Parking For A Renovated Railway Exchange: Old Garage Or Internal?

Let’s assume Hudson Holdings moves forward and buys the Railway Exchange for redevelopment, see Friday’s post: Cautiously Optimistic About the Future of the Railway Exchange Building, parking may be an issue.

The Railway Exchange occupies city block 128, bounded by Olive, 7th, Locust, and 6th. It contains 1.2 million square feet but not a single parking spot. In the early 60s buildings to the South were razed so a 1,000-car garage could be constructed.

b

The garage has lots of issues:

• It’s 54+ years old
• It has low heights
• Looks dated inside & out
• Is awkward to use as a motorist
• Is unsecure — elevators open onto the sidewalk

Using some of the building’s square footage for parking is an option, especially the basement level. The problem? The building doesn’t have a back side. All four facades are finished and face public streets.

Last year parking came up for the Mark Twain Building in Kansas City, another future project of Hudson Holdings:

According to Chuck Reitzel, a project manager with Ebersoldt + Associates Architecture, Hassenflu is not planning parking on just four floors. Reitzel, who is Hassenflu’s architect for the Mark Twain project, said parking is planned on six levels: the lower level, first floor, a mezzanine level, and floors two through four.

The parking would be accessed off of Baltimore Avenue through a new garage doorway cut into the northeast corner of the building, Reitzel said. He said a driveway would proceed from the entrance through what his now retail space occupied by Goodden Jewellers, with a circulation ramp allowing motorists to access higher levels.

See the facade they wanted to cut open for garage access here, next door is a parking garage.

Back to the Railway Exchange…

Another option is to raze the 1962 garage and start over with a modern garage, or perhaps just a new structure to go under Olive St into the building.  Either would be very expensive.

I favor building the modern streetcar project that was floated a few years ago, it would run on 2-3 sides of the Railway Exchange.  T

he ground floor of the Railway Exchange should be active habitable space — restaurants/retail– not parking. No garage access/curb cut should be permitted either. Already too many garage entries to negotiate as a pedestrian downtown.

— Steve Patterson

Deplorable Surface Parking Lot At 1601 Locust Cited, Fined

Yesterday I posted about a privately-owned surface parking lot that has used 75o square feet of the public right-of-way for years, see Deutsch Family Has Profited From Public Right-Of-Way For Nearly Two Decades. Today’s post is about another privately-owned surface parking lot five blocks West.

The lot at 1601 Locust St. is next door to my condo building. When the original condos were sold, and when I bought a couple of years later, in 2007, the lot was under control/ownership of Loftworks  — the developer of Printer’s Lofts. The plan was to construct a new building and connect to the existing two. However, the economy fell out and Loftworks lost control of the lot.

I first complained about the condition to the Citizen’s Service Bureau in 2013, have done so twice since then. Each time the complaint has been marked resolved. I’m told by 5th Ward Neighborhood Improvement Specialist Sharie Taylor that the owner has been sent multiple violation letters. In an email to me she wrote:

[The inspector]  currently has this property under notice and will be doing a reinspection in the near future. If the owner has still not complied, then they will receive fines for each violation. Unfortunately, beyond that, the city can’t do much to force the owners to fix the lot.

I asked about court, and she confirmed that’s the next step if fines aren’t paid. My motivation, however, is maintenance & upgrades. Upgrades, not just new asphalt? Yes, because two other problems exist. The one disabled spot is not identifiable:

What remained in 2013 is no longer visible. The other issue is people parking on the 16th Street sidewalk — easily prevented by wheel stops.

Again, wheel stops along 16th Street would prevent cars from pulling so far forward they overhang the sidewalk or have tires fully on the sidewalk.

Unsatisfied with the city’s pace, I faxed the owner, Kathleen Bonan, manager of Saylor Properties #1, LLC, which has the same address as the law form Bonan, Bonan, & Rowland: 116 E. Market St. McLeansboro IL  Faxed? Yes, no website or email could be found for their law firm.

There are a lot of Bonan’s in McLeansboro, like Hunt:

One of southern Illinois’ largest contributors to Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s campaign fund denied pay-to-play politics were a factor in his appointment to the state Department of Employment Security. 

Since 2002, Hunt Bonan, owner of Market Street Bancshares, the holding company for Peoples National Bank, made personal contributions to Friends of Blagojevich totaling $20,375, according to the State Board of Elections. Contributions listed as provided by Market Street Bancshares total $124,225. 

