Usually I randomize the poll but someone suggested on polls with a logical order that they be presented as such, so this week everyone will see the answers in the same order. As always, the poll closes at 8pm tonight.
The right buyer can buy city hall — O’Fallon Illinois’ former city hall.
Former City Hall in O’Fallon IL, 200 N. Lincoln. Click image for map.The Lincoln facadeClose up of entry. The address shown is the current city hall.Washington St facadeThe fire department and school district are on the same block
The City of O’Fallon is soliciting proposals from qualified developers and/or organizations willing to invest funds to purchase and improve Old City Hall and bring it back to a productive use that will integrate well into the neighborhood. Old City Hall is an approximately 4,500 square foot GFA, two-story brick building originally constructed in 1890. It is a locally designated landmark which requires review of changes to the exterior of the building, but does not affect remodeling of the interior of the structure. All proposals should seek to preserve and enhance the architectural character of the building. Proposals that involve demolition will not be considered. The building is located inside the Central City TIF district, created in June 2015 (more information available at www.ofallon.org/economic-development-division). As publicly-owned property, the site has no Equalized Assessed Value, which allows all property taxes to be considered increment.
Currently, Old City Hall and O’Fallon Fire Station #1 are together on one parcel (PARCEL ID 04-29.0-120- 008). All proposals should note how much of the adjacent land and parking area, if any, is desired as part of the proposed redevelopment project. The City anticipates that the resulting lot would likely be no more than 0.27 acres (see attached map). The City also expects that the property will have to be rezoned from the current SR-3
(Single Family Residence District) to another appropriate district to accommodate the types of uses likely to be proposed as a part of this RFP process. It will be the responsibility of the selected developer to obtain any and all necessary zoning changes, variances, building permits, and other approvals to facilitate the development of this property.
Old City Hall most recently housed the O’Fallon Fire Department administrative offices, but has only been used for storage since 2009. As the property has been out of use for many years, the City does not have much definitive information about the current condition of the property. As mentioned in the Environmental Conditions section below, the City is aware of the presence of asbestos and mold. The building also has other issues including: degrading/rotting wooden windows, tuckpointing and masonry repair, necessary repairs and upgrades to bathrooms, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems. The property will be sold “as is.”
I’m glad demolition will not be considered! Hopefully they’ll get some creative proposals.
Burger King at Loughborough Commons is part of the Loughborough Commons Community Improvement District, November 2008
Recent curiosity about special taxing districts has been a can of worms — the number of them just within the City of St. Louis is overwhelming. Plus, they’re not all alike. Some are Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) based on Missouri law, others are special business districts established by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. Another type is transportation development districts (TDDs). Some collect sales taxes, others property taxes, possibly some collect both. Some collect money from business licenses.
Local governments and school districts worried about a cash crunch have put extra scrutiny on the use of TIF, which uses future tax revenue generated by a project to help fund its construction. That can sap money from other needs down the road. CIDs and TDDs, on the other hand, don’t touch the tax base. They simply add a new tax on property owners, shoppers or both extra for an extra layer of service.
They are also popular because they’re flexible. Developers and neighborhood groups say CIDs are a way to raise money for things that cash-strapped city governments can’t afford. Many point to the Times Square Business Improvement District, created in the early 1990s by business owners to help clean up the New York City landmark, as an example of their potential. And similar examples exist in St. Louis. Like in The Grove. (Pennies add up as special taxing districts proliferate)
As an 8+ year property owner in the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District I’ve voted on the ongoing management — a state requirement to get approval by a percentage of registered voters. However, the accountably and transparency of these vary greatly.
In 2016 I’ll look into the differences between these districts.
I watched quite a bit of the live stream of the Board of Aldermen special session yesterday as they debated a floor substitute version of Bill 219. Yes, the bill changed after the Sunday Poll was conducted and the BoA began yesterday morning.
More than 75% of those who voted in the non-scientific poll selected a disapprove answer. Conversely, just over 21% approve. Those who “strongly disapprove” accounted for a majority of the votes!
Q: Approve or disapprove of financing plan for a new stadium up for final vote by the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday?
Strongly disapprove 37 [56.06%]
Disapprove 11 [16.67%]
TIE 5 [7.58%]
Strongly approve
Approve
TIE 4 [6.06%]
Somewhat approve
Somewhat disapprove
TIE 0 [0%]
Neither approve or disapprove
Unsure/No Answer
Despite opposition, the Board of Aldermen advanced the bill:
St. Louis aldermen met in a special session to consider approving the city’s share of funding for a new NFL stadium – $150 million.
