Remaking Urban Streetscapes – A Look At St. Louis’ Euclid Ave
Planning work is well underway to remake three blocks of Euclid Ave, from Lindell Blvd on the north to Forest Park Parkway on the South. Monday evening the design team made another of several public presentations on the issues and proposed options. Interestingly, one of the stated goals was to make the street accessible to all yet the meeting was held in a meeting room at the hotel on Lindell that is reached by stairs, no elevator. Luckily, an advocate for the disabled was present to give feedback on behalf of those that couldn’t reach the meeting.
The group behind this makeover is the Central West End-Midtown Development Corporation. Sorry, no link as they don’t yet have a website. I know, almost 2007 and no website to communicate their plans for redeveloping an area…
They are spending a whopping $400,000 on the planning and engineering for three city blocks of a single street. These funds, as I understand it, came from an increase in the taxes on the property where we have the new Park East Tower high-rise. A diverse group of stakeholders were involved at the start of the project on November 9th.
The development team, headed by Denver-based Civitas, is huge. The list of consultants is close to 10, I think. Too many cooks in the kitchen, in my view. I guess the local development group wants to make sure all $400K gets spent.
This stretch of Euclid was redone probably 30 years ago or so. That is when Euclid, and cross streets Laclede & West Pine, gained the now-dated “lollipop” light fixtures (their description, not mine). The sidewalks and such were redone in the latest style for the time, it was up to date and hip. And that my friends, was the problem. The focus was on the horizontal surfaces of the sidewalk or things like street lamps.
Sure, it probably worked for a while. Anytime you infuse some new cash into an area it will attract some attention which brings new business and customers. Sustaining this influx of investment and users, however, is the trick. Height of fashion streetscapes become dated at some point and keeping up the interest level becomes harder and harder when that happens. I know of no such street that has a long-term sustainable record.
“Washington Avenue,” you proclaim. Well, we are only into the streetscape a few years. It is showing some signs of wear and it will be interesting to see if the city is going to keep up with maintenance or simply move on to areas like Ballpark Village. The outrageously expensive light fixtures do a poor job of lighting the street — you get blinding hot spots and and dark areas otherwise. However, as more businesses open and have lit signage this has become less of an issue. Still, the two blocks from Tucker to 14th are all tricked out like a cheap whore screaming for attention. This is what happens when you let good designers go crazy.
The design team will be back next week presenting to the stakeholders and then to the public on the 16th of January.
You see the design community has the nagging problem, the portfolio. The portfolio or gallery is where they show off their projects to their peers and prospective clients. It takes the really flashy stuff to show up well in photographs. A well-designed streetscape (or building) that is reasonable conventional but part of a dynamic urban context will look far too boring in a designer’s portfolio. Often they want projects that look exciting when empty, hard to accomplish unless you go all out.
You can put the most interesting of brick paving in front of a Wal-Mart and it is still a Wal-Mart. You will not want to spend anymore time out front simply because of the pattern created or some token sculpture. Sure, it might make your passing through a bit more interesting but you will not return because of it. And eventually the novelty of that paving pattern will wear off. The world’s great streets are not about the paving. Nor are they entirely about the architecture. Before going any further with this rant I want to break for some reality of the actual proposals for Euclid. The rant will continue post-proposals.
Civitas was kind enough to share with me the two proposals presented at the meeting. Basically, the two plans involve some of the same items: removal of all existing sidewalks, curbs, trees, and paving. Both involve starting over from scratch.
The first concept, shown below, is what is being described as a “polish” project — clean up what they have. Major changes from today involve the bump-outs at the intersections — those extended curbs that make it shorter to cross a street. They are also suggesting using pervious paving under the on-street parking so that some rain water can be absorbed into the soil rather than adding to the load on the sewer system. The other major difference is raised intersections at Laclede & West Pine. These are used as traffic-calming devices — basically the crosswalks and the center of the intersection are at the same level as the sidewalks. As you drive you’ll go up a slope at you get to the crosswalk and back down the other side as you cross.
Option A — click image above to view in Flickr and to see larger size in detail.
This first option calls for two 7ft parking lanes as well as 22ft in the center for two travel lanes. In the 60ft right-of-way this leaves 12ft for sidewalk on each side of the street. I think they could narrow the curb-to-curb width a bit to 34ft for the two travel and parking lanes, giving more room to pedestrians.
