We Can All Agree, St. Louis’ Riverfront Needs Help

Yesterday I had a chance to hear a presentation by Danforth Foundation President Peter Sortino (as a guest at the monthly chapter meeting of the AIA St. Louis). The foundation recently submitted a report to St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. In the report they basically concluded that nothing “transformative” can be done as long as the National Park Service retains control of not only the Arch ground proper but also Memorial Drive.

I’m still reading through the detailed report and appendix of items but here is where we certainly agree:

• The arch grounds, while beautiful, is a large passive area.
• Pedestrian access to the arch grounds and riverfront from downtown is problematic.
• The riverfront is lifeless and disconnected from downtown.

Figuring out goals, objectives and solutions is where I think we may have some differences of opinion.  Still, the foundation is looking for support from the community to agree a problem has existed for some decades — I fully support increased discussion about the future of the area around the Arch.

Despite Changes, Intersection Next to St. Louis University Still Dangerous

Last month I posted about the intersection of Vandeventer & West Pine where, at the request of Saint Louis University and Grand Center, the pedestrian signals had been turned off and the Vandeventer traffic given a flashing yellow. This left pedestrians coming to/from SLU from the neighborhood or parking lots to the West of Vandeventer were left on their own to find a break in traffic to make their way to the pedestrianized former West Pine on SLU’s campus. To be fair, I don’t think they sought out eliminating the pedestrian signals but that was a consequence of the action to give motorists on Vandeventer the flashing yellow.

Last week the lights were suddenly back to a typical red, yellow, green cycle. Sorta. I’d noticed some odd things with the intersection in the last week and a couple of days ago, right before the Young Democrats meeting a block away, I shot a few video clips to show the problems.

Here is some of what I have observed and that you will see in the rather boring video (5 minutes of watching signals change!):

• Pressing the pedestrian crossing button from the SW corner does not activate the pedestrian signal. The light is green for roughly 5 seconds — not enough time to safely cross the busy street.
• Pedestrians I observed do not seem willing to wait for the signals to change.
• From the NW corner the pedestrian signal button does activate the “walk” signal. This gives all motorists a red light and gives the walk signal across both streets.
• The walk signal is only on for 5 seconds before switching to “don’t walk.” The total time is 15 seconds. The signal for West Pine switches to green while the pedestrian signal is still flashing “don’t walk.”
• Only the crossing along the north side is accessible for users of wheelchairs & mobility scooters. While the SW corner has a curb ramp the crosswalk on the east side at SLU leads to a solid curb rather than a ramp.
• At 3:45 in the video you’ll see a man on the SLU side of Vandeventer press the pedestrian button. He seems impatient and appears to hold the button. I pan to the south to see that part of the intersection and the man crosses during a break in traffic — tired of waiting for the signal to change. It does appear that the button on that corner does activate the pedestrian signal.
• I did not test the button at the SE corner to see if it would activate the signal. Again, from the SW corner it does not work.
• Toward the very end (roughly 5:15) you’ll see how the pedestrian signal crossing West Pine stays on “walk” until the moment when the light changes — potentially catching a pedestrian in the intersection when the motorists are given the green. The pedestrian you see walking southbound on Vandeventer is Tim Schoemehl, son of former Mayor & director of Grand Center, Vince Schoemehl.

Here is the video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8UNBnYBJxQ[/youtube]

Hopefully the city and SLU are planning signal improvements for the intersection, as you can see it is certainly needed.

Some of St. Louis’ Best Architecture is in Public Parks

The other day I was at a traffic light behind some cars and managed to snap this photo in Tower Grove Park:

This structure, and so many others, throughout the city are one of those things that bring a smile to my face. I generally never stop to appreciate the fine detailing, the quality of the stone or brick work or just the overall pleasing scale. It seems before the advent of many architectural and urban planning theories we managed to build really wonderful spaces.

