Readers Split on New Urbanist Village at Nearly Dead Jamestown Mall

As I expected, there was no consensus among readers on the poll last week:

Q: Thoughts on the Plan to Raze Jamestown Mall and build a New Urbanist Village?

1. The sooner we rebuild auto-centric suburbs into walkable communities the better 23 [21.7%]
2. Nice concept but will probably require too much public subsidy 18 [16.98%]
3. Huge waste of time, money and energy to try to make the suburbs walkable 16 [15.09%]
4. The mall is privately owned, St. Louis County shouldn’t be involved at all 14 [13.21%]
5. New Urbanism is artificial urbanism 13 [12.26%]
6. Other answer… 11 [10.38%]
7. Government must change the zoning to do anything different with the site. 6 [5.66%]
8. unsure/no opinion 4 [3.77%]
9. Jamestown Mall should not be razed 1 [0.94%]

For a while the huge waste of time answer was in the top spot, glad to see it drop to #3.  The reason St. Louis County is involved is the property is located in unincorporated St. Louis County.  The county is taking a proactive step in figuring out what is best for the area so that zoning and other land-use laws can be modified to ensure what happens at the site is what the community wants.

1. the development area is in a far corner of NoCo, right idea, wrong place
2. Seems too far removed from major pop. to be worth the money.
3. The plans formulated today will someday fail just as those of our forefathers.
4. They should build an Ikea there instead
5. Return it to greenspace
6. Wrong location, location, location.
7. If we don’t redevelope, we’ll soon be a community of empty shopping ce
8. Turn it into something different.
9. Downzone to agriculture/mix. Anything but this dumb idea!
10. Location, location, location!
11. Work with the active business owners to create a revitalization plan

To me the site is the ideal location for such a retrofit. I visited the mall before my original post, arriving on a MetroBus from the Hanley MetroLink station.  I was impressed how busy the bus was all along Lindbergh. I’ve visited the area again during the poll, this time I drove up 367 from North St. Louis and then south on Lindbergh (67) when I left. Google Maps is a great resource but it is no substitute for seeing a place first hand.

To many living in a new home where they can walk to shops and be surrounded by a green ring is idea, very English.

And new homes are being constructed very close to the mall, mostly along Lindbergh Blvd.  The above example is on Misty Crossing Ct, in the Misty Hollow subdivision.

Pure economics dictate the mall site will never be agriculture or green space ever again, the four concepts for the site included one that was pretty green.

The “Garden Suburb Plan” is the most green of the four, although most leave the SW tip undeveloped. Note the existing houses immediately to the south and west of the site (aerial view). Two dead end streets for the existing Fox Manor subdivision would be connected to the redeveloped site in this plan and two others. Currently the adjacent Fox Manor subdivision has only one way in or out – directly onto Lindbergh Blvd. These existing homes would now be connected to other homes and businesses.

The comments on the post were interesting but often way off base like these poll answers.

– Steve Patterson

“Lingering Not Loitering” – Dan Burden

“Lingering Not Loitering” was the phrase I heard most often from walkability expert Dan Burden when he visited St. Louis recently, his response to University City attempting to keep pedestrians moving (story). I agree, we need more pedestrians lingering on our sidewalks.  Thankfully University City official voted down this controversial bill yesterday (story).

So who is this expert?

He Takes Back the Streets for Walking

Burden, 58, puts bloated thoroughfares on what he calls a “road diet.” In cities as large as Las Vegas, Toronto and Seattle and hamlets as small as Sammamish, Wash., he has trimmed lanes and filled the space with bike routes or a grassy buffer between the asphalt and the sidewalk to ease walkers’ stress. Of course, motorists tend to react to Burden as they might to a jackknifed manure spreader directly in their path. “They say ,’We already have a traffic problem,'” says Burden, “‘and now you want to take lanes away?'”

That’s exactly what he wants to do. But Burden isn’t an autocrat. His preternatural calm — he was a National Geographic photographer before founding Walkable in 1996 — sets people at ease. He knows that slimmer roads are “leaner, safer and more efficient,” and that they take some of the stress off drivers too. “We tend not to like open, scary places, and we try to get through them quicker. Somehow the canopy effect of tree-lined streets slows traffic.” Burden can’t eliminate road rage. But for some drivers, riders and pedestrians across the country, he can create road repose. (Time Magazine)

Burden is now the Executive Director of the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute.

I joined Burden and residents on the two walking audits conducted on Tuesday May 24th. The starting point for both was ConnectCare located at 5535 Delmar Blvd.  That morning we went north on Belt Ave, west on Cates Ave, south on the Ruth Porter Mall and east on Delmar back to ConnectCare.

So what were his comments on the audits and the presentation the night before?