On-street parking would remain at the same number of spaces, roughly 48 per their estimates. These spaces would be redistributed a bit as current all are in the two blocks between Laclade and Lindell. In both revised plans some on-street parking is included in the block between Forest Park Parkway and Laclede. Some at the meeting argued in favor of eliminating on-street parking completely, suggesting the cars are eyesores. Eliminating on-street parking on these three blocks would pretty much kill this street. Yes, quite a bit of parking is available on side streets and in parking structures nearby but that is not the point. On-street parking does a number of things beneficial to the pedestrian — namely helping to slow traffic in the travel lanes as well as providing a big buffer between sidewalk and moving vehicles. Using the curb bump outs and other techniques it is possible to acheive a good balance in this mix.
“But how would eliminating parking kill the street,” you ask? Simple, we do not have the density required to keep the sidewalks busy at all times. Sure, we have a number of pedestrians now that make the street look lively but take away the cars and those same number of pedestrians now looks pathetic. We’d need considerably more pedestrians on the sidewalks to make up for the loss of perceived activity contributed by the parked cars. You might argue that removing parked cars from the street would increase pedestrian traffic but such a cause-effect is only wishful thinking. Density is what increases pedestrian traffic, not the absense of parked cars. Without parked cars the street would look vacant and as it looked vacant you’d have less and less pedestrians because they would not feel as safe on the street. Eventually we’d see less stores as a result. The street would die a slow death. On-street parking can only be eliminated in very special circumstances and none of those exist, or are likely to ever exist, in the St. Louis region. We all need to accept on-street parking as part of the activity of the street.
Moving on to Option B, seen here:
What to say about Option B? WTF!?! Let me explain. Someone on the design team, or from the client, got this bright idea to make a “statement” with the street, specifically water runoff. Never ever advocate making a statement with paving and especially not how that paving is designed to channel storm water. I’m as “green” as the next guy but a 3ft wide covered drainage channel down the middle of the street ending a “planters” at the intersections. Again, WTF? Streets for centuries have been crowned — raised in the center causing water to run to either side, along the gutter/curb and into a drain (ok, the drains have not been around for centuries but you get the idea). We don’t need to re-invent the wheel here. We are talking about three blocks of a narrow right of way. Giving more space to the roadway takes away space from the sidewalks, counter intuitive if you are seeking a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Ald. Joe Roddy spoke last night and was there for all but the last bit of the meeting. He spoke very upbeat about this being the most vibrant street in St. Louis in the future. Again, pretty pavement patterns does not equal vibrant. Issues that can have a sustainable impact on the vibrancy of this street now and in the future are land use, zoning and new construction. The Park East Tower is going to add many new residents but its oppressive street-level design doesn’t help matters. They parking structure that creates the bad situation will have 160 public spaces. I personally would have preferred they do without the public spaces and given us a better street treatment. I hear a bank may be going in the retail space, that will really pack the sidewalks on a Saturday evening.
Roddy and the development group should have taken a big chuck of this $400K they are spending and invested that in some good design guidlines for the area. Along the way look at taxing the hell out of surface parking lots like the one at the corner of Euclid and Lindell to the point where the owner is forced to sell or develop it.
Here are some miscellanous issues that came up at the meeting and my thoughts on them:
- Old trolley tracks may still exist under the street. Here is a crazy idea, do a trolley up and down Euclid to connect the MetroLink stop in the medical complex with the urbanized neighborhoods to the north? Run up to Delmar or Fountain Park?
- A “pedestrian refuge” is planned at Forest Park Parkway. This is very much needed. They team also plans to bump out curbs at the ends of the parking lanes to reduce the width of the crossings. They had some nice before and “after” images.
- It was suggested new structures be required to have public parking. I say that is unnecssary, more than enough parking exists now. Eliminate parking requirements completely and let the developer determine how much parking they need to provide to meet the market demand.
- The team showed a kitchen garden in the presentation. I love kitchen gardens with herbs and such — but not in my public streets. I do not want to eat at a local restaurant and worry that my basil was fertilized by the neighbor’s poodle.
- Some feel some monuments need to be placed at each end to mark the entrance to the area. Again, it is only three blocks long. The area needs to become an extension of Euclid to the North of Lindell. They would do well to copy the same feel so that people naturally flow back and forth across Lindell.