One day soon I’m going to take 10 minutes out of my day and walk around this building, touch the stone, and simply bask in the beauty it evokes. Weekly I am all over this city so I think taking time to enjoy so much of the beauty we do have will hopefully compensate for so much we’ve lost as well as make up for much of what we are building today. And yes, I am in an exceptionally good mood today…

Truck Uses Curb Ramp as Entrance To Downtown Surface Parking Lot

So I’m at a red light the other day and I scramble to get my camera out of my pocket because I can’t believe what I am witnessing — a massive pickup using the corner curb ramp as an entrance to the large surface parking lot.

Geez, is that really necessary? Maybe it is not a big deal? Would the driver have seen someone in a wheelchair coming out from behind the traffic signal box seen behind the truck’s bed?

With this lot, and so many others, no parking is allowed around them because all the curbs are open for easy access. So despite having virtually unlimited access on the sides this guy has to use the ADA ramp on the corner to access the parking space he wants.

After using the corner as the entrance he pulls up a bit further within the lot so he can back into the space. Why he couldn’t have just pulled in using the wide driveway near the front of his truck in the above photo is beyond me. Maybe he felt more like he was driving a truck by driving over something he shouldn’t?

He finally manages to back the gargantuan vehicle into a space and a half. I think if people are going to drive these things as personal vehicles they need to learn how to maneuver them better.

The parking attendant comes over to collect the money from the guys in the truck — I hope they got extra given the amount of room they took up on the lot. In case you are having trouble seeing it, that would be Missouri plate 843 TX7.

Once the two were nearly out of the truck I went by and made a quick smart-ass comment about using the ramp as an entrance and then I sped away on my scooter. I figured it would take them too long to unpark that big truck to chase me down by that point, plus they had already paid to park. In reality, in this situation, the truck using the corner wasn’t a big deal. It was over in seconds and this time nobody happened to be there on the corner. Had someone been on the corner he probably would have waited or simply used the drives instead.

The real problem is that at 11th and Locust we have a large surface parking lot which is paved right up to the sidewalk — to the point the parking and sidewalk contrast only in that one is concrete (sidewalk) and one is asphalt (parking). At the very least we need some bollards or something around these lots so that the sidewalk is protected from vehicles except where permitted to enter/exit. Just to the North of Washington Avenue we have two small city blocks that are nothing but surface parking right up to the sidewalks. Another there is not even paved — it is gravel. Yes, a gravel lot in a downtown!

We must find a way to change the economic model — this cannot and should not be the highest and best use for this land. Among the options, once explored, is the idea of taxing land and not improvements. Thus, the person with a city block occupied by surface parking pays the same taxes as a person with a building(s) on the same size land. I’m sure this is fraught with all sorts of legal issues — my point is we need to look at alternative models employed in other cities for these vast wastelands where buildings once stood. As bad as all the parking garages are — and we have tons of those — these surface lots are worse.

So where do these fit into downtown planning?  Do we simply wait until the property owner decides to sell or build something?  Do we find some incentives to get the owner to upgrade the surface lot with some bollards, a low brick wall or something to separate the pedestrian from pickup? Do we punish the owner with increasing taxes to the point he breaks and sells the land to a developer?  Can we set minimum parking pricing within the CBD so that the owner can make as much money with fewer cars — leaving room around the edges for an improved buffer?  What about simply suggesting the owner lease the corner to someone for a temporary newsstand like the type you see in NY?

I’m not content just waiting and I doubt our downtown leaders are working on creative solutions.  What are your ideas?

St. Louis’ Leaders Critical of New Urbanism while Supporting Sprawl Development in Old Urbanist Areas

A little bit more of suburbia is coming to the City of Saint Louis thanks to Ald. Phyllis Young. Rebuffed over the planned demolition of occupied homes on Bohemian Hill to the west of Soulard, she’s been working on a suburban scheme for the east edge of Soulard. And our city’s director of Planning & Urban Design, Rollin “Old Urbanism” Stanley? Well, he’s been too busy bashing the suburban Walgreen’s locations in St. Louis while traveling in other states and writing articles about the wonderful old urbanism he enjoys in Soulard — something not found in New Town at St. Charles. Hey Rollin — you know what else is not at New Town —- crap like this!!!! I say you need to step down off that high horse of yours and take a look in your own backyard. We’ve got suburbia breeding like rabbits all over the city — we need some real leadership from those on the payroll!

