One Less Urban Building on South Jefferson (Updated)
Driving home recently I spotted the demolition of the storefront building on the NW corner of Jefferson & Ann (map), I stopped to snap a picture and went on. ?
It’s just another old vacant building, what’s the problem?
The problem I have is we have absolutely nothing in place to require any new construction to continue to be urban in form — built up to the sidewalk and at least two stories in height with windows and doors. The only other building on this block of south Jefferson Ave is a former Taco Bell, built in 1994.
The Taco Bell was an affront to good urbanity and it didn’t stay open long. The last use of the building was a credit union but it closed in 2010.
One by one urban buildings are razed and replaced with non-urban buildings, creating a place not worth caring about much less walking through.
Non-urban buildings are designed to be approached only by car, even making access by pedestrians difficult.
We must change our zoning to require new construction to have an urban form so we don’t erode our commercial streets with non-urban structures that end up vacant and useless.
– Steve Patterson
Update 3/6/2012 @ 9:20am:
Thanks to @icsesq for a link to a story on what’s planned for the site — a new facility for the Southside Early Childhood Center:
To get a conditional use permit, the new building had to meet Fox Park’s historical building standards, which require a brick facade and alignment similar to buildings along the block. Demolition is expected to start fairly soon, after a plan for asbestos abatement is approved. (full story)
The drawings in the article illustrate how inadequate Fox Park’s standards are. An entire block of a one-story building? Sure, it will be up to the sidewalk and wrapped in red brick.
Sorry Steve, but I disagree with you here. While it would be nice to save every vacant building in the city, that’s not possible. The buildings being torn down have been vacant for many years and some were in quite bad shape. Since moving into the neighborhood seven years ago, there were no other proposals to rehab those buildings that I am aware of and the former Taco Bell building went from a credit union to being vacant.
The SSDN proposal will turn the corner of Jefferson & Russell into one which is FAR more pedestrian friendly than what it is today and provide greater services to Fox Park and other nearby neighborhoods.
Sorry Steve, but I disagree with you here. While it would be nice to save every vacant building in the city, that’s not possible. The buildings being torn down have been vacant for many years and some were in quite bad shape. Since moving into the neighborhood seven years ago, there were no other proposals to rehab those buildings that I am aware of and the former Taco Bell building went from a credit union to being vacant.
The SSDN proposal will turn the corner of Jefferson & Russell into one which is FAR more pedestrian friendly than what it is today and provide greater services to Fox Park and other nearby neighborhoods.
This isn’t about saving every old vacant building, this is how we build for the future. The new day care facility will be a marginal improvement over the vacant Taco Bell.
This isn’t about saving every old vacant building, this is how we build for the future. The new day care facility will be a marginal improvement over the vacant Taco Bell.
Before moving my family here,  I used to visit St. Louis frequently on business. One day I noticed that the Famous Barr building on Kingshighway at Chippewa was being razed. I thought about the impact that “missing teeth” has on a neighborhood. Then in subsequent visits to the area, I noticed that the site remained empty for years before the current strip center was built. Based on what’s been built there, I look back and am personally convinced that there can be worse things than an empty lot. I have similar feelings about the so-called ‘ballpark village’ parcel. Sometimes we might be a bit too anxious to fill the voids!
Let’s hope the removal of these three buildings on Jefferson will become a springboad for further revitalization of the neighborhood. Given current conditions in the general neighborhood, I doubt that developers are going to be in a great hurry to redevelop the area, but I hope I’m wrong. Let’s hope that the neighborhood can be turned around. Unfortunately, I remain skeptical about the possibility. It’s unfortunate that the area has undergone such obvious decline.
Without inspecting the structure, it’s hard to say if serious structural issues are blocking a feasible rehab of the corner 2-level structure, which in my opinion would be the only building worthy of saving. (Note: my opinion only…based only on personal preference…never having studied architecture beyond two required classes in undergraduate school….not open to defending)Â Â But someone has to be willing to step up with cash.
Before moving my family here, I used to visit St. Louis frequently on business. One day I noticed that the Famous Barr building on Kingshighway at Chippewa was being razed. I thought about the impact that “missing teeth” has on a neighborhood. Then in subsequent visits to the area, I noticed that the site remained empty for years before the current strip center was built. Based on what’s been built there, I look back and am personally convinced that there can be worse things than an empty lot. I have similar feelings about the so-called ‘ballpark village’ parcel. Sometimes we might be a bit too anxious to fill the voids!
Let’s hope the removal of these three buildings on Jefferson will become a springboad for further revitalization of the neighborhood. Given current conditions in the general neighborhood, I doubt that developers are going to be in a great hurry to redevelop the area, but I hope I’m wrong. Let’s hope that the neighborhood can be turned around. Unfortunately, I remain skeptical about the possibility. It’s unfortunate that the area has undergone such obvious decline.
Without inspecting the structure, it’s hard to say if serious structural issues are blocking a feasible rehab of the corner 2-level structure, which in my opinion would be the only building worthy of saving. (Note: my opinion only…based only on personal preference…never having studied architecture beyond two required classes in undergraduate school….not open to defending) But someone has to be willing to step up with cash.
Msrdls — I’m thinking you have not spent much time in the Fox Park and McKinley Heights neighborhoods.
While there are a number of building which could use some work on Jefferson itself, a number have been rehabbed in recent year including Frittanga, Kakao Chocolate and the Warehouse. A cat rescue organization is in the process of buying (and then rehabbing) the Allen Brake building next to Kakao.
Meanwhile, rehabbing of residential units is back on the upswing, including the building at California and Shenandoah which was just purchased and work is well underway. I can count close to a half dozen homes on my block and the neighboring one which have recently been rehabbed or are in the process thereof.
Greg: Thanks for the update. My wife and I will drive the area again this Sunday. I sincerely hope I find conditions more favorable than those I found the last time I was in the area.
unfortunately for you driving down Jefferson will tell you pretty much nothin about mckinley heights or fox park. The side streets of mckinley heights have been nice for about 20 to 30 years, considering you didnt find the conitions in that neighborhood favorable last time you were there, you wont this time either.