- The development group will be applying for a federal grant from East-West Gateway. Their early estimates are somewhere between $1.8 and $3.0 million dollars. For three blocks!
City streetscapes do not need to be fancy. They need good paving, concrete is a perfectly fine material. They need to be lined with good-sized street trees (spend a bit more on bigger trees). Streets need attractive and quality lighting, nothing too fancy or garish. In short, streets need to just be streets. Zoning, signing and things like opening windows to restaurants are the factors that make for an exciting street. People need places to sit or lock up their bikes. Public clocks are a nice touch. Markers in the pavement to indicate the cross street name helps with way-finding as does the address in the paving. Subtle details are far more important than the hit you over the head so cool and trendy things designers want to experiment with. They need to work on the basics first and branch out from there, not the other way around.
Update 12/12/06 at 8:30pm — I forgot to pass along a link to a December 6 article on this subject from the West End Word.
Good analysis of the design project and I appreciate you looking into it. Though I thought the overall tone of your post was critical, I can tell that you agree certain aspects of the new design are needed, and certain parts will be welcome addition. Are there thoughts in the right place? I think so. Are they going over the top? most certainly
I basically agree – my only comment has to do with doing more with less – spend $400- $500,000 per block and you’ll be able to “improve” 10-20 blocks instead of just 3 . . .
Good post – you are right on. There is wayyy to much thought spent on something that needs to be a simple as possible – but clean and well maintained. Probably the best street I have ever see was the Champs-Elysees in Paris. It is an incredible combination of pedestrian and vehicular and retail. One of the neatest things that I saw was that they were replacing a tree – not with a stick that is typical here – but a fully grown 12″ caliper, 40′ tall tree.
Maybe the three million is going into the three block area because those are the only blocks in Roddy’s ward?
And people say we don’t need leadership in the Board of Aldermen!
Hmm, well the idea of streetscape work is nice, but for 400k here are a few thoughts.
1. love the idea of reusing existing trolly tracks and I am ok with the idea of removing parking requirments in the area. But why not do something even better and leave the parking requirments in place and allow developers a density bonus for unused parking spaces and the option of paying a small fee for CWE transportation. Funds generated through the “unused” parking requirment and people generated through the increased density can help fill the sidewalks on Euclid and fill/ fund a tram down the street. Parking requirments aren’t bad, they just should be better used to get at what might really help the area.
2. Option B is worthless. An open drain? How long till the City’s defered maintance allows this to flood the street reguarly? I say no.
3. I am fine with replacing sidewalks, but I am against the idea of removing all the current street trees. I hear about plenty of urban designers who fight for 2 to 3 times the required number of street trees when an area is developed to help create the “green” feel that can really only come as trees age. Why take away old trees? Leave them be.
4. All in all it is clear that some simple actions could make all the streetscape improvements that are needed for the area: bulb outs, wider sidewalks, mature tree preservation, raised intersections, and mid-street green areas for wide streets like FPP. Don’t waise time with all the rest. Work on adding retail to the street and getting high-rise density on surrounding properties to make the area hop at all hours.
I wasn’t at the same meeting, but I attended the first one. I like option B a lot. You didn’t address how this would make the area much more pedestrian friendly. Eliminating curbs assists strollers, wheelchairs, the disabled, and those who don’t like stepping in water while exiting the passenger side of a car or potentially being splashed by it while walking down the street. I think option B crowds auto traffic to the middle of the street instead of crowding pedestrians to the sides, empowering pedestrians.
If I could add to this statement: “Streets for centuries have been crowned — raised in the center causing water to run to either side, along the gutter/curb and into a drain (ok, the drains have not been around for centuries but you get the idea). ” Many, many streets in Italy (and I’m willing to bet many other places) are not crowned, but instead ‘inverted’ with draining down the middle – it makes for a much better pedestrian experience.
The last thing I’ll add is that a good part of the cost is mundane infastructure – the road and sidewalks need new foundations, the trees are planted in clay and many are unhealthy, drainage in insufficient. I would like to see the numbers, but simply addressing these problems without anything fancy would be very expensive.
