Home » Planning & Design » Recent Articles:

Transportation and the Urban Form

The host of this site, Steve Patterson, and I are both passionate about urban design issues. One area where we differ is how the interaction between transportation options and the urban form plays out in the real world. Steve, and others, believe that requiring “better”, more appropriate and/or more restrictive design standards, through efforts like moving to form-based zoning and reducing available parking, will somehow convince the uninformed public to become more enlightened and to change their ways.  I have a different perspective, that available transportation options inform the urban form, including our land use regulations and their application on a daily basis.

I’m not going to go back to the discovery of the wheel, but I am going to go back 150 years.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution / the American Civil War, transportation options were limited to human, animal, water or wind power – you could walk or row, ride a horse or a mule, use a sailboat or “go with the flow”.  The result was a world made up of farms, relatively small settlements, seaports, river ports and a few larger centers of banking, trade and government.  There was no zoning, as we know it, but we did have our westward expansion, with land being given away for free to anyone willing to “tame the wilderness”, through farming, ranching or mining.

Cities were just starting to build rudimentary water supply and sewer systems, and elevators and air conditioning were non-existent.  You got an urban environment marked by row houses, small, local retail establishments and tiny signs.  You didn’t have drive-throughs or dry cleaners, computers or gas stations; you did have hitching posts and coal for heat, telegraph and manure in the streets, Bob Cratchet and Tiny Tim.  You can find many preserved examples up and down the east coast, including Colonial Williamsburg.  And St. Louis started to grow as the Gateway to the West, primarily as a trading center and a transportation hub.  Examples around here include Soulard, Carondelet and Baden

The ability to capture the power of steam, through the boiler and the steam engine gave us railroads, cable cars and steam heat.  It also gave us the ability to run machinery with something other than water power, greatly expanding where factories could be located and how much they could produce.  More importantly, electricity was staring to be harnessed, with major improvements in generation, lighting and motors.  From the 1850’s through the 1890’s, city life changed rapidly.  Factories, along with their need for lots of workers, worked better in urban settings than in rural ones.  Cities like St. Louis became industrial centers as well as trading centers.

Quoting from a story in the 12/13/09 edition of the Daytona Beach News-Journal;

According to the Web site trolleystop.com, the first successful trolley system in the United States began operation in Richmond, Va. in 1887.  After the initial success in Richmond, almost all of the horse car lines in North America were converted to electric power.  The electric trolleys became so popular that the street railway industry experienced explosive growth almost overnight.  As the popularity of automobiles and buses boomed in the 1920s, however, most trolley companies began converting their lines to bus service.

That was certainly the case here.  We had multiple streetcar companies competing for riders and we saw explosive growth of streetcar suburbs, both inside and outside the city limits.

Streetcars and buses allowed workers to live further away from work.  You still needed to walk to the transit line, but it meant living within walking distance of your job was no longer an essential requirement.  People had more options, and many of those, that could afford to, moved out of the older, denser parts of town, leaving them to new waves of immigrants or to see them torn down and replaced by factories.  Retailers were still expected to offer home delivery, so stay-at-home moms (yes it’s a stereotype, but it was the reality) shopped for fresh food pretty much every day and kids walked or biked to neighborhood schools.  This was also the time when the first attempts at zoning started to occur, primarily to separate industrial uses from residential ones.

The next big “step forward” was Henry Ford’s efforts to produce an affordable automobile.  His success, in the 1920’s, was the next big step in the suburbanization of America and St. Louis.  Throughout south city one can find garages that are too small for many contemporary vehicles – they were built to shelter the vehicle that expanded Dad’s transportation options, Ford’s Model T.  The residential neighborhoods of that time were still walkable (with sidewalks) and they still had corner groceries, but they were growing less dense.

The next big impact on the urban environment was World War II, both directly and indirectly.  Factories moved from multi-story to single-story, sprawling structures.  The internal combustion engine became more reliable and synthetic rubber made tires much less of a pain in the a**.  Women entered the work force in large numbers and pent-up demand for consumer products continued to build.

Once the war ended, we experienced several decades of unprecedented prosperity, from the mid ’40’s through the ’70’s.  We built the interstate highway system and moms learned to drive.  FHA and VA loans favored single-family homes, primarily new, suburban ones, over denser, multi-family options.  We went from single-car families to 2-car families.  We embraced the suburban shopping center and the enclosed mall.

Just because it was a whole lot easier, people chose driving themselves over taking public transit.  They chose living in the new suburbs over living in established urban areas, especially those that had experienced decades of deferred maintenance (the Great Depression followed by wartime rationing).  Employers, schools and retailers all responded by offering more and more “free” parking, either by planning for it from the start, in new suburban developments, or by buying up and tearing down existing buildings in more-established urban areas.  This mobility also resulted in the Euclidean zoning that many of us are questioning today – it codified a preference for convenient parking over both density and walkability.

