Family Dollar Misses The Walkability Mark

The Family Dollar store at 6000 Natural Bridge was built in 2006.

I’ve stopped by twice in the last two weeks and both times I spotted customers who were pedestrians.  During the week there were more pedestrian customers than driving customers, the opposite was true yesterday.  Family Dollar caters to a lower income crowd, those who are often transit dependent. Yet, they don’t make it easy for their own customers who arrive on foot.

Family Dollar replaced the public sidewalk along Natural Bridge — 300 feet along the property line. That is a good start, but just 20 more feet of sidewalk would have enabled pedestrians to get from the public sidewalk to the private walk in front of the door without having to walk through grass or mud.

Pedestrians have so little value in St. Louis that a business with many pedestrian customers can just ignore how they come and go. St. Louis needs to mandate that new buildings be built with connections from public sidewalk to main entrance. Also, new occupancy of existing buildings should also require a pedestrian connection. If a public sidewalk exists, businesses should be required to connect to it. Period!

Pedestrian connections should be a given in the city, especially when tax incentives are given for the development!

Ordinance 67014. sponsored by 22nd Ward Ald, Jeffrey Boyd, covers lots of strings for the redevelopment of the property but the basic need of walking from the public sidewalk to the front door of the business establishment just wasn’t important enough I guess.  The above tax info can be found at Geo St. Louis.

I have contacted Family Dollar to see about them connecting to the public sidewalk, hopefully they will be receptive.

– Steve Patterson

South Grand Will Be Much Improved

Work on the new streetscape for South Grand has started.  The new design will address shortcomings of the current streetscape.  Very little of the new work is complete but what I’ve seen so far looks great.  Can’t wait to visit in my wheelchair, once finished, to do a full review.

– Steve Patterson

The City Is Better Today Than In 1990

I was just 23 when I moved to St. Louis in August 1990.  At that point the 1990 Census had been completed, but the numbers weren’t yet revealed.  Thus, the last population number for St. Louis at the time I moved here was 452,801 (1980).  I was moving from a city with fewer people to a bigger city, Oklahoma City had 404,014 residents in 1980.  Oklahoma City also has ten times the land area of St. Louis so the urban density was and  is far far less.  But I didn’t live here during the decade of 450k+ residents.

As I was moving from the Central West End to Old North St. Louis (then known as Murphy-Blair) in March 1991 the new population figure was released: 396,685, a loss of 56,116.  That seemed like nothing compared to the loss of 169,435 between 1970-1980. We had just dipped below 400,000, the first time we’d fallen to levels not seen since the 19th century.

In 2001 the 2000 Census showed another loss, this time 48,496 fewer residents.  Each time the Census figures came out I considered bailing, jumping off the sinking ship.  This time is different, leaving is the last thing on my mind.  More than ever I want to stay and fight so the 2020 Census shows a gain rather than a loss.

The growth of St. Louis slowed in the 1920s and the the city lost a little population in the 30s.  The shift to newer housing was well under way when the post-WWII boom coupled caused housing shortages and gave St. Louis the false impression the 1940 drop was a fluke.

Harland Bartholomew’s destructive vision to remake the city. From the 1947 plan:

The City of St. Louis can anticipate a population of 900,000 persons by 1970, based on these assumptions:

1. That the population of the St. Louis Metropolitan District continues to maintain its present proportion to total urban population of the United States.
2. That an attractive environment for living will be developed throughout the city to counteract current decentralization trends.
3. That the city is, nevertheless, a maturing urban center that can never expect to attain the tremendous past growth of certain earlier periods.

The #2 item above meant urban renewal.  Erasing the old walkable city and building back an auto-friendly city. Tens of thousands were forced from their homes for highway construction and housing projects like Pruitt-Igoe.

Today our loses are for different reasons: an ingrained anti-city bias and a dysfunctional public school system. I think we can fix these issues.

The 2020 Census may show another loss which is fine if the city continues to get better as it has these last 20 years.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Reaction to the 2010 Census showing a loss of 29k residents?

The realization that St. Louis continued to lose population between 2000-2010 is on everyone’s mind.  What better topic for a weekly poll?  The poll is in the upper right corner of the site.

Here is some info you may or may not have seen:

Only four of the 28 wards showed an increase in residents: 5,6,7, 19.

How did these four wards, all grouped in the center, manage to increase population?  Could be this is where the Slay administration focused their attention?  Maybe the core offers the most urban lifestyle?  Or both?

If we look at population changes on a neighborhood basis (3-page PDF) we see the numbers are all over the place. Downtown had a 359% increase, going from 806 to 3701.  Downtown West, where I live, only had a 79% increase, going from 2,204 to 3,940 residents. Yes, Downtown West (West of 14th St?) has more residents than Downtown proper.  McRee Town, on the other hand, had a 43% decline.

I’ll have my thoughts tomorrow.  In the meantime the poll is in the upper right.

– Steve Patterson

Population Loss, Not Gain, For St. Louis

Last month I did a reader poll asking What Will St. Louis’ Population Be In The 2010 Census? The following week the poll results showed  optimism:

Q: The 2000 Census had St. Louis’ population at 348,189, the 2009 estimate at 356,587. Where will the 2010 count be?

1. More than 356,587: 82 [ 58.57%]
2. Between 348,189 and 356,587: 36 [25.71%]
3. Less than 348,198: 13 [9.29%]
4. who knows, will just have to wait for the results 7 [5%]
5. Other answer… 2 [1.43%]

I was in the #2 camp, thinking we had held steady.  Wrong!

The city of St. Louis lost nearly 29,000 people during the past decade, a decline of about 8 percent of its population. (Census: St. Louis Population down 8 Percent)

On the plus side, an 8% decline is less than 2000 (12.2%) 1990 (12.4%) and way less than 1980 (27.2%).  Still stings though.

As the numbers get examined in the coming weeks, months and years I think we will see much of the population loss occurred in the poorer tracts.  Past loses eroded the middle class – both black & white.  The 2010 Census didn’t collect economic data such as household income so analysis will be difficult.

We all need to remember the good things we have going on, the numerous walkable commercial districts, the renovated architecture, etc.  That didn’t change yesterday.  I love this city no less today than I did a week ago.

The population loss does affirm my belief that we need major restructuring at City Hall. Every employee, elected official, department, process needs to be evaluated. I don’t want to change the city charter, I want to replace it — start from scratch. We must do something different or in ten years I’ll be saying a 6% loss isn’t as bad.

– Steve Patterson