As a CWE resident who lives near Euclid and someone involved in the Euclid Streetscape Project, I am confused by your pessimistic tone toward a project that seeks to invigorate a deteriorating stretch of one of the city’s great avenues.
Some of your comments on the options presented are valid, and this is the kind of input that is being sought from members of the public before the final design is approved. However, it is hard to understand why you are so critical of a project whose main goal is to replace a crumbling, poorly accessible stretch of Euclid with a vibrant, accessible, environmentally friendly streetscape.
I am especially concerned about inaccuracies in your blog, and ask you to correct them. Among them:
— The room where the meeting was held was indeed accessible by elevator.
— The design fees for the Euclid Streetscape Project are less than half of the $400,000 figure you quoted repeatedly. Incidentally, the team was far from the priciest of the teams submitting RFPs.
— The funds being used for the Euclid project do not come from an increase in taxes on the Park East Tower property.
— The Park East Lofts, not the Park East Tower, is supplying the public parking spaces in a joint venture between the developer and the Treasurer’s Office.
— Both a coffee shop and a bank are planned for the Park East Tower retail space on Euclid. There will be additional street level retail in the Park East Lofts next door.
Additional clarifications:
— The stormwater options presented in the plans are not about “making a statement,†but about correcting the significant current drainage problems in an ecologically intelligent manner. Why not direct storm water into tree wells and other planting areas rather than dump the water down the sewer while our trees wither in the drought — or we pay for water trucks to water them? It’s fine to be skeptical of the center channel, but let’s not throw out the entire Green Streets concept with the drain water just because it’s a foreign concept in St. Louis.
— No one believes pretty pavement is all that is needed to revive this section of Euclid. The streetscape project is being planned along with other efforts to revitalize the area.
The Euclid-Forest Park Avenue intersection is a major entrance to the CWE for people arriving from the MetroLink stop and from the BJC/Wash U Medical Center. Hang out for a while there and you will see the stream of people risking their lives to cross the intersection, negotiating the cluttered Euclid sidewalk or tripping over the uneven pavement. Better yet, watch the braver pedestrians make their way down the split-level sidewalk on the north side of Euclid.
With the impending closing of Highway 40, more and more people will be driving on Forest Park Avenue/Parkway — an excellent opportunity to invite them to explore the CWE. The current Euclid-Forest Park Avenue intersection is far from inviting or interesting, unless you are a fan of the turquoise entrance posts. At the same time, between Lindell and West Pine on Euclid, a deserted zone with little retail discourages people visiting the northern CWE from venturing the block or two to the businesses at the southern end of Euclid. Development in this stretch of Euclid will obviously be the key, but in the meantime, improving the pedestrian experience would help guide pedestrians down that extra block.
New developments in the southern part of the CWE, and particularly on Euclid, both emphasize the need and provide the occasion for revamping a dated, crumbling, cluttered, patchy, inefficient sidewalk and streetscape.
The southern part of the CWE is one of the best neighborhoods in the city: a short walk to Forest Park, MetroLink, the medical center and some of the best restaurants in the city. The changes to the Euclid streetscape are needed to ensure a vital, functioning street for decades into the future. We can debate the details of what makes a great streetscape, but constructive comments are much more useful than sarcastic quips and misleading statements.
In any case, thank you for providing a forum for this debate.
This is so typical StL… make a splash, get attention, have an inside track, and magically favoritism is produced! CWE is a jewel in our region and should be properly maintained. How much is CWE-Midtown Corp. asking the City to spend for these improvements?
The City should spend public funds in ways to benefit the overall community instead of concentrating scarce resources for those who know how to promote/market a concept. Public leadership must learn to walk before they attempt to run! By the way, I still don’t see any bike lanes?!
Keep streetscaping simple…
Steve Patterson of Urban Review STL has an analysis of a plan for redoing three blocks of Euclid Avenue in St. Louis — paving, lighting, streetscaping — the same sort of treatment we’ve seen here in Tulsa along Brookside, Main Street, and in the Blu…
Thank you for replying to my post. I will now address your points:
UrbanReviewSTL: I am critical because what I do is a critical analysis. I provide that counterpoint to all the “oohs and aaahs†that aways come from the public when looking at colorful drawings.
A: It is far easier to criticize than to do the hard work of getting things done. The non-profit agency and the dozens of volunteers participating in the Euclid Streetscape Project should be encouraged in their efforts to improve the urban landscape, not ridiculed. Constructive comments are welcome but sarcasm is seldom helpful.
