Mayor Slay Says Century Would Have Crumbled in an Earthquake

I love the earthquake defense. Numerous times I’ve heard property owners seeking to raze their buildings tell the Preservation Board it should be torn down because it wouldn’t survive an earthquake, that unreinforced masonry buildings don’t perform well in earthquakes. I’ve yet to see the Preservation Board fall for such an argument because, if they did, they’d have to allow nearly every building in St. Louis be razed. The argument just doesn’t fly.

So you can understand how shocked I was when I heard Mayor Slay use the argument regarding the Century building during a phone interview on KDHX’s The Wire:

It was a beautiful building, although I did talk to one of the engineers that went in there and said, “You know if that building…if there’d been an earthquake of not even a major significance, that building would have crumbled.”

Wow, that is a pretty big claim. Usually people trying to justify an unnecessary demolition say it will take a major earthquake but here we had the major stating “of not even a major significance.” So basically he did the public a service by demolishing it. But the Century, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, was not an unreinforced masonry building.

I’m really curious now to uncover this engineer’s report making such a claim as this is news to me. Perhaps it is still being written?

The April 24, 2006 interview is still available on KDHX.

– Steve

Commenter Defends Washington Ave Streetscape Design

One of the beautiful things about the internet is all the information that can be found, including old posts on this site. Today someone found a post I did over a year ago regarding the Washington Avenue streetscape between Tucker (12th) and 9th Street. My post was relatively short and focused mostly on the poor choice of bike racks. But here is what “Daisy” had to say:

I would like to remind a few particular people of what Washington Street used to look like. I have been working in and around the area for about the past 15 years now. I remember how the building rubble was all over the sidewalks and the sidewalks were uneven and broken. Mostly vacant buildings. No such thing as a bench to sit on, much less a place to lock your bike. You were constantly besieged by vagrants plying for money.

Okay, I’m in full agreement so far. Buildings were vacant, sidewalks were uneven and no benches or bike racks were in sight. For the record, we still have beggars seeking money.

She continues:

Broken glass that littered the road and the side walk made it mostly perilous to travel by any wheeled vehicle. Trees? Not a chance. Flower pots, no way. Trash cans? are you kidding me? The sidewalk and road were filled with litter. The stoplights were falling down. Whine if it makes you feel better, but hopefully people that are planning on visiting this area aren’t as disturbed by your opinions as they would have been had Washington Street been left the way it was.

The “it is better than it was” defense for bad planning always cracks me up. Of course it is better than it was, I should hope so after spending millions of tax dollars to improve the area! Do we, as citizens, not have the right to question the logic behind how our money is spent?

But, it gets worse:

BTW – did it ever occur to you that they used a bike rack that is versitile enough to be used by all the locks available. I personally know that the designers for this project worked diligently from all angles, for a very long time, verified all products with the available subsurfaces that they had to work with, and checked out the best solutions with what was available. A huge number of people were involved in these decisions, not just one designer.

So the defense of these inappropriate bike racks is that many people, not just one, make the wrong decision? And, for the record, a number of bike racks can be used with various locks. The simple inverted-U racks further west in the garish section of Washington Ave do the job better than any other rack design. Not only can you use multiple lock design but you can easily lock both wheels to the rack, if desired, and know the bike is supported in two places so it won’t fall over.

And “Daisy” concludes with the obligatory name calling:

Are you even aware of the vaults and tunnels below the surface of the road that they were dealing with? I guess being a couch designer is always the best way to point out someone elses faults, as long as you get them straight. Hey, maybe its another couch designer like you that continues to rip out the plantings and tear up the trees… Some people are just never happy.

Well, yes, I am aware of the vaults & tunnels downtown. I also know that most do not extend out to the curb line because if they did the trees would not have been able to be planted along the street. Tree roots, in my experience, consume more subsoil than bolts for a bike rack.