The end result is the world we live in today.  It reflects the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Americans, as reflected by the actions of our elected officials.  We trade sprawl and congested highways for the “freedom” to live where we want, work where we can find jobs and to shop at generic chains who have mastered the worldwide logistics supply chain.  We have seen St. Louis lose both population and jobs.  And we have two choices – we can continue to become more suburban, building more shopping centers, single-family homes and “free” parking.  Or we can redirect our efforts, differentiate ourselves from our suburban neighbors, encourage density and create viable transportation alternatives.

To attract people out of their cars and trucks won’t be easy.  There’s a real attraction to privacy, control and convenience.  But, as a big believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences, I find it interesting that more members of the Generation Y are willing to embrace mass transit.  It turns out that people who text, tweet and surf the mobile net would actually rather let someone else do the driving, IF they can figure out how to make it work.  Whether that involves reinventing Metro’s system and creating a market for higher densities or developing a taxi infrastructure that mimics that in New York, it appears that we may be on the cusp of a another significant change in how people want to live, work and commute.  Combine that with the growing success of, and the reliance many people have on, online shopping, and in many ways we’re returning to the “home delivery” model of yore.

Steve’s belief in the need for form-based zoning could very well be reflected in actual change, just not one driven by direct logic and/or nostalgia.  I doubt that we’ll see the imminent demise of the suburban shopping center or the type of store Schnuck’s or Direbergs typically builds.  But I can see a future where Transit Oriented Development will gain traction on both the residential side and on the employment/educational side – it’s actually slowly playing out here locally at the Barnes campus on Kingshighway.  The single-occupant vehicle could very well become an anachronism for the daily commute, saved only for shopping, recreation and regional out-of-town trips.  Whether it ends up being garaged for days at a time or rented only when needed will be a personal decision.  But these decisions will inform what “sells”, and in turn, what gets built, and ultimately, what our legislators will see a need to codify.

– Jim Zavist

 

Ballpark Village was a village in 1908

A week ago I suggested the vacant Ballpark Village site be divided (platted) and sold as building lots to begin to develop the total site.  One person questioned me when I said the area once contained hundreds of buildings.  He said it was probably more like dozens and dozens.  I admit I didn’t count before I made my claim.  I’ve gone back to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the site as of December 1908 to see.  While not hundreds it is more than a few dozen.  Either way the point is the same — smaller structures made for more diversity and interest.  The area was built by many over a long period of time rather than sitting idle for a single project.

The area is bounded by Broadway on the East, Clark on the South, 8th on the West and Walnut on the North.  In 1908 Elm ran parallel to and between Walnut & Clark until 7th Street.  This divided the land into five blocks – Elm was removed during 1960s urban renewal.

BPV site in 2006, East garage in background
BPV site in 2006, East garage in background

The following are the 1908 maps for the BPV site along with the East & West parking garages that bookend the site.

4th West to Broadway (5th) – currently stadium East garage:

Broadway West to 6th:

6th West to 7th:

7th West to 8th:

8th West to 9th – currently stadium West garage:

Too many buildings to count.  They vary in size and no doubt in age.  Most are brick (pink) but some are wood frame (yellow) and a few are stone (blue).  Not all the land was filled in 1908 (8th & Walnut).

For more than a half century development has followed the Urban Renewal model — clear large swaths of land and assemble manageable size parcels of land into huge blocks. Financing for these increasingly out of scale projects has grown unmanageable.

Here is the video I took when the project details were announced in October 2006:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-MS5l-S8yc

As originally outlined, the project was to have nearly 800,000 total square feet and a total cost of $387 million.  The site between the garages was once again going to have Elm, thus being divided into six blocks.  That works out to $64.5 million per block – a substantial sum to raise.  The Cardinals and developer Cordish should abandon the mega project methodology by 1) creating the through street grid to form the six blocks 2) subdivide each of the six blocks into 3-10 parcels of land to be developed by them and/or sold to qualified buyers for them to build on the land.  Deed restrictions would not allow surface parking and would require minimum building heights (3-15 floors depending upon parcel).  Each block should have a minimum of two buildings.  Blank walls should be forbidden while numerous doors and windows required/encouraged.

As part of the site’s infrastructure, internal parking structures may be required to meet the total future need.  Streets, sidewalks and parking are built first and future buildings would surround the parking structures eventually.  With six blocks it would probably have 3-6 garages, ideally partially underground.  These garages could be built out in phases as lots are sold.

