in many other cities, the transit investment is in place, but the private development has yet to happen. Is that because our local developers don’t see a market for TOD or because we chose to invest in and place rail transit in communities that are so economically stressed that any reinvestment is a challenge, in and of itself? (The silver bullet assumption.)
I would argue that TOD in St. Louis faces two big challenges on the transit side, perceptions and funding / frequency. A core tenet of TOD is using transit to replace the SOV. If transit isn’t frequent and doesn’t run late, it’s not attractive. If it’s viewed as something for middle class people to avoid, it’s not attractive. Young professionals embrace the El in Chicago and light rail in Dallas, San Diego, Salt Lake and Denver; I don’t see the same “love” happening here. Until that market here embraces T, they won’t be embracing TOD any time soon.
You are missing the point. Even modest buildings require planning, planning is a precursor to building. And of course there are many good plans that are never implemented. However lousy planning cannot lead to successful projects. You are correct that transit needs to be attractive, frequent and usable to become successful. What does that require? Good design is the key element, good design requires good planning and good implementation.
The reason developers don’t see a market for private development is because of poor urban design. I have stated this many times, including in the posts above. It is not because the city is inherently flawed.
It seems you are arguing that St. Louis should stand pat, not use any
critical thought of analysis and wait until the capitalists anoint St.
Louis with their largess to move forward.
To suggest real estate investment does not react to good design is folly.
It can be shown over and over that well planned transit coupled with
good urban design attracts investment. One quick example is the Portland, Oregon trolley, it spurred millions in real estate investment.
St. Louis can build all of the crappy train and bus stations in the world, but if they are poorly designed, developers, nor citizens are going to participate in their use. That’s the state of transit and urban planning in St. Louis right now. The failure is in the governance and their apparent inability to understand and observe settled concepts in urban design. These are design concepts used successfully all over the world.
There is no excuse for the crap and stupidity foisted off on the people of the region. It is almost as if they are designing for failure. At least that’s one place they have succeeded–failure.
I really like the Transit Mall in downtown Long Beach, which serves many Long beach transit buses, as well as the Metro Blue Line. Check it out here:Â http://www.lbtransit.com/about/information-centers.aspx
This type of design encourages TODs and provides an easy to navigate hub for downtown bus routes.
I really like the Transit Mall in downtown Long Beach, which serves many Long beach transit buses, as well as the Metro Blue Line. Check it out here: http://www.lbtransit.com/about/information-centers.aspx
This type of design encourages TODs and provides an easy to navigate hub for downtown bus routes.
I think we pretty much agree – “Good design is the key element, good design requires good planning and good implementation.” I guess the question is who should lead, who should get us from academic discussions to development actually happening? Who led the charge with the Portland trolley? And which came first, the trolley, the larger urban design plan or private developers buying land and building dense, urban projects? And without Portland being a cool place to be, who would be willing to pay the freight to live in the Pearl District? My experience in Denver is that there is no one answer, no “silver bullet”, to move from mundane to cool. It takes transit becoming viewed as something for everybody, something to choose, not something one is forced to use because there is no other choice. It takes growth and congestion, to justify building newer and denser. It takes people willing to consider something other than what is right in front of them – vision. It takes leadership, a willingness to make an argument for better, then to go after the money to make it happen. And it takes a growing economy, one that raises people’s incomes and makes property more valuable, to make investment make sense.
The two big challenges I see here are a stagnant economy and parochial politics. There’s little reason to invest in TOD (or a new strip mall or apartment complex) if there aren’t many customers for the product. And if there’s no big vision, you’ll continue to get multiple projects trying to canibalize off of existing ones, just to score something for “my” ward / neighborhood / community. Ball Park Village will steal tenants from Union Station and Laclede’s Landing. The Peabody will steal shows from the Fox and Robert’s Orpheum. Family Arena and the Chafitz Center are stealing events from Scottrade and America’s Center. Walmart, Schnuck’s and Dierbergs are all playing the TIF game with multiple suburban communities. This week, a developer announced plans to redevelop the Foodland on Jefferson, buts wants (and will most likely get) TIF help in the range of 20%-25%. Until we get our economy back on track, get people moving here to work and to live, there’s little rational reason to invest in new stuff, good, bad or otherwise! We can’t just keep rearranging the deck chairs, we need to grow and to grow denser!