• Design standards dictate how roads are designed, but within the same standards you can get very different results. Most often we get roads that create poor pedestrian environments  — excessively wide lanes with the resulting fast traffic.  But the design standards also allow for roads that work well for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike.
• Lanes are often too wide – say 12ft rather than 10ft.
• Paint is cheap, a right stripe to separate the  outside lane from the parking lane is a cost effective way to slow traffic.
• Roads that have had diets often still move as many cars as before.
• “bulbs” at corners can help cut the distance pedestrians must walk to cross a road in half.
• On-street parking is good because it slows traffic.
• Buildings must watch over sidewalks so pedestrians feel safe.

Here is an excellent video featuring Dan Burden:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcx08S1l-CQ

It was a pleasure meeting him and his staff, it has inspired me to do more.

– Steve Patterson

Sprawl in South County 20 Years Ago

In 1991 I took these three pictures somewhere in south St. Louis County. The three pics were taken from the same spot rotating from left to right.

At the time it was a new subdivision.  Note that some homes have front-facing garages while others have rear-entry garages and paved backyards.

I just wish I could remember the location so I could return. Maybe it is best I don’t know, I’m sure they lovely rolling hills in the background has now been destroyed by two decades of “progress”.  I’m also pretty sure all those new streets still lack shade trees.

– Steve Patterson

Tornado Brings Opportunity To Make Joplin More Pedestrian-Friendly

As we all know, the City of Joplin was hit hard by an EF-5 tornado on May 22, 2011, making this the deadliest year on record. I know the historic & walkable downtown barely escaped the destruction. Much of Joplin, like most US cities, was a big ugly mess of auto-centric sprawl before the tornado.

I stayed a night in Joplin in September last year and posted about having to drive to the restaurant next door to the hotel to have dinner. This area wasn’t damaged so making it walkable will have to wait but the areas where every building was leveled is a perfect opportunity to make slight improvements as they rebuild.

Wikipedia has the most detailed account of the path of destruction I’ve found:

The tornado initially touched down just east of the Kansas state boundary near the end of 32nd Street (37.056958°N 94.588423°W) between 5:35 and 5:41 p.m. CDT (2235 and 2241 UTC) and tracked just north of due east. Surveys remain incomplete there so it is possible it may have started in Kansas and crossed the state line into Missouri.

Damage became very widespread and catastrophic as it entered residential subdivisions in southwest Joplin. In addition, St. John’s Regional Medical Center (37.060554°N 94.530938°W) in the same area was heavily damaged with many windows and the exterior walls damaged and the upper floors destroyed. Several fatalities were reported there. Virtually every house in that area near McClelland Boulevard and 26th Street was flattened, and some were blown away in the area as well. Trees sustained severe debarking, a nursing home and a church school in southwest Joplin were also flattened and several other schools were heavily damaged. Damage in this area was rated as a low-end EF4.

As the tornado tracked eastward, it intensified even more as it crossed Main Street between 20th and 26th Streets. Virtually every business along that stretch was heavily damaged or destroyed and several institutional buildings were destroyed. It tracked just south of downtown, narrowly missing it. More houses were flattened or blown away and trees continued to be debarked. Two large apartment buildings were destroyed, as well as Franklin Technology Center and Joplin High School. Fortunately, no one was in the high school at the time. It approached Range Line Road, the main commercial strip in the eastern part of Joplin, near 20th Street. Damage in this area was rated as a high-end EF4.

The tornado peaked in intensity as it crossed Range Line Road. In that corridor between about 13th and 32nd Streets (37.05528°N 94.478452°W), the damage continued to be very intense and the tornado was at its widest at this point, being nearly 1 mile (1.6 km) wide. Some of the many destroyed buildings include a Cummins warehouse, Walmart Supercenter #59, a Home Depot store, and numerous restaurants, all of which were flattened. Heavy objects, including concrete bumpers and large trucks, were tossed a significant distance, as far as 1/8 mile (200 m) away from the parking lots along Range Line. Numerous other commercial and industrial buildings, as well as more houses, were destroyed with some flattened or blown away as the tornado tracked through southeast Joplin. Many fatalities occurred in this area. Damage in this area was rated as an EF5.

The Red Lobster I’ve been to at 32nd & Range Line is still there, although much of that area was heavily hit.  It has been estimated that anywhere from 10-25% of Joplin’s structures were leveled or damaged.  Joplin now has an opportunity to rebuild in a more connected manner, to take walkability as seriously drivability.

Here are my suggestions for Joplin as they begin:

1. Speed up implementation of ideas from your Long Range Transportation Plan, with particular attention to bicycle & pedestrian & public transit planning.
2. Make sure every public street has a sidewalk on both sides. Do quick corridor plans for the commercial streets where damaged occurred, look for simple changes to rebuild the buildings
3. Require a private sidewalk from the front door of each business to each public sidewalk, this will help create a connected sidewalk network just as roads connect places for cars. Roads provide door to door connectivity, so should the sidewalk network.
4. Eliminate minimum parking requirements for businesses. This will allow businesses to spend less money on parking lots and to possibly locate their buildings closer to the public sidewalk.
5. Build to the sidewalk.  Many destroyed buildings were built up to the sidewalk and should be rebuilt that way. Neighboring buildings that had been allowed to push back from the sidewalk should be rebuilt up to the sidewalk.

