St. Louis’ Neighborhood Boundaries Need to Be Examined

For those of you that don’t take well to change, I suggest you have a seat or maybe don’t even read this post. Why? I’ve got a real shocker for you: the boundaries for the city’s 79 neighborhoods need to be reexamined and, in many cases, be completely changed.

For centuries villages, towns and cities had their commercial districts as the heart of an area with residents walking to the center for goods, services and social interaction. This built strong neighborhoods. Following WWII, however, things changed with the car. We started seeing strip shopping centers and malls and the perception that it was best to separate uses — keeping single family houses away from multi-family housing and away from retail which was separate from office and industrial uses. The idea was we’d have all these separate uses and we’d easily whisk back and forth from one to the other in our individual cars. Time has taught us this vision didn’t turn out as imagined and it is really not the way to build strong communal ties. Having learned a hard lesson, we are back to mixing uses within a neighborhood.

During the Schoemehl administration the city was carved up into 79 entities and labeled as neighborhoods. I believe these neighborhood boundaries follow the old line of thinking — commercial districts belong at the edge rather than the center. But if we look back at history and how St. Louis developed we can reason that commercial streets, of which we have many, were the centerpiece of the neighborhood.

By placing our commercial district streets at the edges of neighborhoods rather than as their traditional center I believe that we’ve prevented these commercial districts from rebounding as they should. First, we need to look at Euclid in the West End. As always, it has served the surrounding area and is not a border between two neighborhoods with different leadership and interests. To contrast this we can look at MLK on the north side and Cherokee & Chippewa on the south side. All three streets, once quite vibrant and the center of commercial life in their respective areas, now act as edges. rather than unifying centers.

Cherokee (West of Jefferson) has Benton Park West on the north side of the street and Gravois Park on the South side of the street. A commercial district association adds yet another layer to the bureaucracy. The divisions for the various neighborhoods, created 25 years ago or so, was likely arbitrary or possibly political. Dividing Cherokee among two separate neighborhoods has not served the formerly thriving commercial district well. On a related note, Chippewa to the South is a dividing line between Gravois Park and Dutchtown. Again, this was a thriving commercial street at the center of its neighborhood. If I had to draw a line it would be down Miami street — halfway between Cherokee and Chippewa. North of Miami you’d be part of the neighborhood that contained the Cherokee commercial district and South of Miami you’d be part of the neighborhood containing the Chippewa commercial district. These neighborhoods could then focus their attention on building their neighborhoods around a strong commercial center, rather than ignoring the decaying street at the edge while assuming the neighborhood group on the other side will take care of things.

Along MLK on the north side we have a similar situation, magnified by the length of the street and the amount of physical decay. On the North side of MLK we have 8 mapped neighborhoods with another 9 on the South side of the street. In the 8 miles or so of this street only a few blocks are within a single neighborhood on both sides of the street (JeffVanderLou, east of Compton). Everywhere else MLK is seen as an edge and not as the formerly strong commercial center that it once was. Not that we want an 8-mile long neighborhood along MLK but you get the idea — the street needs to return as the centerpiece for commerce and jobs in the area and doing so is a challenge when it is used as a dividing line.

I believe we need to look at the center from the perspective of commercial districts and reposition neighborhood boundaries such that each neighborhood once again has a commercial heart. Yes, there will be instances where this is not possible or feasible but I believe it to be a worthwhile exercise to determine if we can achieve better outcomes along these commercial streets. It would also follow that major intersections, such as Cherokee and Jefferson or MLK and Goodfellow would be centers. The dividing lines should be at minor streets or along alleys. Let two neighborhood groups fight over the cleanup of an alley or problem properties on a minor road, not over the rebuilding and rejuvenation of a major commercial street.

Countless other examples of this division exist. South Grand comes to mind as does Delmar and Natural Bridge. On the positive side we do have examples of situations where the commercial district is already within a single neighborhood — such as Ivanhoe, Meramec & Virginia, parts of North Grand and 14th Street. Interstate highways, on the other hand, serve as solid edges that cannot be ignored.

I don’t know that we have the political will to change boundaries, no matter how logical it may be to do so. What I think we need is 5-6 planning districts, each comprising several neighborhoods. A planning district would work with a staff member of the Planning and Urban Design Agency to help with the bigger picture of visioning for their part of the city. This would hopefully move beyond ward or neighborhood boundaries and create some strong areas within the city, focusing on commercial streets as the centerpieces. It is time we examine how we look at our neighborhoods and see if changing some boundaries would potentially produce better results.

What happened to the new McDonald’s?

After months of controversy over McDonald’s moving from its current location at the NW corner of Grand and Chippewa to the SE corner of Grand & Winnebego we’ve seen no evidence of anything moving forward. Not that I want the drive-thru moved adjacent to the homes in the Gravois Park neighborhood, but we were all given the impression that time was of the essence.

It has been nearly 3 months since the city’s Board of Adjustment denied an appeal by residents to prevent the McDonald’s from being built. Pyramid Construction was supposed to do a land swap with McDonald’s but a quick check of records for 3708 S. Grand indicates Pyramid Construction is still the property owner. The same records also indicate building permit application #358646 to construction the restaurant remains open, the permit has not yet been issued. With all the administrative hurdles jumped I just can’t imagine why three months would pass without construction starting.

It would appear that someone involved in the deal isn’t going forward. The parties are Pyramid Construction, McDonald’s corporate, the franchise operator and deal maker Ald. Jennifer Florida.

If the deal has gone south now is our chance to work as a community to envision what this street could look like. If you go back to my post from a couple of weeks ago using Photoshop to show incremental changes we can hopefully do a similar treatment for South Grand. If McDonald’s is staying where they are and the empty site at Winnebego is to remain empty or get another plan we need to bring everyone together to work on good solutions that are a fit for the community.

Loughborough Commons On Par with Most Development, Speaks Poorly of Our Standards

Today I’ve got a somewhat random collection of thoughts on the sprawl-centric Loughborough Commons development in south city. If you are tired of this subject, just stop reading now. Otherwise, here we go.

Loughborough Commons, for all its many faults, is on par with most newer development in the city and region. That is both reality and a sad statement of fact. What does this say about us as a region that we care so little about creating worthwhile public spaces, not just private developments with literal acres of asphalt with as much as a tree to break it up. Instead of being happy about a new grocery store we should be concerned, as tax payers, that our government has failed to deliver a project worthy of the incentives given.

The city has a Planning & Urban Design Agency but if they were involved in the project they failed miserably to guide the project to a point where they should not all be fired. If they were not consulted on such as massive project (30+ acres, $14 million in tax incentives) then I would wonder why Ald. Villa didn’t bring in their expertise. Either way something is wrong with how this got built.

The one difference in Loughborough Commons and all the other poorly planned projects is this: I personally spoke face-to-face with Ald. Matt Villa and engineer Dennice Kowelmann prior to starting construction and voiced my concerns about the design and pedestrian access. While I can (and likely will) criticize other projects such as the new 58-acre Dierberg’s development in Edwardville IL, I feel more connected to this one because I tried to make a difference before a single bit of dirt was moved.

This week’s Suburban Journal article on Loughborough Commons read more like a press release than a balanced article. Not addressed is the lack of pedestrian access from the entrance closest to neighboring houses, off Grand. Here is the headline, subheading and relevant quote:

Lowe’s to open in month at Loughborough Commons: Pedestrian access planned after Schnuck’s demolition.`

A spokesman for The DESCO Group, developer of the shopping center, said sidewalks will be added after the old Schnuck’s and its parking lot is torn down. The sidewalk will be where the old Schnuck’s entrance is.
“The development’s not finished yet,” Steve Houston said. “There will be a sidewalk for pedestrian access to that development.”

Sidewalk, singular. As I mentioned on a post on the 1st of the month, their site plan does show a sidewalk abutting the east side of the new entrance off Loughborough. This will be useful to those coming from the current bus stop (assuming it doesn’t get relocated, and those walking from the east side of I-55 along Loughborough. This will do little for those that live west of Loughborough Commons and nothing for those that live near the southwest corner of the project, arguably the greatest number of potential pedestrians. See the next segment for more on this issue.

The red section in the middle of the image at right is Loughborough Commons. The two green dots along the edge represent the two entrances to the site. The blue section in the upper left is the old public school greenhouse site that will soon be developed by Rolwes Homes and C.F. Vatterott and containing a total of 125 units. These will be comprised of 33 detached single family homes, 44 attached townhouses and 48 condos. I will do a review of this project at another time.

As we can see, four streets dead end at Loughborough Commons. Rather than connect to the adjacent neighborhood the projects turns it back to the neighborhood so that it can face the highway. Drivers speeding by at 70mph are seemingly more important than someone living a block away. With only two entrances into the 30+ acre site those walking from adjacent residences have limited choices. The DESCO Group and Ald. Matt Villa are doing damage control by saying they will have pedestrian access but that is only for half the entrance off Loughborough. Those near the south entrance off Grand get squat.

In the world of sprawl development a single token sidewalk is usually sufficient in the minds of the developer (and Ald. Villa in this case). It is clear that careful consideration was not given to bringing in pedestrians from the surrounding area. With the new development just two blocks away is it shameful they will not have direct access to the local grocery store via a short walk down Blow, Roswell or Robert.

It should be noted that Loughborough Commons is in the 11th Ward (Ald. Matt Villa) while the old greenhouse site is in the 12th Ward (Ald. Fred Heitert), Eugene Street is the dividing line. Aldermanic courtesy would have prevented Heitert from questioning the development in an adjacent ward even though it is only a block away from his ward.