The aldermen approved the bill, which will come to a final vote on Friday. (KSDK)
The 2nd special session this week will start at 3pm.
This streetcar in Portland OR is a circulator, not a rapid streetcar
There are several camps in the transit world:
Light rail advocates
Bus rapid transit advocates
Streetcar advocates
These don’t mix — build their classic model or nothing. However, in the last decade a new group has emerged advocating a hybrid of these: The Rapid Streetcar. For example, Portland is looking at Rapid Streetcar for future expansion of its streetcar line.
The rapid streetcar concept aims to combine the best features of streetcars and light rail transit (LRT) to achieve faster commute/travel times than streetcars and lower system costs than light rail. Streetcars are typically designed to go shorter distances in central cities, densely populated mixed-use centers and neighborhoods. Streetcars are also typically designed to operate in mixed traffic, preserving street traffic patterns.
LRT typically functions as regional high-capacity transit (HCT), generally traveling in a separated right-of-way with relatively fast-moving, larger-capacity vehicles designed to rapidly transport large numbers of people between suburban and urban centers.
The rapid streetcar concept would apply some of the LRT features to streetcars to improve travel times while keeping capital costs lower. It would combine features of a semi-exclusive transitway and transit priority features within the street right- of-way to achieve faster travel times and maintain lower system capital costs. This could introduce two new levels of service to Portland’s system.
Several corridors under consideration for the Streetcar System Concept Plan are prime candidates to introduce Enhanced Local Service. These corridors are major arterials with 4 to 5 lanes and on-street parking such as NE Sandy Boulevard and SE Foster Road.
In Portland there are potential corridors for introducing priority service. Currently, the region is undertaking a study to extend the existing streetcar system along a former railroad right-of-way from the South Waterfront District, through Johns Landing and south to Lake Oswego. SE Foster Road and 122nd Avenue are also candidates where there may be sufficient right-of-way width to introduce streetcar priority lanes.
Drawing from the experiences from other cities around the world, enhancements to the streetcar operations can significantly increase average speeds:
According to Wikipedia, our light rail has an average speed of 24.7 mph — within the same range as a rapid streetcar.
Streetcars are cheaper [than light rail] because of their lower infrastructure requirements. Often there is no need to relocat[e] utilities, right of way does not need to be purchased and the stops are smaller and the vehicles more pedestrian oriented. Streetcar stops are also closely spaced if the goal is to be a circulator or short line transport mode. However if a longer distance transit mode that mimics light rail is what you’re looking for, but your city is on a budget, the rapid streetcar might be your choice.
Many cities have taken up the mantle of the rapid bus to be their cost effective alternative to light rail, but only do this based on cost, not because its what the citizenry wants. Recent Rapid Bus movements in Oakland, San Francisco, and Charlotte have shown that people really want light rail on a budget but haven’t been able to engineer their systems to reduce costs and are therefore left with an inferior transit mode for their stated goals.
But by using streetcars in center lanes with single tracking and passing sidings at stations you can get the same performance as light rail on 10 minute headways. Streetcars aren’t single vehicles either. Skoda streetcars have couplers on them as well that would make them multiple car consists. The lighter vehicles are about 66 feet long as opposed to 90 foot LRVs yet you can still get increased passenger capacity and lower infrastructure needs. (The Overhead Wire)
Typically streetcars & light rail have double track — one per direction. But like BRT, if passing is done at stops, money can be saved by using single track in between.
From the person who presented this idea in 2004, Lyndon Henry:
North American planners only thought of streetcars as a slow, circulatory mode competing with pedestrians. Meanwhile, de facto high-performance streetcars were taking Europe by storm, and it was clear that streetcar technology could approach the service capabilities of “full” light rail transit (LRT) — in fact, streetcars could be deployed as a kind of “junior LRT”.
Another factor was the “gold-plating” disease—over-design—with each new LRT startup trying to “one-up” the last new start in another city. LRT railcars were getting bigger and beefier, and station designs were escalating from originally simple shelters into “palaces.”
This led me to recall the original inspiration of LRT—Europe’s invention of a rather bare-bones upgrade of ordinary mixed-traffic streetcars into a faster mode with lots of dedicated lanes, reservations, and exclusive alignments, only occasionally running in street traffic. This notion was expounded in the 1960s and early 1970s by transit visionaries like H. Dean Quinby and Stewart F. Taylor; interestingly, Taylor branded his version of the concept a “Rapid Tramway.” (Railway Age)
We shouldn’t cling to a mode from the past, we need to build a north-south transit line by establishing goals then designing a line to meet those goals. At the same time I’d look at doing what Houston did — redesign all transit routes & schedules from scratch.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