Thanks for the insight!
Msrdls — I’m thinking you have not spent much time in the Fox Park and McKinley Heights neighborhoods.Â
While there are a number of building which could use some work on Jefferson itself, a number have been rehabbed in recent year including Frittanga, Kakao Chocolate and the Warehouse. A cat rescue organization is in the process of buying (and then rehabbing) the Allen Brake building next to Kakao.
Meanwhile, rehabbing of residential units is back on the upswing, including the building at California and Shenandoah which was just purchased and work is well underway. I can count close to a half dozen homes on my block and the neighboring one which have recently been rehabbed or are in the process thereof.
Greg: Thanks for the update. My wife and I will drive the area again this Sunday. I sincerely hope I find conditions more favorable than those I found the last time I was in the area.
unfortunately for you driving down Jefferson will tell you pretty much nothin about mckinley heights or fox park. The side streets of mckinley heights have been nice for about 20 to 30 years, considering you didnt find the conitions in that neighborhood favorable last time you were there, you wont this time either.
I disagree that “We must change our zoning to require new construction to have an urban form so we don’t erode our commercial streets with non-urban structures that end up vacant and useless.” We have a city full of vacant structures, some of recent vintage and some (many more?) that are 75+ years old and very much urban in form. They end up “vacant and useless” not because of their urban form (or lack thereof) or because of any inadequacies in our current zoning, they end up up “vacant and useless” because we’ve lost half our population and half our jobs and employers over the last half century, leaving ghosts of what may have been! Density happens when property values are high.  Vacancies and sprawl happen when property values are low and declining. Fix our economic malaise and our urban form challenges will pretty much solve themselves . . . .
I disagree that “We must change our zoning to require new construction to have an urban form so we don’t erode our commercial streets with non-urban structures that end up vacant and useless.” We have a city full of vacant structures, some of recent vintage and some (many more?) that are 75+ years old and very much urban in form. They end up “vacant and useless” not because of their urban form (or lack thereof) or because of any inadequacies in our current zoning, they end up up “vacant and useless” because we’ve lost half our population and half our jobs and employers over the last half century, leaving ghosts of what may have been! Density happens when property values are high. Vacancies and sprawl happen when property values are low and declining. Fix our economic malaise and our urban form challenges will pretty much solve themselves . . . .
what does population loss have to do with whether or not NEW construction is urban in form? i feel like you always have to disagree just for the sake of it. IF there is going to be new construction, why not require it to be urban in form rather than car-oriented? you didn’t address that. in other words, what’s the advantage of not zoning urban? of course a healthier economy and a plethora of jobs would lead to population growth, but that could lead either to greater density if regulations are in place to encourage it, or greater sprawl if the city keeps building to accommodate cars over all other modes of transportation.
Steve was implying/stating that there is a direct correlation between “urban form” and vacancies, and I disagree with that statement. We have vacancies in both old and new, urban and non-urban, buildings because of too much supply and too little demand, not because of their urban form, but simply because we’ve lost half of our population.
Much of St. Louis’ “urban” architecture dates to a time (1900-1940) when many people walked and used our robust streetcar system, and many people did not own their own automobiles, The architecture reflected how most people lived their lives on a daily basis. Today, most people drive and want to have convenient parking on either end of every trip, and our built environment, our current take on urban architecture, reflects that reality. When people walked, short walks were a priority, when people drive, convenient parking is a priority. As such, the architectural responses are inherently different.
Density happens when economics dictate it. Regulations can help shape it, but regulations, alone, can’t make it happen. We already have multiple examples of new construction that has been built up to the sidewalk with parking behind the buildings. Nearly all of the examples end up ignoring the street and the sidewalk, with little pedestrian activity, show windows covered in static, fading ads and the real “front” doors facing the parking lots, not the streets. It may match the current form-based urban design paradigm, but its neither great architecture nor the best solution for many of the individual tenants’ programmatic requirements!
Do I regret that the new “normal” for most commercial architecture is a low-density structure set in a sea of parking? Absolutely! But the way to change this is not through arbitrary regulations, it’s through making our land more desirable and more valuable. Whether it’s Manhattan, San Francisco, Portland, Boulder, Denver or Clayton, density and new “urban” architecture is happening because the numbers demand it – land is expensive and there is a robust public transit system that people of every economic strata use. Parking is expensive, traffic is congested, PEOPLE WANT TO BE THERE and people are willing to pay extra to be there.
The downside to requiring what you advocate is simply that there is no track record of success, especially in a city like ours, that is struggling economically and has vast swaths of cheap land. The city is land-locked, our boundaries aren’t going to change anytime soon. We can’t sprawl (the region can, but we can’t). The census numbers reflect this – the region continues to grow in both population and land area while the city continues to lose population. And, in this particular example, we’re getting a fairly-decent architectural response not because of zoning, but beacuse of historic-district design review . . . ..
“Steve was implying/stating that there is a direct correlation between
“urban form” and vacancies, and I disagree with that statement.”
ah, i missed that. agree with you there. although i think there could be a correlation in terms of filling vacancies. if the current trend is toward urbanism, the more intact urbanism you have the better your chances of attracting those looking for it.
“Regulations can help shape it, but regulations, alone, can’t make it happen.”
but the question here is, would regulation necessarily DETER it? examples from elsewhere, and a couple from saint louis, suggest that we could demand a degree or two better without chasing businesses away.
“The downside to requiring what you advocate is simply that there is no
track record of success, especially in a city like ours, that is
struggling economically and has vast swaths of cheap land….”
there’s no track record of TRYING, much less succeeding. and if the same design guidelines were enforced both for the vast swaths of cheap land and the more densely developed land that wouldn’t be a factor.
“And, in this particular example, we’re getting a fairly-decent
architectural response not because of zoning, but beacuse of
historic-district design review . . . ..”
so “zoning” is a different issue, but this is an example of building guidelines (backed by law) requiring a certain level of urban design out of a business, and the business didn’t run for the hills. it’s a success on the track record.
