Cass is a Northside street and racial dividing line. We are just glad to have sidewalks at all. Much of Cass has no paved sidewalks walk west of 14th to see for yourself. Or east of Tucker.

Also glad to see Tucker reopening after several years of closure of it, and before it–14th and Jefferson which effectively severed us from the rest of the city.

Pedestrians visiting all of the shops on that stretch of Cass will have nowhere to seek shelter.

It get back to who’s paying for what – the city is funding the work on Tucker, the state is funding the reconstruction of Cass.  MoDOT doesn’t do urban design enhancements on its own, but will accept funding from local communities for enhancements when projects are being built.  We can argue that MoDOT should do more urban design, but we’re also sure to hear back that they have limited resources and many un- and underfunded projects, across the state.  It also gets back to the whole circular argument about vision versus actual use?  How many pedestrians will actually be using these new sidewalks along Cass?  Now?  In 10 years?  20?  I expect that Cass, here, will feel a lot like Jefferson between I-64 and Market.  Yes, one can walk at both of these major intersections, but why would one want to?

http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/plans/2010-03-03_MRB_Projects_Exhibit-light.pdf

A couple thousand people (at least) live within a couple blocks of Cass.  Many of them live in new or substantially refurbished housing paid by both U.S. and City taxpayers.  The difference between Tucker and Cass is that Tucker is downtown (think lofts, with cute couple walking their dogs talking on the Iphone) and Cass is North St. Louis, with poor people, African Americans, vacant lots and burned out buildings.  The city could have easily instituted paid for a slight degree of urban amenity along Cass.  The issue is that the City has basically turned over all planning in this area to a series of mythical plans and developments, most of which never materialize.

And further, to Mark, St. Louis is much more in depth than urban design paradigms.  Thankfully.
  

Urban design amenities (decorative lighting, street trees, bike racks, etc.) have very little to do with whether or not a street is “walkable” or “energized”, or not.  What the street feels like and what’s happening behind the sidewalk are much, much more important.  Higher-speed arterials aren’t attractive to pedestrians, while slower-speed, narrower streets are.  One needs to look no further than Manchester Road in the Grove or Maplewood, or Lindbergh / Kirkwood Road in Kirkwood, compared to the rest of their lengths, for clear examples.  The real problem here, racially-motivated, or not, is that there is little private investment behind the new sidewalks, little to attract pedestrians / casual shoppers.  Whether it’s Cherokee Street, Washington Avenue, the CWE or downtown Kirkwood, what attracts larger numbers of pedestrians is a synergy, a group of destinations that encourages people to park once and to walk to several, mostly related, destinations.  It could be antiques or Mexican food, gay bars or upscale restaurants, but what distinguishes energized areas isn’t new streetlights or planters, it’s a reason to be there at all.  What’s on Tucker or Cass that I can’t find somewhere else / closer to home?  Until that simple question is answered, this area “won’t be good for pedestrians”.  It will meet all the technical requirements, for ADA ramps, geometries and signage, but it will remain underused until there’s a reason to be walking . . .