Other developers and investors could build within the site.  Say one group can finance $30 million for a single building, that is one more toward the goal.  Piece by piece the area would fill in.

– Steve Patterson

 

All about the edges

Edges are as important than the center.  This is true with a batch of brownies and with urban areas. Surface parking or structured garages often surround downtown areas, creating a disconnect to adjacent neighborhoods.

From too numerous surface parking lots (especially along Tucker) to the massive size and blank walls of the convention center & dome, the neighborhoods immediately North of downtown St. Louis.

Throughout our region interstate highways also serve as edges that separate.  A goal needs to be increasing connections — filling in gaps by building on surface parking lots, removing highways and eliminating long blank walls.  Work on the edges while at the same time as the center.

– Steve Patterson

 

Readers: St. Louis’ zoning needs to be changed

December 15, 2009 Zoning 14 Comments

Ninety-five percent of the readers that voted in the poll last week agree that the City of St. Louis needs new zoning.  95%!

Q: Kansas City, Denver and other cities are replacing their old zoning codes to reflect current views/vision. Should St. Louis replace its 1947 zoning code?

  • Yes, we need zoning to set an urban vision rather than piecemeal sprawl: 102 (95%)
  • Unsure: 4 (4%)
  • No, leave zoning matters on a case by case basis: 1 (1%)

Zoning classifications used in a municipality were never intended to be used unchanged for more than a half century.  Even St. Louis long time planner (1916-1950) Harland Bartholomew would have advocated a regular review and revision.  To city hall changing a parcel(s) from one classification to another is changing zoning.  To me, and I think to many of you, changing zoning means tossing out the old classifications and starting entirely from scratch – built around how we envision our city in the coming decades. Cities from coast to coast are realizing how use-based zoning has failed them and are embarking on the long process to revamp how their cities are developed.

Zoning sets the ground rules for development.  It regulates the building size, placement on the site and parking. Most cities have Euclidean Zoning which obsesses about the use of the property but could care less if the buildings on the street make for a quality environment.  Ensuring single family homes are separated from multi-family which is separate from retail which is separate from office is the most important goal in use based zoning.  Or the most important goal is ensuring that each use has parking because with all the separation a car is required to go from home to the office to dinner and to the store.

In short, use-based zoning creates auto-centric sprawl.  We usually think of sprawl as that mess on the edge.  While that certainly is sprawl I think the use-based zoning type of sprawl that eats away at the core is far more dangerous.    The core of regions offers something different than new edge development but if use-based zoning remains eventually the core will be completely undone – that was the intention when the use-based zoning was put into place.

Starting the ball rolling on on new zoning should be a top priority of city government for 2010.  The fact development is slow right now is a good thing.  This gives us the freedom to determine the vision for our neighborhoods and commercial corridors without debating specific projects.  Largely residential sections of the city wouldn’t see much change.  Major corridors like Kingshighway, Natural Bridge, and Jefferson would be where changes would occur.  The emphasis, in my mind, would be on form rather than use.  Shared parking rather than each business having their own lot.

In 2010 I will continue posting on this important issue.

– Steve Patterson

 

It takes a village, or does it?

Ballpark Village was going to be a dynamic entertainment center adjacent to the 2006 Busch Stadium.

The project stalled along with the economy.

April 2006
April 2006

The site was the location of the previous Busch Stadium (1966-2006).  A hundred years ago the three block area bounded by Broadway (5th), Clark, 8th and Walnut Street (map) would have contained hundreds of individual buildings under different ownership.  The village was a collection of many.  It was not built and financed as one big package.

Land used to be subdivided into individual narrow and deep parcels.  Buildings were then built one at a time.  Larger buildings were built by combining more than one parcel.  Over time the three blocks were filled in and then they would evolve as older buildings would be selectively removed and taller buildings would take their place.  As decades passed these three blocks gradually changed.

In the 1960s this changed.  The three blocks and many others were completely razed.  Evolutionary change was out and the age of the big project was in.  I think our 50 year experiment with the massive clearance project needs to come to an end.  The fact Ballpark Village was delayed presents a great opportunity to move forward to looking back to the earlier small scale model.

I’m talking about a fundamental shift in the current standards for real estate development.  As big multi-block projects gets harder to finance and build as a single package we need to break it up into smaller pieces.  Legal mechanisms exist to ensure the total vision will be realized once all the parcels have been built out.  It might take 10-15 years by the time it is fully built out but great spaces and great spaces seldom happen at once.

We are close to four years of the site being vacant and we don’t know how many more years it will remain so.  Had the site been platted as individual building sites we may have already seen a new structure or two in the area.

St. Louis has other sites where then plan it to develop a multi-block area where the option is all or nothing.

– Steve Patterson

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe