Festivus vs. Rams

I was downtown yesterday and today. Both days had lots of people but the feeling was totally different. Saturday was the “Festivus” celebration with lots of stores and restaurants open and people milling about on the sidewalk. It was thrilling to see so many people spending time shopping downtown.

Today was different. It was a Rams football game. I had already committed to be downtown so I couldn’t back out. Normally you couldn’t get me close to downtown during a major event such as a Rams game. Tons of suburbanites clogging our streets all headed for one destination, all at roughly the same time. When they are done they are all leaving at the same time. It is completely unnatural and the total opposite of the joy I experienced on Saturday. The Rams games only happens downtown 10 times per year but it seems like we went through a lot to make it happen. The saga and expense is hardly over.

For 2005 we had to ensure the dome was in the “first tier” of NFL stadiums or the Rams could have exercised a clause in their lease to give us a year’s notice to leave. With the stadium only 10 years old that wasn’t such a big deal. But what about in 2015 when the same clause comes up again? Will we will be in the top 25% of stadiums? Doubtful. How much will it cost us at that time to keep the Rams around? Since we are 10 years into a 30-year lease this means we are only 15 years away from starting to discuss replacing the dome because it is outdated and no longer competitive with the stadiums of other teams.

The state and city still have 20 years to pay for the building. St. Louis County uses hotel taxes to pay their share, assuming tourism holds out. With updates to keep the Rams happy we will have likely spent a billion dollars over a 30-year period. That works out to just over $3 million for each regular season home game. When paid for we will most likely have an antiquated and obsolete structure on our hands. Old Wal-Mart stores become thrift stores, indoor paint ball centers and such but what do you do with an old football stadium?

If we didn’t have to keep paying the $6 million per year to pay for the stadium I’d say let the Rams leave in 2015. But we can’t afford to let that happen, we are too much in debt. We need them more than they need us. I can just see myself selling someone a house and saying that after paying for it for 30 years and maintaining it along the way that when they finally own it they’ll likely need to junk it and start over. Somehow what doesn’t work for a $200K house will work on a sports stadium costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The irony is that investment firm Edward Jones has the naming rights to the building. I wonder how they’d advise their clients about investing in sports stadiums?

But the dome wasn’t necessarily supposed to pay for itself. It was seen as a way to rejuvenate downtown. Translated that means clearing away old properties, building a massive building to help out the buddies that own contracting companies to house a team owned by other rich buddies — all of whom give generously to political campaigns. The sad reality is the dome and convention center are major detractors of the urban environment in St. Louis.

This massive building presents a blank face on all sides except Washington Avenue. But even the Washington Avenue face contributes little to the life of the city with the row of taxi cabs blocking the sidewalk. You see people coming and going during conventions but even then it is not part of the urban experience even for a downtown resident. Well, it is part of the experience in that huge events are something to avoid. Residents in lofts further West such as the Sporting News Building at 2020 Washington should be thankful they are far removed from the “benefits” of major events.

The year after the football Cardinals left for Arizona we began this costly road to get football back in St. Louis. It has cost us a pretty penny and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. I say if it will cost us more than $30 million to stay in the “first tier” in 2015 then don’t even bother. Let the Rams leave. Tear the place down along with the rest of the convention center. Put back the street grid and sell of fthe individual blocks to developers to pay off the debt. Let the developers build new buildings to bring life to the area. But no superblocks, I want a start grid. And no massive buildings taking up the entire blocks, I want at least 3 separate buildings per block. It will be a great place. We’ll call it Frontiere Village.

[UPDATE 12/5 8:30AM – It has been suggested in the comments section that I’m being overly negative and stereotypical in my views. Let me clarify a couple of things. Sports fan have no choice but to clog the streets to get to the dome — that was the poor choice that was made not by the Rams or the sports fans but by anti-urban leadership that believes such events are a positive addition to a downtown. They are not. I don’t blame the fans, or the Rams, or the NFL. In fact, with the debt we need them to come and help pay for the thing. I just don’t want to be around. On the other hand, on Saturday it was many suburbanites that came for Festivus but they were there to enjoy city life. Again, no value judgement but it was just a much better fit. I’m a strong believer that huge single purpose venues just don’t belong in a place where you want a lively city life. Some rare exceptions do exist in the country but those are older examples. New stadiums and domes seldom fit in to the fabric, even when faced with red brick. So all you Rams fans keep coming down for the games, I’m make sure I’m off the road so you’ll be able to get through.]