You’re starting to understand my perspective, the biggest point is that there is a difference between zoning regulations and design review. There is little in St. Louis’ current zoning that would prevent someone from replacing a failing or obsolete “urban” structure with a new one, one that matches the existing streetscape’s setbacks and bulk, and, potentially, architecture. The biggest impediment remains parking, both in the ratios contained in the zoning ordinance AND the desire by most owners to provide “enough” off-street parking for their own use. And, unfortunately, form-based zoning does little to change that, except to attempt to hide it. The real solution is structured parking, but our current land values make it cheaper to build surface parking lots than to build garages.
The new CVS at Chippewa and Gravois is a perfect example: http://g.co/maps/2nwf9 The bought an old auto dealership because of the location, and obviously had more land than they really needed, yet they chose just to have a large parking lot, much like the new Quik Trip across the street. Until we change that mindset and paradigm, it’s going to matter little if a new building is built next to a sidewalk or set back from it if the next structure ends up half a block, or more, away, like the Walgreens near Lafayette Square: http://g.co/maps/j379g Driving and parking informs what gets built built in much of St. Louis. We all SHOULD drive less, use transit more and walk more (and I should lose 40 pounds). I think we agree that our goal is greater density, to make our city more walkable and attractive to pedestrians. Where we differ is on how to achieve that goal.
While I have concerns about design review, that is the venue to really address the concerns that Steve, you and others continue to raise. Currently, our best (and only?) design review occurs in historic districts. (Much of the city is in a housing preservation district, as well.) The real discussion needs to center around two areas, what level of design review (if any) is appropriate along our commercial corridors and what form or style do we ultimately want to achieve? But any discussion needs to be tempered by the economic reality is that it takes tenants and owner-occupants to fill buildings. Do we want to make most of the city “historic”, freezing the architecture at some arbitrary point in time? Or, do we want to empower the planning department staff to review, modify and “approve” the design choices made by individual property owners and their architects, designers and contractors?
We have many “urban” strips that remain mostly vacant and underused, places like the Wellston Loop, parts of Jefferson and Grand and the western part of the Grove that are mostly intact and have great potential. Design review / encouragement to do the right thing isn’t the real challenge along these strips, it’s finding viable businesses with the resources and customers to actually stay in business. The buildings are already there, they just need to be occupied. If/when that happens, success tends to bring more people, more investment and more density. Most business people simply don’t want to be pioneers, they want some guarantee of success and they copy “what works”.
“You’re starting to understand my perspective…”
let’s not get carried away. i agreed that lack of urban form does not necessarily imply vacancy. that’s all. and i was under the impression that “zoning” itself compels compliance (as in, it has the weight of law behind it). i was incorrect. that is not to say that there are not other ways to enforce architectural compliance (design review in historic districts being one of them). i do not agree with you that sufficient (notice i said SUFFICIENT, not ample) parking excludes urban form in saint louis (which, i assume, is one of the things you’re getting at with “economics”). i’m not sure why you’re talking about freezing architecture in time and finding viable businesses to fill vacant historic buildings, etc. we were talking about why it is or is not possible to demand urban forms for NEW developments. urban form =/= freezing architecture at a particular point in time. that’s all i’ve been talking about.
“The new CVS at Chippewa and Gravois is a perfect example… The bought an old auto dealership because of the location, and
obviously had more land than they really needed, yet they chose just to
have a large parking lot, much like the new Quik Trip across the street.”
a perfect example of what? i think it’s a perfect example that businesses like CVS need to be compelled to build for both pedestrians and cars, and to use land efficiently. like you said, it was more land than they needed, so the alderman should have demanded that they develop only what they need and agree to sell the rest before granting the construction permit. there is a middle ground between this particular CVS and a CVS in downtown manhattan that will not scare businesses away, but if we don’t demand it they’re not going to offer it up.
“Most business people simply don’t want to be pioneers, they want some guarantee of success and they copy ‘what works’.”
agreed, and all the more reason for some form of city-wide regulation (which, apparently, will require something more than zoning).
I never implied that, I’m very aware of the many vacancies in order urban buildings. However, I’m tolerant of vacant urban buildings because I know the form is correct for the street and in time it will be occupied once again as it had been for decades. Not much use for an anti-urban vacant Taco Bell.
Multiple vacant buildings are a cancer no city can withstand. And if the “form is correct for the street”, why is it vacant in the first place?! Cities evolve. The way people lived their lives in St. Louis 75 years ago is substantially different from how we live our lives today. Why should we assume that the design solutions from 75 years ago are equally as valid today (and better than what is being built and used today)?
Now it sounds like you’re blaming the vacancy on the urban form. In my 21 years here I’ve seen many urban buildings go from vacant to occupied.
And needless to say, many more have gone the opposite direction.
Thanks for the insight!
What a shame – it hurst to see it…Why doesn’t STL value it’s history.
What a shame – it hurst to see it…Why doesn’t STL value it’s history.
It’s not that we don’t value our history, it’s that more than half of our former neighbobors have chosen to leave and not nearly enough other people have chosen to relocate their residences and/or their businesses and jobs back into the city. Vacant buildings don’t maintain themselves, ghosts don’t pay rent. And most property owners and most aldermen, given the choice, will support suburban-scale investments / redevelopment over wait-and-see when it omes to today’s economic realities.
if the proper zoning were in place, aldermen wouldn’t have to support suburban-scale investments because developers would know not to propose them. would Walgreen’s have said, “Well, guess we can’t open any stores in Saint Louis!”, if they had been required to build to the sidewalk with parking in the rear? of course not.