Bonan is one of six residents from either Mount Vernon or McLeansboro to receive appointments during the governor’s six years in office. (State Journal-Register)

He and his brother bill are part of People’s National Bank.

On August 8, 1988, shareholders Bill Bonan, an attorney, and his brother, Hunt Bonan, formed a bank holding company for the purpose of acquiring 100% of the stock of Peoples National Bank. The holding company was named Market Street Bancshares, Inc. as a reference to the location of their family law firm, Bonan & Bonan, on Market Street in McLeansboro. At the time the holding company was formed, Peoples National Bank assets totaled $50 million. The original Board of Directors of the holding company was comprised of:

Bill Bonan, Chairman of the Board, Secretary and Treasurer
Hunt Bonan, President
Frank Bonan, Attorney at Law – Father of Bill and Hunt Bonan
Duane Baumann
Steven Epperson
Richard Rubenacker
Bob Prince
Don York

I don’t see financial hardship being a reason for the condition of the lot.

Later this week I plan to stop by the offices of the operator, SP+/Central Parking, located at 720 Olive, Ste 1650. Between them and the owners this mess needs to get addressed!

— Steve Patterson

$4.1 Million Dollar Judgement Against Owner of Condemned Parking Garage

In July 2014 the parking garage at Tucker & Locust closed for repairs. It seemed routine at the time.

It turns out the damage to the post-tensioned structure was more extensive than originally known. Since my original July 2014 tweet, I’ve posted quite a bit about it:

• December 2014: Parking Garage Undergoing Time-Consuming Multi-Million Dollar Restoration; Businesses Closed, Jobs Lost
• April 2015: Parking Garage Repairs Halted, Emergency Structural Condemnation Issued
• July 2015: Car Hit Planters & Scaffolding Outside Condemned Parking Garage
• July 2015: Readers: New Building Should Replace Condemned Parking Garage
• January 2016: Court Documents Shed Some Light On Condemned Parking Garage

Central Parking System, who operated the garage, sued the owners — two LLCs that begin with Tucker Parking.  Tucker Parking countersued.

On March 22nd Judge Dowd ruled:

JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S ORDERS OF OCTOBER 13, 2015 AND JANUARY 21, 2016, WHICH THE COURT EXPRESSLY INCORPORATES HEREIN, THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:

1. BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COUNT I) AND BREACH OF LEASE (COUNT II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

So Central lost on their first two counts against Tucker. Let’s continue…

2. ON PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC’S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT (COUNT III), THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF FOUR MILLION ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-SIX CENTS ($4,161,424.76).

Ouch. What is “unjust enrichment” anyway? The Wax Legal Dictionary defines it as:

The retention of a benefit conferred by another, that is not intended as a gift and is not legally justifiable, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 

The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are:  the enrichment of the party accused of unjust enrichment; that such enrichment was at the expense of the party seeking restitution; and the circumstances were such that in equity and good conscience restitution should be made.  An additional requirement is that the party accused of unjust enrichment must know of the benefit conferred; to ensure that the benefit was not foisted on the recipient and is something for which compensation is reasonably expected.

Recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment typically occurs where there was no contract between the parties, or a contract turns out to be invalid.

The specifics of this principal aren’t clear to me from the ruling.

3. ON DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC FOR BREACH OF LEASE (COUNT I), THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC IN PART AND IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC IN PART. SPECIFICALLY, TO THE EXTENT DEFENDANTS BASE THEIR BREACH OF LEASE CLAIM ON CENTRAL PARKING’S ALLEGED OBLIGATION TO REPAIR THE GARAGE’S POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE TERM, THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI LLC. TO THE EXTENT DEFENDANTS BASED THEIR BREACH OF LEASE CLAIM ON CENTRAL PARKING’S ALLEGED OBLIGATION TO REPAIR DETERIORATION OR DELAMINATION TO THE GARAGE’S CONCRETE SURFACE BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE TERM, THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC. HOWEVER, THE COURT FINDS THAT TUCKER CANNOT PROVE ANY DAMAGES FOR THIS BREACH BECAUSE, AS SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S ORDER OF OCTOBER 13, 2015, THE GARAGE IS AT THE END OF ITS USEFUL LIFE, THE GARAGE’S POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM IS BEYOND REPAIR, AND THE FAILURE OF THE POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM WAS DUE TO NORMAL OR ORDINARY “WEAR AND TEAR.” AS A RESULT, THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC.

Above we can get the message — the garage can’t be repaired.