Of course this is really out of his hands — Stanley is only let out of his office for the big grandiose plans such as the failed riverfront and gateway mall. He is allowed, while out of state, to disparage the proliferation of suburban development but not in town to those actually making decisions. Clueless Young and spineless Stanley are two reasons why we are getting the development we are.

Case in point. The new auto-centric strip center on the very edge of Soulard.

Above, the under construction strip center is the blue box on the right. Ald Young and planner Stanley both live in the 9xx block of Lami, shown on the map. As you can see, the neighborhood is quite dense relative to the industrial mess created to the east during another failed urban renewal project during the 1960s.

Stanley writes of his house & neighborhood in the October 2007 issue of Planning magazine:

I walk two blocks to a little grocery store, and there are several restaurants and bars nearby. A century-old farmers market is a few blocks further. The Ace Hardware store is a four-minute bike ride away in the industrial area where many residents used to work.

Is this “new” urbanism? Not at all. My neighborhood is the result of 140 years of urban evolution. It represents neighborhoods all over the U.S., North America, and the world.

He goes on to deride the corner store in New Town at St. Charles for not having the history of his building, a former bar now upscale residential.

For those of us who live in “old urbanist” communities, it’s painful to see our tax dollars fleeing to the hinterlands to pay for the roads the state so loves to build — just to serve all those new developments. The same dollars could go to create public transit, which would serve so many more people. Now that would be good urbanist policy.

Nice, very nice. The man can’t get good urban development blocks from his own house but he can take time to bad mouth in a national magazine the more urban development happening in the corn fields!!! Uh, something is wrong with this picture. Shouldn’t those of us in old urbanist areas be setting the bar for urban design?

OK, back to this blight under construction…

Above you can see, in the early stages at right, a former office/warehouse building getting a make over. In the background, across 7th street (most often assumed to be Broadway) at Russell. With the exception of the two gas stations on the West side of 7th at Russell, the area to the West is compact, urban and walkable. But first a bit of history.
A 1960s urban renewal project cleared the Eastern section of Soulard and re-directed Broadway along 7th street. With the exception of a few buildings along the old Broadway, the entire area known as Kosciusko was razed. This new wider 7th street cut off Soulard from the commercial spine of Broadway. But it was a good excuse to raze a big area for industrial uses.

The problem is that now this industrial area where residences and businesses once stood, is itself getting a bit tired. One ugly block building at 7th & Russell sat vacant for some time with a for sale/lease sign. Someone came up with the concept to turn it into a strip center — change a few openings, tart up the facade facing Soulard/7th, at a free-standing Starbucks Drive-Thru and of course toss some parking out front. And in St. Louis logic, because the building was not occupied and not the final desired result — we are calling it “blighted.” Thus, the project qualifies for public subsidy.

Above, looking SE along 7th you can see the old building being prepped for a new facade. In the foreground is the sidewalk removed to create an auto entrance for the new Starbucks Drive-Thru.

See, a Drive-Thru. Not a neighborhood coffee house that happens to have a drive-thru. No, a Drive-Thru that will most likely lack an ADA-compliant access route from the public sidewalk to the accessible entrance of the building. Perhaps the city expects those in wheelchairs to wheel-thru to get their latte?

So like I said, the Soulard side is being given a new stage set.

The standard EIFS system provides the backdrop of the generic backlit signage seen on strip malls from coast to coast. In the foreground is one of the parking lot curbs already in place. None seem to indicate any provisions for accessing the site via foot.

Above, the strip center on the right with soon to be parking out front. The future Starbucks Drive-Thru is in the background on the right. You can also make out the Arch if you look closely. Rather than encourage 7th street, at left, to build up as an urban corridor. The city’s 2005 “Strategic Land Use Plan” appropriately lists this area as “Neighborhood Commerce” which is defined as:

Areas where the development of new and the rehabilitation of existing commercial uses that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods should be encouraged. These areas include traditional commercial streets at relatively major intersections and along significant roadways where commercial uses serve multiple neighborhoods or where the development of new commercial uses serving adjacent neighborhoods is intended. Mixed use buildings with commercial at grade and a mix of uses on upper floors are an ideal type within these areas. These areas may include higher density mixed use residential and commercial and may initially include flexibility in design to allow ground floor uses to change over time e.g., ground floor space that can transition from residential to commercial use as the local demand for retail goods and services strengthens in the area.

Sounds good to me! So what happened? Well, the zoning remains J-Industrial. Translation, the Alderman and developer can do as they please and make changes on a case by case basis. The very last thing they want is anything remotely coming close to requiring, via zoning, the mixed-use neighborhood commercial described above.

But instead we are getting a typical strip center with parking out front on what is clearly a major intersection adjacent to a very pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. These developers would likely put this in the center of Soulard if they could. To their suburban eyes this is a big improvement. To me this is one more reason why we will remain at 350,000 people. Our development standards could not be any lower.

Here are some quotes from the 17-page attachment to BB257 currently before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen:

The proposed land uses, zoning, public facilities and utility plans are appropriate and consistent with local objectives as defined by the General Plan of the City of St. Louis which includes the “Strategic Land Use Plan” (2005). Any specific proposal to the LCRA for development of the Area or any portion of the Area shall contain, among other things, adequate provisions for traffic, vehicular parking, safety from fire, adequate provisions for light and air, sound design and arrangement and improved employment opportunities.

Really? This plan is consistent with the land use plan I quoted above? I think they try to get around the neighborhood commerce issue by stating the area isn’t in a residential area.

4. PRESENT LAND USE AND DENSITY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIESThe properties surrounding the Area are primarily used for commercial and industrial uses.

Residential density for the surrounding neighborhoods is approximately 0 persons per acre.

Zero persons per acre? Did you see the map above? This is one of the oldest areas in the city and one that is naturally more dense than 20th century areas. But as you might expect they found a reason to blight what was an ugly but sound building.

6. FINDING OF BLIGHT

The property within the Area is unoccupied and in poor condition (as defined in Section A(2) above). The existence of deteriorated property constitutes both an economic liability to the City of St. Louis and presents a hazard to the health and well-being of its citizens. These conditions, therefore, qualify the Area as blighted within the meaning of Section 99.300 et seq. of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2000, as amended (the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law).

Wow, who knew that a vacant commercial building was hazardous to our health? Maybe someday I’ll get to vote on the legislation that declares this new project blighted because it is so effing suburban in nature. Of course in 17 pages amended to the bill they talk about all sorts of requirements:

The Area shall be subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations and codes, including but not limited to, the City Building Code, Zoning District Regulations, and stipulations of the Planning and Urban Design Agency (“PDA”) of the City. The population densities, land coverage, and building intensities of redevelopment shall be governed by the Zoning Code. No changes in the building codes or ordinances are required.

All federal laws? Like the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires an ADA-compliant access route from a public sidewalk? Naw, the city will give them the tax abatement anyway because they don’t care about pedestrians. Still, the above seems pretty general. Do they get anymore specific? Yep!

Rehabilitation shall respect the original exterior in terms of design and materials. Window and door shapes and detailing shall be compatible with the original design

New construction shall be compatible in design with the surrounding neighborhood, if any, in terms of scale, materials, set back, profile and site layout.

Respect original exterior? You mean the brutal concrete block original? Gee, the site layout certainly isn’t compatible with Soulard or even the urban storefronts along Broadway in the same block. Damn that boiler plate language. Anything else?