You’re dealing in hypotheticals – most aldermen would jump at the opportunity for a new Walgreens or CVS, and few would push for building to the sidewalk if Walgreens or CVS indicated any reluctance to letting them build a typical prototype structure. Leverage comes from power, and the ways our current laws are already bent in the name of “development” and “investment” speak for themselves.
that’s the point of the zoning, isn’t it? to write the desired type of development into law. that way the developer’s reluctance isn’t the alderman’s problem, and it’s not within the alderman’s jurisdiction to “let” them build otherwise. either they build it to code or it doesn’t get built. my point is that if a businesses want access to the saint louis market, they’re not going to suddenly change their mind because they have to put parking in the rear instead of in front.
The point of zoning is to define acceptable uses and to minimize the impacts on adjacent properties, aka protecting the public health, safety and welfare. The point of design review is to regulate and, hopefully, improve the design of individual structures. Remember, too, that zoning is NEVER the final word. Zoning can and is changed, on a regular basis, by every city council and board of aldermen. And, in St. Louis, where the political tradition (and nowhere written into law) is of each alderman essentially running “their” ward as an individual fiefdom.
You state that “if a business want[s] access to the saint louis market, they’re not going to suddenly change their mind because they have to put parking in the rear instead of in front.” Do you have any proof of that? Where is there a Walgreens, CVS, McDonald’s, Trader Joe’s, Target, Aldi, Dunkin Doughnuts, etc, that’s been built in the last ten years, that isn’t set back from the street? Sure, some chains (Qdoba, Chipotle, Starbucks, etc.) ARE comfortable with the traditional urban paradigm, here and elsewhere, but chains that include a drive-thru as an integral part of their business model rarely are willing to abandon it.
“Do you have any proof of that? Where is there a Walgreens, CVS,
McDonald’s, Trader Joe’s, Target, Aldi, Dunkin Doughnuts, etc, that’s
been built in the last ten years, that isn’t set back from the street?
Sure, some chains (Qdoba, Chipotle, Starbucks, etc.) ARE comfortable
with the traditional urban paradigm, here and elsewhere, but chains that
include a drive-thru as an integral part of their business model rarely
are willing to abandon it.”
the new Walgreen’s on Lafayette across from the Georgian. it took some fighting, and it’s not perfect, but its a far cry better than their standard model which has NO sidewalk connection. chains such as Dunkin, Walgreen’s, CVS and McDonald’s regularly build with urban form, or inhabit existing urban buildings, in cities like D.C. and Chicago for example. hell, Dunkin and CVS even moved into historic storefronts here in Charlottesville, VA — a city with 1/10th the population of Saint Louis. sure, if they depend on auto traffic for a significant amount of business they’ll need a lot somewhere, but if they believe there is money to be made in a given market they’re not going to leave due to cosmetic changes (i.e. lot placement).
You nailed it, “if they believe there is money to be made in a given market they’re not going to leave due to cosmetic changes (i.e. lot placement).” However, if they are unsure about success, they’re going to be demanding tax incentives and demanding that they be able to build something that they know works for them. We’re not Charlottesville.
I can name multiple examples of chains adapting to local conditions, but they are all cases where the local community had the leverage to demand the changes. Like it or not, St. Louis city currently does not have that leverage, except in a few rare locations. A perfect test case is CVS’s desire to locate in the CWE, on the AAA site. In Louisville, they recently renovated an old A&P grocery store, with minimal exterior changes: http://g.co/maps/rdekc There’s no reason why they can’t do something similar on Lindell here: http://g.co/maps/2cnqk
And if you’re going to hold up that one Walgreens as the sum total of our successes over the last decade, we have a looooong way to go: http://g.co/maps/j379g Steve’s argument is that form and site placement are more important than use or architecture. This Walgreens may have a direct connection to a sidewalk, but it is far from being a great example of integrating 21st century construction with 19th century urban design ideals.
“However, if they are unsure about success, they’re going to be demanding
tax incentives and demanding that they be able to build something that
they know works for them. We’re not Charlottesville.”
like i said, middle ground. without some expectation of success they wouldn’t bother. if those expectations are so low that they can’t be bothered to meet certain minimal form guidelines then are they really going to be that much of an economic benefit to the city? perhaps, then, it’s a good idea not to offer them any tax incentives and just let them go.
and you’re right, we’re a way larger market than charlottesville, so we should have more leverage in terms of demanding good form.
“In Louisville, they recently renovated an old A&P grocery store, with minimal exterior changes.”
have you been to louisville lately? if they can convince CVS to renovate an existing building then saint louis sure as hell can – especially along lindell. this is exactly my point: much of the time our alderman don’t even try. obviously CVS wants onto lindell bad or they would have moved on already. props to alderman Kennedy for staying on them. in this case, especially, another drug chain a couple blocks away from an existing one is not beneficial to the city or community. it’s not good for the city to allow these chains to battle it out to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood.
“And if you’re going to hold up that one Walgreens as the sum total of
our successes over the last decade, we have a looooong way to go:”
not the sum total, just one of few examples. the point is it’s possible to demand better. and yes, i agree there’s a long way to go. never said otherwise.
It’s not that we don’t value our history, it’s that more than half of our former neighbobors have chosen to leave and not nearly enough other people have chosen to relocate their residences and/or their businesses and jobs back into the city. Vacant buildings don’t maintain themselves, ghosts don’t pay rent. And most property owners and most aldermen, given the choice, will support suburban-scale investments / redevelopment over wait-and-see when it omes to today’s economic realities.
what does population loss have to do with whether or not NEW construction is urban in form? i feel like you always have to disagree just for the sake of it. IF there is going to be new construction, why not require it to be urban in form rather than car-oriented? you didn’t address that. in other words, what’s the advantage of not zoning urban? of course a healthier economy and a plethora of jobs would lead to population growth, but that could lead either to greater density if regulations are in place to encourage it, or greater sprawl if the city keeps building to accommodate cars over all other modes of transportation.
if the proper zoning were in place, aldermen wouldn’t have to support suburban-scale investments because developers would know not to propose them. would Walgreen’s have said, “Well, guess we can’t open any stores in Saint Louis!”, if they had been required to build to the sidewalk with parking in the rear? of course not.