UrbanReviewSTL: As for the room access, I sure did not see an elevator. We can down a set of stairs to a very small hallway and into the room. If an elevator existed it was well hidden. I’ll check it out next time I am there.
A: The room is accessible through a door that leads to the garage. You just have to ask at the front desk for them to open the door. I know this because someone in a wheelchair attended a previous unrelated meeting in the room. By the way, Monday night’s workshop was a makeup meeting for those unable to attend a meeting that took place the night of the ice storm at EPNEC. Options for meeting rooms were limited given the late scheduling.
UrbanReviewSTL: As for the design fees, I heard $400K repeated a few times during the meeting but never once heard $200K. Maybe the $400K includes something else. Sadly, no fact sheet was given out at the presentation and I was unable to record all of it. This is one of the problems we have in this city. The entity undertaking this multi-million dollar project using tax funds has no website where factual information could be presented nor have they handed it out to the public or made it available to the press.
A: The $400K is the total amount that CWE Midtown Development has set aside for the project, with less than $200K going for design fees. A quick call to the development agency would have cleared that up or a talk with the agency’s director at the meeting. I agree that a website would be helpful to disseminate information. And as far as I know, the agency has never denied supplying information to the press or anyone else upon request.
UrbanReviewSTL: You misunderstood the taxes comment relative to the Park East. The money for the design fees and some other projects, roughly $500K, are from an incremental increase in the taxes in the area due to the Park East. The land was vacant and city-owned before so the taxes are all new — an increment higher than before. As I mentioned, the actual work would be done via a grant from East-West Gateway using Federal funds.
A: I repeat that the money for the design fees and other projects does not come from an incremental increase in the taxes. The Park East Tower has set up a CID and is receiving tax abatement. The $500K was a lump-sum contribution based on a percentage of the subsidy. If you have questions about the financing, I suggest a call to the development agency.
UrbanReviewSTL: You say the Park East Lofts, not the tower, are providing an additional 160 public parking spaces. Wow, that is a lot of spaces for that small site. Again, I have nothing but my memory to go on as this type of information is not readily available for verification.
A: The information about the Park East Lofts/public parking garage has been out in the public for several months. Again, all you had to do was ask the development agency director for clarification to avoid any confusion.
UrbanReviewSTL: Glad to hear a coffee shop will also be going into the retail base of the Park East Tower — I hope it is at the corner and not the bank.
A: It is my understanding the coffee shop will be located in the space along Euclid.
UrbanReviewSTL: I’d really like to know more about these “significant drainage problems.†What are they? What is the extent of the problem?
A: I am no stormwater expert, but there are several places where water collects during heavy rains. Some of the drains also emit an unpleasant odor certain times of the year.
UrbanReviewSTL: Yes, Euclid and Forest Park is a messed up intersection, no doubts. I acknowledged the pedestrian refuge areas and the bump outs — did you miss that? I have no problems with the sidewalks getting done — they are like a great many sidewalks throughout the entire city where people walk frequently. These three blocks of St. Louis are not the only ones needing new sidewalks.
A: I completely agree that these three blocks are not the only ones needing new sidewalks in the city. Thanks to this project, at least these three blocks will be improved with non-city funds. There is another project underway to replace dangerous sidewalk conditions elsewhere in the area. One step at a time…
UrbanReviewSTL: You are correct the Euclid and Forest Park entrance is not inviting. It is not the once-trendy but now dated turquoise posts — it is Tom’s parking lot! That needs a building or a nice outdoor patio. Get Tom’s some parking elsewhere so that surface lot at a prominent entrance can go away. This is far more critical to the entrance than the design of new marker posts that in 25 years will also be outdated.
A: It is commonly agreed that the parking lot at the corner is far from ideal. The lot is owned by Tom’s. This is a streetscape design and cannot address that issue – but it can do something about the turquoise posts. Just what should replace them, if anything, is a matter of debate. Again, one step at a time…
UrbanReviewSTL: Glad you brought up the side streets such as Laclede & West Pine. What about those businesses along those stretches just off Euclid with old sidewalks and lighting. Why is this plan not more inclusive of the commercial zone which does extend to the East and West of Euclid? By going all fancy with Euclid it will make the adjacent streets look even worse than they do. The design and construction budget need to be stretched to include the full commercial district.