I love the “couch designer” comment. Great defense. The many designers made poor choices and when critiqued on functionality one attempts to belittle the reviewer. Sorry, but if you cannot handle constructive criticism then you should not be in the design business. I speak from experience since I also do double duty as a designer in addition to being a REALTOR®. The facts remain unchanged from a year ago: the relationship between the benches, bike racks and tress is horribly close. The bike racks require placing the bikes perpendicular to the curb and make access difficult. A simple inverted-U rack, like those used just down the street, would have been easier to use, less costly and would have had similar installation requirements. Product selection and placement was off in these blocks and no amount of name calling is going to change that.

This brings us to the issue of the planters. Uh, no, I not the kind to rip out plantings. But the logic behind the planters is a bit silly. Street trees should have been sufficient greenery for these blocks but someone thought they should have more so lots of money was spent on planters and and an irrigation system. I agree that if you are going to have planters you need to have irrigation but in the long run these will simply not be maintained by the city. The money spent on the planters and irrigation should have been spent on buying larger street trees.

And we have the “some people are just never happy” ending which is presumably an attempt reduce further public discourse of design matters. I guess if I were part of the design team responsible I’d not want anyone with a critical eye commenting either.

– Steve

‘Entertainment District’ Replaces ‘Festival Marketplace’ as Latest Trend

In the 1970s and 80s the “Festival Marketplace” was all the rage. This development concept was seen as the savior for many areas, including St. Louis’ Union Station. The Festival Markeplace was seen as a destination spot with entertainment and retail. The retail was often a clever adaptation of an existing building to form a mall space. Grand train stations were eagerly converted to this great new concept:

The fine 1888 headhouse became the grand entrance to the complex, housing an upscale restaurant on the former concourse floor. The eastern half of the shed became a festival marketplace, with specialty stores, bars, and a food court, while the western half was converted into a hotel, with new room modules built in the area occupied by most of the old tracks. Four tracks at the north and south ends were retained, and stocked with old heavyweight Pullmans, which were gutted to the shell and rebuilt with completely new interiors containing two rooms each.

This description is not about St. Louis’ Union Station although many similarities exist, including financial trouble of late. No, the above is about the Union Station in Indianapolis (source).

But after a couple of decades this concept is showing its age.

As city after city experienced trouble with their festival marketplaces, all suffering too little festivities and not enough commerce to pay the debts, something had to be done. Sadly, the solution was to only tweak the concept slightly and give it a new name. So today overblown development projects are called “mixed-use retail/entertainment districts.” Not quite as catchy as festival marketplace but that will give this new name greater longevity. The MUR/ED, as I will call it here, has little difference from failed festival marketplaces.

One primary difference we see, and it is a good one, is the embrace of the street. Gone are the days of multi-level indoor mall configurations of the festival marketplace. These have been replaced with overdone streets. Overdone in the sense of a cheap whore rather than a regal lady in a classic outfit.

The other main difference between the Festival Marketplace and the MUR/ED is the addition of housing. Again, this is a major improvement. With Festival Marketplaces such as our Union Station it was only after the locals and tourists stopped flocking to the attraction that people woke up and realized that if we had some housing there we’d have a built-in base of customers. Wow, these guys are brilliant that they’ve figured out that having residents creates retail customers!

The St. Louis Cardinals & The Cordish Company are planning one of these tarted up districts:

Ballpark Village is a $450 million mixed-use retail/entertainment and residential district being developed in partnership by The St. Louis Cardinals and The Cordish Company. Ballpark Village will cover six city blocks that will directly connect to the new Busch Stadium, which will be unveiled Opening Day of the Spring, 2006 season. Ballpark Village will feature approximately 450,000 square feet of retail/entertainment, 1,200 residential units, 400,000 square feet of office and 2,000 parking spaces. Located in the heart of downtown St. Louis, MO, Ballpark Village will be a world class district that will redefine the Gateway to the West.

World class? What makes it world class, an ESPN Zone sports bar? And it will “redefine the Gateway to the West” even though the Arch does a pretty good job of that right now. What they really should say is the district will be over-hyped with every chain business that will sign a lease. The developers will make their money in the first 20 years and could care less about creating a sustainable model for development beyond that. Furthermore, I see them creating, like the Bottle District North of the Dome, an internally focused area with little relationship to the surrounding area.