– Steve

St. Louis Developer Don Breckenridge Dies

KSDK Channel 5 is reporting that well-known St. Louis developer Don Breckenridge has died of natural causes. Breckenridge has developed many hotels over the country but most recently he is known for the creative re-use of the Edison Brothers warehouse into a luxury hotel and condos.

Breckenridge was working on plans to renovate the long vacant Kiel Opera House. For more information on Don Breckenridge click here.

My sympathies go out to his family & friends.

– Steve

Downtown “Vehicular & Pedestrian” Study Open House 12/6/05

I just got the following information:

Click here to read a prior post on the traffic study. I’ve already commented previously so at this point I’m going to wait to see what they come up with on Tuesday.

– Steve

Targeting Changes in Big Box Stores

The October/November issue of New Urban News has a nice article on Target stores:

Until recently, all Target stores were the typical single-story boxes with surface parking. But in the last half-decade, Target has built or acquired 35 multilevel stores with structured parking and another 8 stores with parking underneath. In all, about 3 percent of Target’s 1,350 stores nationwide have unusual urban formats that Target calls “unique.”

The full article is brief but highly recommended.

One of the key messages from this article is Target and other retailers change from their standard big box and big parking when forced to. But the stores are also a success with higher sales to offset their higher development and operating costs. While the new Target at Hampton & Chippewa is okay it is not the urban model we should have downtown.

As much as I want to support local retailers I do think a single Target in the downtown area would be good for both the retailer and the downtown residents. Some may suggest the ever changing St. Louis Centre shopping mall but I was thinking further West — somewhere between Tucker (12th) and Jefferson, North of Market and South of Dr. ML King Drive. We’ve got a number of vacant city blocks that would be excellent for such a store.

One of the main problems with newer stores is the lack of windows along the sidewalk either to the sales floor or window displays. Some solutions mentioned in the story is newer versions of displays that might include media but what I like most are called “liner stores” — smaller stores that line the sidewalk to create interest.

We are thankfully witnessing the beginning of the end of the big box store in a sea of parking. Yet not far from me the already obsolete Loughborough Commons is being built — complete with two big boxes, more parking than required by code, and several outparcels. The whole site faces the all mighty interstate and backs to the adjacent residential. We need more enlightened developers, or just more enlightened elected officials to force developers to give us good design over sprawl.

– Steve

San Francisco Contemplates Something St. Louis May Never

St. Louis loves parking. Surface parking lots, new parking garages where historic buildings once graced the streetscape, and parking within warehouses being converted to lofts.

Land values in San Francisco make surface parking lots an economic impossibility. But as dense as San Francisco is, those crazy California’s love their cars as much or more than we do in the midwest. In an effort to reduce car use the city’s Board of Supervisors is considering a drastic measure.

From the San Francisco Examiner:

Proposed legislation that would limit the amount of off-street parking built in new housing was endorsed by the majority of the Planning Commission on Thursday. But the commission recommended the legislation be amended to allow for more parking than currently proposed.

The legislation, sponsored by Supervisor Chris Daly, intends to reduce downtown congestion, promote walkable streets and lower the cost of housing.

The commission on Thursday recommended a maximum of three parking spots for every four units of new housing downtown, while Daly’s legislation calls for one spot for every two units. The legislation would also ban freestanding parking garages downtown.

Yes, San Francisco’s urban-minded supervisors want to restrict the number of parking spaces in downtown residential developments. Keep in mind that San Francisco is far more dense than St. Louis with over twice the number of people per square mile. The downtown resident in San Francisco has many more choices for mass transit along with goods and services within walking distance.

Existing warehouses in downtown St. Louis have a parking limit of sorts — the buildings will only accommodate so much indoor parking. Thus, many downtown loft developments end up with one space per unit. But we are already seeing a point where all the old buildings have been purchased for development. This means we’ll soon see new buildings filling in the vacant gaps around the edges of downtown. With these new buildings may come the call for two spaces per unit.

So while San Francisco is debating 2-3 spaces for every four units we may see 8 spaces for every four units. At this rate, we may never encourage more walking, biking or mass transit use while pricing units beyond the means of many. I’d like to see a cap of say 6 parking spaces for every four units. We could trigger some incentives such as building higher (more units = more $) if parking is reduced to one space per unit. Thinking ahead we should set progressively tighter parking restrictions published well in advance.

So let’s assume we, in the next year or two, impose a limit of six spaces for four units with bonus hight incentives for a 1:1 ratio. Five years later the regular limit might become five spaces for four units with incentives for three spaces for every four units. Another fives years could see this drop again.

– Steve