A: The streetscape project does include the commercial zone that stretches into the side streets of Laclede and West Pine. This was perhaps unclear at the meeting, but if you had asked about it, it would have been answered.
UrbanReviewSTL: You mention at one point “other efforts to revitalize the area.†What are these efforts? Do any of them include zoning changes? Where are the efforts to rid both “entrances†of the surface parking? All I got was a presentation on how we are going to change the water flow on the street and in the process it will be more friendly to pedestrians.
A: The meeting was about the Euclid Streetscape Project, not the entire development plan for the neighborhood. A Town Hall meeting was held in November where the development agency discussed its efforts and goals for improving the area. If you missed the meeting, the agency’s director would probably be happy to discuss these plans with you.
UrbanReviewSTL: No statements were intended to be misleading, if they were it was due to a lack of information to avoid any misstatements. For the most part I kept my mouth shut, along with my sarcastic thoughts, at the meeting so as not to disrupt the flow. I just see this all time and time again where the tendency is to overdue the focus area while ignorning the balance. Once the focus area is done people then look at the rest and think, gee this over here doesn’t look so good. We only have so much money available for all of the city. We have commercial districts that would love to be doing as well as these three blocks. Don’t be greedy.
A: Your comments and insights are welcome. I only ask you to please base them on correct information. Your suggestions for printed material or a website are valid — but a question or two during or after the meeting or a call to the development agency would have cleared up any confusing points and prevented the spread of misinformation. A little bit of homework never hurt anyone.
And who’s being greedy? I see a development agency coming up with an innovative way to pay for needed street improvements in its target area and avoiding using city money. If anything, it is the opposite of greed, leaving more money for the city to spend in other neighborhoods. In addition, the development agency is not competing against the city for the East-West Gateway funds.
Again, I invite you to check the facts and kindly suggest correcting the original post. The $400K figure has already been repeated in some of the comments.
Thank you.
I like the idea of a trolley on Euclid A LOT! Part of the problem of these blocks is that many of the buildings are eyesores. Starting at Lindell moving south-the doctor’s building on the NE corner at W. Pine, then the Forest Park Hotel. This storefront has been empty since 1990. This is rediculous. What a viable space for a business. Why has this been empty for so many years?! This could be a great space for the community if a viable business was there. The cleaners facade is tired and the storefronts between Laclede and FP Parkway are dated. If the streetscape is improved but there are empty buildings and business that aren’t viable by many of the neighborhood then all this seems wasted.
I just read your friend from Tulsa’s blog and am disappointed that misinformation from this blog is now appearing there.
Just to clear up the parking issue: although one or two of the attendees of the workshops have thrown out the idea to remove parking, the overwhelming consensus among the stakeholders and the workshop attendees is that the parking needs to be preserved and even expanded. Both of the plans proposed at the workshop showed keeping the on-street parking, including options to make it more efficient. Everyone take a deep breath….
Whether it’s “city” money or “federal” money, it’s still “our” tax dollars “at work”, it’s still limited and it needs to be spent wisely and equitably! Concentrating spending in limited areas, while it likely will positively affect adjoining properties, may not be the best way to get the most bang for our buck in the larger context of St. Louis as a city . . .
Thanks CWE1 for your input. From your representations, it is clear that the area is asking for special treatment. Whether it’s a tax abatement, federal funds and/or local elected leaders’ time, public policy should be just that, for the benefit of the whole community and not a particular subset. As stated before, this is typical StL policy. It may surprise you but my street has drainage problems, my street has sewers that emit odor, my street needs better crosswalks, my street has poor lighting, my street needs better sidewalks, etc and all true.
The problems mentioned on my street are true in many areas in StL. For years, infrastructure issues have been ignored so as to free funds for favoritism. This needs to stop, otherwise, fights over scarce resources will become more intense and creating common goals/solutions will be more difficult and eventually impossible.
EWGCC policies should be for the benefit the whole region. Please provide background info on the CWE-Midtown Corp. (purpose, principals, source of funding, etc.).
Again, what is the projected expenses to create this new streetscape?
This project provides an excellent illustration of one of the city’s greatest challenges: setting priorities.