Ballpark Village will be hugely popular when it opens. It will lease the bulk of its retail & commercial space and the residential units will sell quickly. Getting a table at one of the new restaurants in the first year will be a challenge. But, in time what once seemed so new and exciting will age and no longer be the new hot spot. Some of the chains will simply close the location while other chains will go out of business nation-wide. In about 25 years the Cardinal’s owners, whomever that will be at the time, will begin talks with the city about building a new stadium. I’m just not confident in the long-term prospects of the adjacent “village.”

So what would I do differently?

Well, I’d drop the whole “Ballpark Village” name. A village, in my view, is self reliant. Yes, I know it is just a marketing ploy but in the long term such a fixed identity will hurt the area once it becomes passé. Counter to current trends, I would not give the area too distinct a visual look. Instead, I’d do my best to integrate the area with adjacent blocks so as to blend rather than stick out. Having 12 acres controlled and designed by one developer is apt to look too contrived. I’d suggest they create the street grid and then allow other developers/owners to take on various pieces of the total site. This would get closer to how things used to be and with multiple owners we would have great variety.

Chain restaurants & retail stores are typically only interested in a long-term lease whereas a locally owned business might be interested in purchasing a storefront condo. Trying to get local businesses as part of the mix will help with local people having a vested interest in the long range future of the area. Corporate offices of chains simply do not care. Of course, rental rates are often astronomical in these mega projects so chains are the only ones that can afford to locate in them. They become outdoor malls without the charm of Kansas City’s Countryclub Plaza.

Much is happening in other parts of downtown north of Market Street as well as in the Cupples Station area just to the West of the new stadium. It will be very important that residents and visitors all seamlessly walk from area to area but I have concerns the Ballpark Village will attempt to corral people simply to make its numbers work. To be successful, it will need thousands of visitors which is an easy task on game day. Hype will get the area visitors on non-game days as well but I’m concerned it will be at the expense of other parts of downtown. I hope I’m wrong. The rest of downtown needs the village to draw new people downtown, not just steal current ones.

The mixed-use retail/entertainment district is a revamp of the mostly failed Festival Marketplace which was twist on the failed downtown mall idea. The big developers and the city officials they sponsor simply do not understand neighborhood basics. If they do, they don’t feel like they can sell it to the general public or the bankers. In the 1950s cities began tearing apart their cities to accommodate the car and in the process ruined downtowns. Sure, downtowns were tired and dirty before all the demolition and highway construction began but champions of “progress” argued for more parking and wider streets to move traffic. All these efforts over the last 50+ years accelerated the demise of downtowns and aided in the growth of suburbia.

Civic groups have been trying every bloated scheme since to change things. The 50’s saw the first wave with beautiful buildings being razed for parking. The ones that were not razed were stripped of their detailing and modernized in an attempt to look like a new building. This was the first failed trend for downtowns and it has been an expensive downhill ride since.

In the 60’s and 70’s came the pedestrian malls, again trying to compete with the new suburban outdoor mall. The new suburban mall was not much more than a couple of strip centers facing each other but downtown folks had to do it. St. Louis didn’t close off streets, instead we torn down blocks of buildings to create the Gateway Mall. When suburbia moved to enclosed malls cities followed suit. It is really a sad history of failing to understand what makes an urban core special.

Along the way cities decided that every major venue should be located in their downtown. Sports arenas and convention centers were going to revive downtowns. St. Louis’ convention center, despite numerous expansions, is failing to live up to expectations. The dome is less than 20 years old and is already costing millions to stay competitive with others stadiums. The convention hotel is still on the verge of bankruptcy due to lower than expected occupancy.

Forgive me if I am cynical about these new “entertainment districts” but I see too many eggs in one basket for long term sustainability.

– Steve

Surviving I-64 Reconstruction

Yesterday I attended a luncheon organized by the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. Not one of my favorite organizations but the topic and speakers looked interesting so I forked over the $35 fee.