You’re dealing in hypotheticals – most aldermen would jump at the opportunity for a new Walgreens or CVS, and few would push for building to the sidewalk if Walgreens or CVS indicated any reluctance to letting them build a typical prototype structure. Leverage comes from power, and the ways our current laws are already bent in the name of “development” and “investment” speak for themselves.Â
 that’s the point of the zoning, isn’t it? to write the desired type of development into law. that way the developer’s reluctance isn’t the alderman’s problem, and it’s not within the alderman’s jurisdiction to “let” them build otherwise. either they build it to code or it doesn’t get built. my point is that if a businesses want access to the saint louis market, they’re not going to suddenly change their mind because they have to put parking in the rear instead of in front.
Steve was implying/stating that there is a direct correlation between “urban form” and vacancies, and I disagree with that statement. We have vacancies in both old and new, urban and non-urban, buildings because of too much supply and too little demand, not because of their urban form, but simply because we’ve lost half of our population.
Much of St. Louis’ “urban” architecture dates to a time (1900-1940) when many people walked and used our robust streetcar system, and many people did not own their own automobiles, The architecture reflected how most people lived their lives on a daily basis. Today, most people drive and want to have convenient parking on either end of every trip, and our built environment, our current take on urban architecture, reflects that reality. When people walked, short walks were a priority, when people drive, convenient parking is a priority. As such, the architectural responses are inherently different.
Density happens when economics dictate it. Regulations can help shape it, but regulations, alone, can’t make it happen. We already have multiple examples of new construction that has been built up to the sidewalk with parking behind the buildings. Nearly all of the examples end up ignoring the street and the sidewalk, with little pedestrian activity, show windows covered in static, fading ads and the real “front” doors facing the parking lots, not the streets. It may match the current form-based urban design paradigm, but its neither great architecture nor the best solution for many of the individual tenants’ programmatic requirements!
Do I regret that the new “normal” for most commercial architecture is a low-density structure set in a sea of parking? Absolutely! But the way to change this is not through arbitrary regulations, it’s through making our land more desirable and more valuable. Whether it’s Manhattan, San Francisco, Portland, Boulder, Denver or Clayton, density and new “urban” architecture is happening because the numbers demand it – land is expensive and there is a robust public transit system that people of every economic strata use. Parking is expensive, traffic is congested, PEOPLE WANT TO BE THERE and people are willing to pay extra to be there.
The downside to requiring what you advocate is simply that there is no track record of success, especially in a city like ours, that is struggling economically and has vast swaths of cheap land. The city is land-locked, our boundaries aren’t going to change anytime soon. We can’t sprawl (the region can, but we can’t). The census numbers reflect this – the region continues to grow in both population and land area while the city continues to lose population. And, in this particular example, we’re getting a fairly-decent architectural response not because of zoning, but beacuse of historic-district design review . . . ..
The point of zoning is to define acceptable uses and to minimize the impacts on adjacent properties, aka protecting the public health, safety and welfare.  The point of design review is to regulate and, hopefully, improve the design of individual structures. Remember, too, that zoning is NEVER the final word. Zoning can and is changed, on a regular basis, by every city council and board of aldermen. And, in St. Louis, where the political tradition (and nowhere written into law) is of each alderman essentially running “their” ward as an individual fiefdom.
You state that “if a business want[s] access to the saint louis market, they’re not going to suddenly change their mind because they have to put parking in the rear instead of in front.” Do you have any proof of that? Where is there a Walgreens, CVS, McDonald’s, Trader Joe’s, Target, Aldi, Dunkin Doughnuts, etc, that’s been built in the last ten years, that isn’t set back from the street? Sure, some chains (Qdoba, Chipotle, Starbucks, etc.) ARE comfortable with the traditional urban paradigm, here and elsewhere, but chains that include a drive-thru as an integral part of their business model rarely are willing to abandon it.
People need to come to the conclusion that this is NOW. People drive. People will drive half a block rather than walk it. Period. Is that right, eco, politically correct, etc? Of course not. But it isn’t just in St. Louis either. People think St. Louis is sooooooooooo bad and soooooooo neglectful. This is true of every major city. Urban centers have declined and are making a comeback. It is the natural ebb and flow. People want buildings convenient to their uses, not to what someone else dictactes they should be. There are some areas of St. Louis where any building, even a ‘suburban’ structure is better than an empty lot or worse an abandoned building. Again, this is the fact. And for our particular little slice of heaven, we cannot dictate overly so to do this or do that because guess what….the developers will say screw it and just look at one of the other 90 so so outlying communities to put their market. If we were a solidified region that would be different but we aren’t. Everyone is chasing the same market/walgreens, or whatever. Is this right? Of course, not. But it is reality. And talk, chatting, blogging is cheap. Dollars talk. So as they say in poker…put up or…..
People need to come to the conclusion that this is NOW. People drive. People will drive half a block rather than walk it. Period. Is that right, eco, politically correct, etc? Of course not. But it isn’t just in St. Louis either. People think St. Louis is sooooooooooo bad and soooooooo neglectful. This is true of every major city. Urban centers have declined and are making a comeback. It is the natural ebb and flow. People want buildings convenient to their uses, not to what someone else dictactes they should be. There are some areas of St. Louis where any building, even a ‘suburban’ structure is better than an empty lot or worse an abandoned building. Again, this is the fact. And for our particular little slice of heaven, we cannot dictate overly so to do this or do that because guess what….the developers will say screw it and just look at one of the other 90 so so outlying communities to put their market. If we were a solidified region that would be different but we aren’t. Everyone is chasing the same market/walgreens, or whatever. Is this right? Of course, not. But it is reality. And talk, chatting, blogging is cheap. Dollars talk. So as they say in poker…put up or…..
“People need to come to the conclusion that this is NOW. People drive.
People will drive half a block rather than walk it. Period.”
not if it’s easier to walk than to drive and park.
“But it isn’t just in St. Louis either. People think St. Louis is sooooooooooo bad and soooooooo neglectful.”
um, yes, compared to many other cities, especially to the east, saint louis has been horribly neglected and disconnected. we’re second only to detroit in the amount of city that’s been leveled. even Baltimore is more walkable.
“…we cannot dictate overly so…”
right. however could we possibly have BOTH sidewalk-fronting buildings AND parking lots simultaneously? it seems like an impossible feat of engineering. if only there were a reasonable solution that, if enforced by our aldermen, would allow businesses to have the parking they need while also allowing safe, easy pedestrian access…
“And talk, chatting, blogging is cheap. Dollars talk. So as they say in poker…put up or…..”
talking doesn’t preclude action. obviously. shall i go buy Walgreen’s? according to you that’s the only recourse.
There is a difference between walkable and people actually walking. Detroit, St. Louis and Baltimore all remain walkable, in the sense that each city has a comprehensive sidewalk system in place. What’s changed is what’s behind the sidewalks. In many rust belt cities, including St. Louis, severe poulation loss / redistribution, of both residents and businesses, has decimated the building stock and the density that made walking both attractive and logical. We’re stuck in a cycle of neighborhood businesses losing customers to newer competitors with better parking, and until that changes, there will be little incentive to invest in denser, urban construction.
I argue that much of St. Louis’s previous walkability has been destroyed by a Taco Bell here and there and by anti-urban university presidents. The pedestrians disappear when the walkability goes.
Pedestrians disappear when the density goes away. Adding a Taco Bell with surface parking IS part of the problem; adding a Taco Bell (or Qdoba) to an existing storefront is probably a positive. And this particular example, on a single block, where a non-urban building remained in active use until 2010 and is not being demolished, versus urban buildings being vacant for at least a decade and now being demolished, does little to bolster your larger argument.
The reason the credit union / Taco Bell is not being demolished currently is that the ATM which remains is use provides some income until SSDN can construct their new building. The buildings being torn down did not.. and presented a liability concern.
The vacant Taco Bell will be razed as soon as construction beings on the other end of the block. Many parts of the city have been vacant for years but with effort the buildings have been renovated and occupied. Downtown’s many loft buildings are a good example.
yes.
“There is a difference between walkable and people actually walking.”
of course. people don’t want to – and won’t – walk past blocks and blocks of abandoned crumbling buildings and desolate lots and through mazes of auto-oriented infrastructure. but “walkable” also applies to number of available routes, which is impacted by highways, closed-off streets, and poor or missing sidewalks. in all cases, many many cities are doing a better job than saint louis.
Agree, and the other part of the equation is having thriving residential neighborhoods behind these retail strips. Hampton and Chippewa (east of Kingshighway) both have stable neighborhoods behind their mix of commercial architectural styles and urban design responses, with little vacancy and no boarded-up and abandoned structures. Both corridors balance walkability and driveability and remain healthy. Crime levels are low and demographics appeal to many retailers. Is there one factor, one single answer to success? Absolutely not. Success happens when people CHOOSE to be in an area, failure happens when people abandon an area for something they determine to be better. Our challenge, as a city, is to shift the paradigm in many of our neighborhoods, from places to avoid to places to be.
“Do you have any proof of that? Where is there a Walgreens, CVS,
McDonald’s, Trader Joe’s, Target, Aldi, Dunkin Doughnuts, etc, that’s
been built in the last ten years, that isn’t set back from the street?Â
Sure, some chains (Qdoba, Chipotle, Starbucks, etc.) ARE comfortable
with the traditional urban paradigm, here and elsewhere, but chains that
include a drive-thru as an integral part of their business model rarely
are willing to abandon it.”
the new Walgreen’s on Lafayette across from the Georgian. it took some fighting, and it’s not perfect, but its a far cry better than their standard model which has NO sidewalk connection. chains such as Dunkin, Walgreen’s, CVS and McDonald’s regularly build with urban form, or inhabit existing urban buildings, in cities like D.C. and Chicago for example. hell, Dunkin and CVS even moved into historic storefronts here in Charlottesville, VA — a city with 1/10th the population of Saint Louis. sure, if they depend on auto traffic for a significant amount of business they’ll need a lot somewhere, but if they believe there is money to be made in a given market they’re not going to leave due to cosmetic changes (i.e. lot placement).
“People need to come to the conclusion that this is NOW. People drive.Â
People will drive half a block rather than walk it. Period.”
not if it’s easier to walk than to drive and park.
“But it isn’t just in St. Louis either. People think St. Louis is sooooooooooo bad and soooooooo neglectful.”
um, yes, compared to many other cities, especially to the east, saint louis has been horribly neglected and disconnected. we’re second only to detroit in the amount of city that’s been leveled. even Baltimore is more walkable.
“…we cannot dictate overly so…”
right. however could we possibly have BOTH sidewalk-fronting buildings AND parking lots simultaneously? it seems like an impossible feat of engineering. if only there were a reasonable solution that, if enforced by our aldermen, would allow businesses to have the parking they need while also allowing safe, easy pedestrian access…
“And talk, chatting, blogging is cheap. Dollars talk. So as they say in poker…put up or…..”
talking doesn’t preclude action. obviously. shall i go buy Walgreen’s? according to you that’s the only recourse.
“Steve was implying/stating that there is a direct correlation between
“urban form” and vacancies, and I disagree with that statement.”
ah, i missed that. agree with you there. although i think there could be a correlation in terms of filling vacancies. if the current trend is toward urbanism, the more intact urbanism you have the better your chances of attracting those looking for it.
“Regulations can help shape it, but regulations, alone, can’t make it happen.”
but the question here is, would regulation necessarily DETER it? examples from elsewhere, and a couple from saint louis, suggest that we could demand a degree or two better without chasing businesses away.
“The downside to requiring what you advocate is simply that there is no
track record of success, especially in a city like ours, that is
struggling economically and has vast swaths of cheap land….”
there’s no track record of TRYING, much less succeeding. and if the same design guidelines were enforced both for the vast swaths of cheap land and the more densely developed land that wouldn’t be a factor.