I know of at least a half dozen other proposed major city streetscape improvement projects, at least one of which is competing for these same EW Gateway dollars.
Leadership in the Board of Aldermen is non-existent and the Mayor’s office does not have the power to direct such investments.
As a CWE outsider, yet city resident, I have a hard time understanding how one of the city’s most posh neighborhoods, the CWE, can justify these regional dollars ahead of another neighborhood working its way back on the map.
If I were on the Board of EW Gateway, here’s what I’d do….I’d send all the city proposals back to the applicants, and require that a resolution be first adopted by the Board of Aldermen ranking the propoals in order of priority.
I bet that’d be an interesting meeting at the Board! Maybe it’d end with an alderman urinating into a trash can?
[…] Remaking Euclid in St. Louis Planning work is underway to remake three blocks of Euclid Ave, from Lindell Blvd on the north to Forest Park Parkway on the South. The group behind this makeover is the Central West End-Midtown Development Corporation which is spending $400,000 on the planning and engineering for three city blocks of a single street. The development team, headed by Denver-based Civitas, made a public presentation Monday evening on the issues and proposed options. Check out Steve Patterson’s blog Urban Review STL for lots of details. […]
Okay,
so did anyone catch that its “Racantelli’s” and I know its been a while since I have been there but did Subway move??
I believe the Euclid Streetscape Project is very deserving of funds and will be very well-received by East-West Gateway.
The southern part of the CWE — where the Euclid project is being proposed — is far from “posh.” The area includes a mix of socioeconomic levels, age groups, family types and professional levels, including working professionals, many of whom work at the medical center or one of the universities; retired couples; students from Wash U and SLU; families with children; and many elderly and low-income people.
Three large public housing apartments are located within one to two blocks of the project area: Parkview Apartments at 4451 Forest Park Ave.; West Pine Apartments at 4490 West Pine; and Park Place Apartments at 4399 Forest Park Ave. Many of these residents are elderly and/or disabled, and this part of Euclid is almost impossible for them to negotiate. The 6 North Apartments, which features universal design, is four blocks away at Laclede and Sarah and includes many disabled residents. In addition, patients and visitors from the Wash U/BJC Medical Center travel this stretch of Euclid — many with mobility issues.
The three blocks of Euclid between Lindell and Forest Park Avenue are also very important from a transportation angle. The Metro stop is just a block south on Euclid, bringing people from all over to the area. The Metro bus route that runs down Euclid is apparently one of Metro’s most popular routes. According to a source from Metro, despite rider demand, the #01 cannot currently travel north on the two blocks of Euclid between Forest Park Avenue and West Pine because of problems turning onto Euclid. (Instead, the bus travels from Taylor to West Pine and turns north on Euclid from there). With the closing of Highway 40, more and more cars will be driving down Forest Park Avenue, and likely, up Euclid.
In addition, the neighborhood is one of most dense areas in the City of St. Louis — and is getting denser. Streetscape improvements are sorely needed to withstand the ever increasing demand on the street.
The Euclid Streetscape Project will allow Euclid to be enjoyed by all these varied users — pedestrians, disabled people, bus riders, bike users and drivers, the young, the old, the poor and the rich.
Dear CWE1,
You have laid out a nice case for support for the Euclid Streetscaping plan. However, as an area resident, you’re also a partisan in the discussion.
What is your opinion of the suggestion to have the Board of Aldermen prioritize the various city EW Gateway funding requests before the final EWG decisions are made?
Is there a website or link to information about this new tower that’s being built where the doctor’s building currently sits?
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=renaissanceoneuclid-streetlouis-mo-usa
This is old, but the only thing on the web, I think. Google “Renaissance on Euclid” and you’ll find the news stories, etc. The latest is that the building will be 8 stories, though the latest-latest is that the developer may have “tower envy” and wants to go higher again.
oh, THAT tower. yeah i’ve seen those renderings. i just didn’t make the connection to the doctor’s building. thanks for the info.
We want … a shrubbery!…
Steve Patterson analyzes on-street parking in St. Louis: On-street parking does a number of things beneficial to the pedestrian — namely helping to slow traffic in the travel lanes as well as providing a big buffer between sidewalk and moving……
Both of the plans proposed at the workshop showed keeping the on-street parking, including options to make it more efficient.
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.