The topic was I-64 Reconstruction: Getting Prepared. Guests were Marc Cutler, a Senior VP with Cambridge Systematics and Rick Dimino, President of Boston’s Artery Business Committee. Both were brought in to help advise our region on how to get us through the reconstruction of I-64. Their experience: The Big Dig.

They are part of a team looking at ways to address traffic during the construction process. This includes looking at traffic along the construction route, north-south crossings over the construction zone, and other arterial roads that will handle much of the normal traffic.

Other topics briefly discussed were ways the public deals with construction. This was basically three shifts in behavior: time shifting, mode shifting or destination shifting.

With time shifting the idea would be adjust work schedules so that not everyone is commuting at the same times of the day. With mode shifting the idea is to get commuters out of the car and into transit or cycling. Destination shifting is something we’ll hopefully minimize as we don’t want people avoiding destinations. However, minimizing trips can be a good thing.

Working to keep bus service going will be a major challenge as 17 bus lines either use the highway or cross the highway. As the speakers pointed out, the last thing you want to do during a major highway reconstruction project is reduce transit service.

I spoke with Rick Dimino following the meeting and he indicated he was surprised that we were not including transit along I-64 as part of the reconstruction. He also acknowledged how at the end of Boston’s Big Dig they are going to be able to weave the city back together after being severed by their 1950’s highway. A goal that will not be accomplished by our project.

I really enjoyed talking with Dimino as I think he really gets urbanity. He said early designs for the original Boston highway avoided the center of town. Had the original designs been followed the highway would have been built elsewhere and they never would have had The Big Dig project.

The consultant team is expected to have detailed findings by May 16th and a technical report in June.

I’m still not convinced we need to rebuild I-64. I like the idea of looking at how our existing streets can be better utilized by traffic and how mass transit can play a bigger role in our future. While I am very supportive of the route chosen for the Cross-County MetroLink that is set to open later this year, I do think setting aside a right-of-way along I-64 from the new line out West would be very wise. Sadly, we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and not give ourselves that option.

– Steve

Downtown Now! Absorbed By The Partnership?

From MayorSlay.com:

In certain quadrants of the blogosphere, this will be Big News: Downtown Now! has updated its website.

You have to give the mayor’s PR team recognition, they do have a sense of humor. They are referring to my posts about the organization such as this one from October 15, 2005,
Downtown Now! Looking a Bit Dated:

Prominent on their main page is a logo for Celebrate 2004 along with the text “What’s Happening in 2004?” Uh, last time I check it is October of 2005 and rapidly approaching 2006. Clicking on the link just gives me an access denied message. That isn’t going to do a good job revitalizing downtown.

So I eagerly clicked the link to see this new website from Downtown Now! I find a sub-page of the Downtown Partnership’s new site that I posted about on March 27, 2006.

And what is the content of the new Downtown Now! page? A really cool picture of Washington Avenue, a simple paragraph explaining who they are, and:

We now refer you to the Downtown St. Louis Partnership website (www.downtownstl.org) where you can learn more about the exciting happenings in the new downtown St. Louis! We thank you for all of your interest and support!

Just shut it down altogether. Keep the domain name around and direct it to the Partnership’s main page, nobody will know the difference. Since it was all the same people involved people often got the two confused.

The Downtown Now! organization was set up to be temporary so this is a natural closing process. But much work remains to be done. Washington Avenue is doing well but is being damaged by aggressive valet companies as they illegally “reserve” spaces all up and down the street. Gaslight Square was a happening place at one time and it imploded due to its own popularity. The Partnership and the Department of Streets seems unwilling to rectify the valet problems.

The balance of downtown and indeed the entire city is in need of serious planning work. Our zoning dates to 1947 when planners & architects hated cities and wanted everything to be suburbanized into separate use pods. Our zoning does things like encouraging more parking spaces rather than fewer and does not require buildings to abut the sidewalk. Our entire zoning code needs to be scrapped and replaced. Where is the leadership for this mountainous task?

It is nice the Mayor’s campaign staff has the leisure to give out nods to bloggers like myself but this city has some serious planning groundwork to be done and I just don’t see anyone making it happen.

– Steve