Canvas awnings with signs are permitted, provided they are compatible with the overall design and architectural details of the building upon which they are to be placed and are placed neatly within the window or door opening. Signage on awnings may be located on the sloping portion of the canvas awning, on the front of a canopy or on the awning valance. In no case shall signage be allowed on both an awning and a building for the same business. Logos and graphic elements may be up to ten (10) sq. ft. in size (depending on the size of the awning), while names or brand copy shall be in proportion to the size of the awning, but in no case shall lettering be more than twelve inches (12”) high.

Wow, that is a lot to absorb and it is only a portion of the sign section. What about landscaping?

The property shall be well-landscaped. Perimeter street trees of a minimum caliper of 2-1/2 inches and generally 30-35 feet on center, depending upon tree type, utilities, curb cuts, etc., shall be provided along all public or private streets – preferably in tree lawns along the curb. If necessary, sidewalks shall be notched to accommodate the trees.

Ornamental or shade trees should be provided in the front lawns along with evergreen accent shrubs.

Existing, healthy trees shall be retained, if feasible.

Man, they seem to cover everything. What about fencing?

Fencing in the front yards and facing side street shall be limited to ornamental metal with a black matte finish. Fencing behind the building line and not facing a street may be chain link with a black matter finish, or a good quality, privacy fence provided it is not wood stockade style. Fencing facing a side street may be ornamental metal or a good quality board fence up to six (6) feet in height provided landscaping is provided between the fence and the sidewalk.

Of course all this is required to meet the “Urban Design Objectives;”

The property shall be developed so it is an attractive residential asset to the surrounding neighborhood.

Hmm, I must have missed the part where the get to the items that make this “an attractive residential asset to the surrounding neighborhood.” Ah, here we go — parking regulations:

Parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable zoning and building code requirements of the City, including PDA standards. This will provide adequate vehicular parking for the Area.

Surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line. Surface parking along public streets shall be buffered by a continuous evergreen hedge at least two and one-half (2-1/2) feet high on planting and maintained at three and onehalf (3-1/2) feet high at maturity. Three percent (3%) of the interior of all parking lots containing more than twenty-five (25) spaces shall be landscaped with trees, at least two and one-half (2-1/2) inch caliper in size on planting. The trees shall be planted on islands, the largest dimension of which shall be at least five (5) feet, planted with low lying ground cover or other plant material.

I highlighted one sentence from the above — “surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line.” It would certainly appear to me that all of the parking is beyond the building line — by the very nature of being in front of the building!!! And sorry, an evergreen hedge is a poor buffer in such an urban context. The detailed addendum to the bill even covers discrimination and minority participation:

A Redeveloper shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation or physical handicap in the construction and operation of any project in the Area and shall take such affirmative action as may be appropriate to afford opportunities to everyone in all activities of the project, including enforcement, contracting, operating and purchasing.

So what is missing? The part about the city allegedly being “old urbanism” and provisions so that say the city’s top urban planner can walk a few blocks on a sidewalk to get to this new residential asset!!! Or perhaps, in exchange for granting tax abatement, we require say a bike rack for parking of something besides cars! You’d think, in 17 pages, with all the talk of types of fencing, heights of shrubs and diameter of trees they could squeeze in a few words that mandate a simple sidewalk to get you from the public sidewalk to the front door of each business! Is that so difficult for this city to comprehend? We’ve got people that are living in homes that can see this strip mall out their windows and yet provisions to walk to a business is not even a requirement for 10-year tax abatement? This city is a joke and Rollin Stanley’s words about “old urbanism” fall flat when we see what is permitted under his watch.
Despite the project nearing completion the legislation to grand the tax abatement was just introduced on 9/21/2007 and is still pending before the “Neighborhood Development” committee of the Board of Aldermen. I’m sure they’ll all bring their official rubber stamps.