My heart goes out to everyone in Joplin.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Thoughts on the Plan to Raze Jamestown Mall and build a New Urbanist Village?

Jamestown Mall (map link) isn’t even 40 years old but St. Louis County officials are ready to put it out of it’s misery:

Jamestown Mall opened in 1973 offering regional commercial merchandise on the suburban fringe of St. Louis, in anticipation of residential development moving into the area. The anticipated residential units never materialized and unfortunately, in recent years, new regional shopping destinations that are located closer to larger populations of shoppers have degraded the effective trade area of Jamestown Mall, causing a decline in sales and foot traffic. Over time, the quality of merchandise offered has declined and is now misaligned with the needs of the North County community. Today, although two of the mall’s anchor buildings are occupied, its other two anchor buildings are vacant and portions of the mall have been walled off to reduce the appearance of vacant space. (Executive Summary PDF)

The idea is to raze most of the mall and build a New Urbanist village following one of four concepts: The traditional neighborhood development plan, the garden suburb plan, the central common plan, or the park & village plan:

The Traditional Neighborhood Development Plan features a block and street network creating a complete village. A diverse village center is focused on the northwest parcel and could extend to the plaza at the center of the neighborhood. This scenario develops the site fully including the southern parcel by Coldwater Creek. The operating anchor stores remain as the village center and neighborhoods develop around them. If the existing anchor stores close, the parcels can be redeveloped to create a more complete neighborhood. As with the other scenarios, a diversity of housing is offered including townhomes, live/ work units, duplexes, multi-family buildings and small homes on private lots.

The Garden Suburb Plan features curvilinear streets, center median boulevards, and larger parks and retention areas throughout the village. Neighborhoods are planned around a network of enhanced natural systems that connect throughout the site and to the natural flowways of Coldwater Creek through the open space systems of neighboring subdivisions. Retail is contained within the northwest parcel, resulting in a focused amount of neighborhood retail. The plan identifies a potential location for a sports complex prominently on Lindbergh Boulevard. The southern portion of the site is illustrated with an amphitheater and a large park that would connect to the Great Rivers Greenway trail system.

The Central Common Plan starts with the premise that all of the mall property comes under single ownership of a master developer. This scenario allows the property to be developed in a manner irrespective of the existing property lines, roadways, underlying infrastructure, and buildings. With more freedom to form plan geometries, a larger central gathering space surrounded by shops and townhomes, similar to Lafayette Square in St. Louis, could be possible. It should be stated that any of the four scenarios would benefit from and could be implemented under single ownership and a master developer.

The Park & Village Plan is one in which portions of the site are transformed into a regional park while others are cleared of their existing conditions to reduce blight, but are held until economic conditions are more favorable to development. The northwest parcel could develop with a small village center with a neighborhood serving retail and expand in the future. Farming may continue on the eastern outparcels. This scenario could be considered an interim stage to the other development scenarios.

The St. Louis County Economic Council has detailed information on the proposal here.

Alex Ihnen writing at NextSTL has advocated a “no build” option, taking a hands-off approach:

Reinventing suburbia is sexy somehow. I guess we have a general idea that something’s wrong with it. But this reinvisioning never really touches on roads or cul-de-sac neighborhoods, no, when we talk of a new suburbia we’re speaking of rebuilding retail. Add in a couple apartments and voila, it’s a Live-Work-Play (maybe even Pray) community. It’s also a ridiculous and wasteful idea.

No where is this absurdity highlighted more than with the current effort to build a new development on the 142-acre Jamestown Mall site.  (THE NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE FOR JAMESTOWN MALL)

The Post-Dispatch touching on doubt for the proposal:

Jamestown Mall, after all, is still open. It has a Macy’s and a J.C. Penney outlet, a movie theater and perhaps two dozen stores along its cavernous concourses. County leaders say they want to involve those businesses in whatever comes next. The site itself is owned by five different entities, in nine chunks. Assembling the land under one owner would make redevelopment easier but will cost money. And the development itself could cost $300 million, according to a rough estimate attached to the plan. (STLToday: Makeover for Jamestown Mall is unveiled)

The reality is 142 acres is a very large site and five ownership entities isn’t that many. The land has been developed for nearly 40 years but the five owners couldn’t do anything different with the site without significant changes to the outdated Euclidean zoning in the region, and that site specifically.

The proposed replacement of this dead mall is the topic of the poll this week.  To vote see the upper right of the site.  On June 8th I will post the poll results and give my reasons for supporting the New Urbanist village concept.

– Steve Patterson