“And, in this particular example, we’re getting a fairly-decent
architectural response not because of zoning, but beacuse of
historic-district design review . . . ..”
so “zoning” is a different issue, but this is an example of building guidelines (backed by law) requiring a certain level of urban design out of a business, and the business didn’t run for the hills. it’s a success on the track record.
Man, did I have a WTF?! moment when I saw this. Pathetic. Another org composed of people with little to no understanding of architecture or aesthetically pleasing design. Seems that good taste is also found wanting here. Oh, well…that’s my St. Louis!
Man, did I have a WTF?! moment when I saw this. Pathetic. Another org composed of people with little to no understanding of architecture or aesthetically pleasing design. Seems that good taste is also found wanting here. Oh, well…that’s my St. Louis!
@samizdat: You’ve managed to make a sweeping generalization. Would you care to expand? Explain why the above posts reflect “no understanding of architecture or aesthetically-pleasing design” and why “good taste” is lacking. You may be on to something, but then again you may not! Your syntax would suggest you are no George Kassabaum or Ted Wofford. Show us what you got, Samizdat!!!
I think he’s referring to the Southside Early Childhood Center folks, the ones tearing down the old buildings and building the new one . . . .
@samizdat: You’ve managed to make a sweeping generalization. Would you care to expand? Explain why the above posts reflect “no understanding of architecture or aesthetically-pleasing design” and why “good taste” is lacking. You may be on to something, but then again you may not! Your syntax would suggest you are no George Kassabaum or Ted Wofford. Show us what you got, Samizdat!!!
You nailed it, “if they believe there is money to be made in a given market they’re not going to leave due to cosmetic changes (i.e. lot placement).” However, if they are unsure about success, they’re going to be demanding tax incentives and demanding that they be able to build something that they know works for them. We’re not Charlottesville.Â
I can name multiple examples of chains adapting to local conditions, but they are all cases where the local community had the leverage to demand the changes. Like it or not, St. Louis city currently does not have that leverage, except in a few rare locations. A perfect test case is CVS’s desire to locate in the CWE, on the AAA site. In Louisville, they recently renovated an old A&P grocery store, with minimal exterior changes: http://g.co/maps/rdekc There’s no reason why they can’t do something similar on Lindell here: http://g.co/maps/2cnqk
And if you’re going to hold up that one Walgreens as the sum total of our successes over the last decade, we have a looooong way to go:  http://g.co/maps/j379g Steve’s argument is that form and site placement are more important than use or architecture. This Walgreens may have a direct connection to a sidewalk, but it is far from being a great example of integrating 21st century construction with 19th century urban design ideals.
You’re starting to understand my perspective, the biggest point is that there is a difference between zoning regulations and design review. There is little in St. Louis’ current zoning that would prevent someone from replacing a failing or obsolete “urban” structure with a new one, one that matches the existing streetscape’s setbacks and bulk, and, potentially, architecture. The biggest impediment remains parking, both in the ratios contained in the zoning ordinance AND the desire by most owners to provide “enough” off-street parking for their own use. And, unfortunately, form-based zoning does little to change that, except to attempt to hide it. The real solution is structured parking, but our current land values make it cheaper to build surface parking lots than to build garages.Â
The new CVS at Chippewa and Gravois is a perfect example: http://g.co/maps/2nwf9 The bought an old auto dealership because of the location, and obviously had more land than they really needed, yet they chose just to have a large parking lot, much like the new Quik Trip across the street. Until we change that mindset and paradigm, it’s going to matter little if a new building is built next to a sidewalk or set back from it if the next structure ends up half a block, or more, away, like the Walgreens near Lafayette Square:  http://g.co/maps/j379g  Driving and parking informs what gets built built in much of St. Louis. We all SHOULD drive less, use transit more and walk more (and I should lose 40 pounds). I think we agree that our goal is greater density, to make our city more walkable and attractive to pedestrians. Where we differ is on how to achieve that goal.
While I have concerns about design review, that is the venue to really address the concerns that Steve, you and others continue to raise. Currently, our best (and only?) design review occurs in historic districts. (Much of the city is in a housing preservation district, as well.) The real discussion needs to center around two areas, what level of design review (if any) is appropriate along our commercial corridors and what form or style do we ultimately want to achieve? But any discussion needs to be tempered by the economic reality is that it takes tenants and owner-occupants to fill buildings. Do we want to make most of the city “historic”, freezing the architecture at some arbitrary point in time? Or, do we want to empower the planning department staff to review, modify and “approve” the design choices made by individual property owners and their architects, designers and contractors?
We have many “urban” strips that remain mostly vacant and underused, places like the Wellston Loop, parts of Jefferson and Grand and the western part of the Grove that are mostly intact and have great potential. Design review / encouragement to do the right thing isn’t the real challenge along these strips, it’s finding viable businesses with the resources and customers to actually stay in business. The buildings are already there, they just need to be occupied. If/when that happens, success tends to bring more people, more investment and more density. Most business people simply don’t want to be pioneers, they want some guarantee of success and they copy “what works”.
I never implied that, I’m very aware of the many vacancies in order urban buildings. However, I’m tolerant of vacant urban buildings because I know the form is correct for the street and in time it will be occupied once again as it had been for decades. Not much use for an anti-urban vacant Taco Bell.
There is a difference between walkable and people actually walking. Detroit, St. Louis and Baltimore all remain walkable, in the sense that each city has a comprehensive sidewalk system in place. What’s changed is what’s behind the sidewalks. In many rust belt cities, including St. Louis, severe poulation loss / redistribution, of both residents and businesses, has decimated the building stock and the density that made walking both attractive and logical. We’re stuck in a cycle of neighborhood businesses losing customers to newer competitors with better parking, and until that changes, there will be little incentive to invest in denser, urban construction.
I think he’s referring to the Southside Early Childhood Center folks, the ones tearing down the old buildings and building the new one . . . .