4. ON DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC FOR WASTE (COUNT III), NEGLIGENCE (COUNT IV), AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COUNT V), THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC.

5. BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT DISMISSES DEFNDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION FOR SUIT ON GUARANTY (COUNTII), WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6. COSTS ARE ASSESSED AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKINGS EQUITIES, LLC PURSUANT TO RULE 77.01. SO ORDERED: 32929-JUDGE DAVID L. DOWD

So who owns this garage, who is behind these two Tucker Parking LLCs?

Both were created in Missouri on April 19, 2007, indicating a home state in Delaware. TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES LLC was formed in Delaware two days earlier. City records indicate tax bills are mailed to 24 Church Street, Montclair NJ.

The legal battle may continue for a while. Still, we can accept some facts:

• The existing garage is unusable, it’ll need to be razed eventually.
• The owner isn’t in St. Louis.
• The owner of the adjacent former Post-Dispatch building would like to have parking for tenant use.
• Many downtown residents, myself included, don’t want any surface parking or even more obvious parking garages.

I contacted 7th Ward Alderman Jack Coatar via email, who said:

It is my understanding that this garage has reached the end of its lifespan and that it would be extremely expensive to shore up this garage and make it safe to use. I would like to see the garage demolished and replaced with another parking structure that includes a first floor retail component.

I would like the development committee of the Downtown Neighborhood Association’s Planning and Zoning Committee to take an active role in the planning for any future use of this site.

If a new garage is built, I’d like it to be enclosed with an exhaust system rather than being open.

— Steve Patterson

Too Easy To Meander Inside Many Parking Garages

Lately the issue of safety in parking garages has been in the local news:

There are surveillance cameras at the parking garage on N. 7th street near Washington Ave., however the company that owns and operates the garage, SP Plus, told the victim in a voicemail, “The cameras are not operational”

Now, two years later, it’s the same story. According to an email sent to News 4 by the victim of the sexual assault that happened two weeks ago, SP Plus told her “There are no cameras at 701 N. 7th Street. We apologize for the inconvenience.” (KMOV)

I’m no fan of parking garages — except when I want to take pictures from them. They can often provide some of the best vantage points. Well. assuming I can access them.

From a photography perspective I like that I can easily access many downtown parking garages without being stopped, but that’s not good for the personal safety of those who park in them. Newer garages seem to do a better job of keeping out people who aren’t retrieving their vehicle.  Still, with any public garage a person can get access if they drive in.

— Steve Patterson

Kiener Parking Garages Need A Major Facelift

Work has started on the “$19 million revamp of Kiener Plaza”, which will help guide visitors to the upcoming city-facing entrance to the museum under the Arch. With the 1980s Arch parking garage razed visitors will be directed to existing parking garages in the central business district (CBD) — largely the two Kiener garages — across Chestnut Street from Kiener Plaza.

After investing a billion in changes to improve the Arch experience and connectivity to downtown, the first & last thing many will see are the Kiener garages. Today I want to discuss the problems and how we might solve them.

The Problems

• They’re privately owned
• Owner has little financial incentive to make them more attractive
• They’re in too good of condition to buy & replace

There is some good news…

The Solutions

With the ugly concrete panels being attacked to the structure one solution is to remove them and reskin it. Easier said than done, but worthy of discussion. Before I go any further let me say I don’t know how this would be paid for. The city has offered facade grants to building owners before, but otherwise using public money on a private building has issues. Perhaps tax abatement if the owner does it? I think this can be figured out — let’s discuss the design.

The old anchors into the structure might not support a new skin after the concrete skin is cut off. Despite being open in the center the exterior walls should continue to allow for airflow — natural ventilation eliminates the need for costly mechanical systems.

I think creative types could come up with some interesting ideas on how to reskin these. I want to share one such parking garage I saw in Cincinnati in November.

This screen on an old garage was the work of artist Julian Stanczak, it is titled “Additional”. I like that the Cincinnati garage only had this colorful side facing 6th St.

In St. Louis each of the two Kiener garages could have something unique for each, for each side, or both. I think everyone would agree the South facades facing Kiener Plaza are the most visually important.  All facades should look good day & night — same for the pedestrian entrances for each.

In the past people have mentioned giant video screens but those are costly, cut off airflow, and contribute to light pollution. Steel mesh, colored aluminum, LED lights, etc. are just some of the materials that come to mind. I’d like to see solar panels on the South facade and a new roof canopy to generate power for new LED lighting.

Thanks to reader “Mark-AL” for technical advice.

— Steve Patterson