I think he’s referring to the Southside Early Childhood Center folks, the ones tearing down the old buildings and building the new one . . . .
I argue that much of St. Louis’s previous walkability has been destroyed by a Taco Bell here and there and by anti-urban university presidents. The pedestrians disappear when the walkability goes.
Multiple vacant buildings are a cancer no city can withstand. And if the “form is correct for the street”, why is it vacant in the first place?! Cities evolve. The way people lived their lives in St. Louis 75 years ago is substantially different from how we live our lives today. Why should we assume that the design solutions from 75 years ago are equally as valid today (and better than what is being built and used today)?
Now it sounds like you’re blaming the vacancy on the urban form. In my 21 years here I’ve seen many urban buildings go from vacant to occupied.
Pedestrians disappear when the density goes away. Adding a Taco Bell with surface parking IS part of the problem; adding a Taco Bell (or Qdoba) to an existing storefront is probably a positive. And this particular example, on a single block, where a non-urban building remained in active use until 2010 and is not being demolished, versus urban buildings being vacant for at least a decade and now being demolished, does little to bolster your larger argument.
The reason the credit union / Taco Bell is not being demolished currently is that the ATM which remains is use provides some income until SSDN can construct their new building. The buildings being torn down did not.. and presented a liability concern.
The vacant Taco Bell will be razed as soon as construction beings on the other end of the block. Many parts of the city have been vacant for years but with effort the buildings have been renovated and occupied. Downtown’s many loft buildings are a good example.
 “You’re starting to understand my perspective…”
let’s not get carried away. i agreed that lack of urban form does not necessarily imply vacancy. that’s all. and i was under the impression that “zoning” itself compels compliance (as in, it has the weight of law behind it). i was incorrect. that is not to say that there are not other ways to enforce architectural compliance (design review in historic districts being one of them). i do not agree with you that sufficient (notice i said SUFFICIENT, not ample) parking excludes urban form in saint louis (which, i assume, is one of the things you’re getting at with “economics”). i’m not sure why you’re talking about freezing architecture in time and finding viable businesses to fill vacant historic buildings, etc. we were talking about why it is or is not possible to demand urban forms for NEW developments. urban form =/= freezing architecture at a particular point in time. that’s all i’ve been talking about.
“The new CVS at Chippewa and Gravois is a perfect example… The bought an old auto dealership because of the location, and
obviously had more land than they really needed, yet they chose just to
have a large parking lot, much like the new Quik Trip across the street.”
a perfect example of what? i think it’s a perfect example that businesses like CVS need to be compelled to build for both pedestrians and cars, and to use land efficiently. like you said, it was more land than they needed, so the alderman should have demanded that they develop only what they need and agree to sell the rest before granting the construction permit. there is a middle ground between this particular CVS and a CVS in downtown manhattan that will not scare businesses away, but if we don’t demand it they’re not going to offer it up.
“Most business people simply don’t want to be pioneers, they want some guarantee of success and they copy ‘what works’.”
agreed, and all the more reason for some form of city-wide regulation (which, apparently, will require something more than zoning).
“There is a difference between walkable and people actually walking.”
of course. people don’t want to – and won’t – walk past blocks and blocks of abandoned crumbling buildings and desolate lots and through mazes of auto-oriented infrastructure. but “walkable” also applies to number of available routes, which is impacted by highways, closed-off streets, and poor or missing sidewalks. in all cases, many many cities are doing a better job than saint louis.
yes.
“However, if they are unsure about success, they’re going to be demanding
tax incentives and demanding that they be able to build something that
they know works for them. We’re not Charlottesville.”
like i said, middle ground. without some expectation of success they wouldn’t bother. if those expectations are so low that they can’t be bothered to meet certain minimal form guidelines then are they really going to be that much of an economic benefit to the city? perhaps, then, it’s a good idea not to offer them any tax incentives and just let them go.
and you’re right, we’re a way larger market than charlottesville, so we should have more leverage in terms of demanding good form.
“In Louisville, they recently renovated an old A&P grocery store, with minimal exterior changes.”
have you been to louisville lately? if they can convince CVS to renovate an existing building then saint louis sure as hell can – especially along lindell. this is exactly my point: much of the time our alderman don’t even try. obviously CVS wants onto lindell bad or they would have moved on already. props to alderman Kennedy for staying on them. in this case, especially, another drug chain a couple blocks away from an existing one is not beneficial to the city or community. it’s not good for the city to allow these chains to battle it out to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood.
“And if you’re going to hold up that one Walgreens as the sum total of
our successes over the last decade, we have a looooong way to go:”
not the sum total, just one of few examples. the point is it’s possible to demand better. and yes, i agree there’s a long way to go. never said otherwise.
Agree, and the other part of the equation is having thriving residential neighborhoods behind these retail strips. Hampton and Chippewa (east of Kingshighway) both have stable neighborhoods behind their mix of commercial architectural styles and urban design responses, with little vacancy and no boarded-up and abandoned structures. Both corridors balance walkability and driveability and remain healthy. Crime levels are low and demographics appeal to many retailers. Is there one factor, one single answer to success? Absolutely not. Success happens when people CHOOSE to be in an area, failure happens when people abandon an area for something they determine to be better. Our challenge, as a city, is to shift the paradigm in many of our neighborhoods, from places to avoid to places to be. Â
“One by one urban buildings are razed and replaced with non-urban
buildings, creating a place not worth caring about much less walking
through.”
All urban buildings are worth caring about? Funny, the reason this building is being demolished is that nobody cared about it.
“One by one urban buildings are razed and replaced with non-urban
buildings, creating a place not worth caring about much less walking
through.”
All urban buildings are worth caring about? Funny, the reason this building is being demolished is that nobody cared about it.
actually, he said “place” not worth caring about. a “place” is the sum of its parts, and an urban “place” can be destroyed by suburban buildings.
 And needless to say, many more have gone the opposite direction.
 actually, he said “place” not worth caring about. a “place” is the sum of its parts, and an urban “place” can be destroyed by suburban buildings.