This morning carts were completely blocking the sidewalk heading to the south toward Lowe’s. We could argue, I suppose, the Lowe’s is not yet open but there is parking in use in that direction. I’ve also seen workers from Lowe’s attempting to walk to the Schnuck’s having to navigate around the planned obstacles (planting areas) and unplanned obstacles (excess shopping carts). These carts are chained together and locked.

At other times I’ve the carts have been gone from the same area, most likely when the store is busier and more carts are needed. Still, pedestrian circulation within a project should not be dependent upon something like how many shopping carts are in use. This picture and the one above are both off the south entrance to the new store but the same situation is happening on the other side.

This morning a few carts were partially blocking the walkway that right now along connects to a number of accessible (ADA) parking spaces. This walk, however, will at some point be continued as part of The DESCO Group’s planned pedestrian access. So, it is fair to say this bit of sidewalk is part of the main and only planned pedestrian access point to get to the grocery store. And today it was being used for cart storage.

You might say these carts were simply left overs from those using the accessible parking. And such an argument may have some validity. However, this would demonstrate a lack of good planning to anticipate that those using these parking spaces would have carts and need a place to put them out of the way of the main pedestrian path to the nearest grocery store.

The other day, when the south walkway was open, the north walkway was completely blocked. Carts are cabled together and part of the chain is on the sidewalk creating a potential hazzard. Toward the end of the walk, more carts completely close off the end. I watched as a woman parked on the other side of the white van had to walk in the development’s main driveway to get to her vehicle.

Again, this little bit of sidewalk is part only planned pedestrian path from the public street (Loughborough) to the entrance of the Schnuck’s store. Ald. Villa and The DESCO Group can say “it’s not finished” all they want to but their actions speak volumes. Pedestrian movement, even those using ADA spaces, are given very little to no consideration.

One of the items cited as a reason for blighting for this project was the site of the Schnuck’s store, built as a National store, was used for industrial purposes. From the report:

The site of the Schnucks grocery store was previously utilized for decades for industrial uses. During the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s the site was occupied by the St. Louis Machine Tool Company. In the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s it was occupied by a paint manufacturing company. As a result, site remediation will be necessary.

That is interesting since immediately following the opening of the new store workers began removing the old asphalt and transferring tons of dirt from another area of the development site. the image at right was taken earlier today. The old parking lot lights, still working, are simply being buried. Was the contamination limited of this site limited to strictly where the current building is located? Did they manage to decontaminate overnight? Or was site contamination simply a smoke screen to get tax incentives. You can be assured that I will be requesting proof from various local agencies for documentation on the remediation efforts.

These pictures and a few more can all be viewed as larger images in a set on my Flickr account.

As stated at the beginning, Loughborough Commons is really no worse than most development in the city or balance of the region. This is quite unfortunate as we deserve better development, especially in areas where you have existing walkable environments that could greatly benefit from a locally owned grocery store an easy walk down the street. What we got, instead, was an expensive project where you are expected to drive even though you can see if from your front sidewalk. Such practices should not be permitted to continue.

What is Your Vision for St. Louis?

I spend a lot of time trying to communicate my vision for St. Louis and other times trying to stop others’ horribly suburban vision for St. Louis. This quote made me think if we, as a region, had a vision:

“The most pathetic person in the world is someone who has sight, but has no vision.”

– Helen Keller

So are we as a city and region pathetic for lack of vision? Do we have a vision and if so, what is that vision? More importantly, what is your vision for St. Louis?

St. Louis Suffers Due to Lack of Urban Design Guidelines

Whenever I speak of making St. Louis’ neighborhoods and commercial streets more “urban” I think people have visions of turning St. Louis Hills into Times Square. Nothing could be further from the truth. It really has to do with how we plan our areas and seek to accommodate people as well as their cars. Pedestrian-friendly is about making it easier for people to walk from A to B to C and back to A. These principals transcend scale and work in a town of 2,000 as well as a city of 2 million.

The conflict I’m having with so much recent development is that it is happening in a system void of planning thought. The developer meets with the Aldermen and they negotiate a few things while trying to keep the public from knowing what is going on out of fear they might sabotage the whole thing. It is the St. Louis way. The problem is that I know this can be done differently and is in cities all over North America.

Our zoning, dating to 1947, says what cannot be done. It basically encourages sprawl development and makes good design an exception rather than the rule. What it doesn’t say is what we, as a community, are seeking. It does not articulate a vision. So how do we communicate what we want? Urban Design Guidelines.

Cities that are actually seeking to improve their physical environment through well-planned development create “Urban Design Guidelines” to help guide the development process. These are most often in the form of non-legal phrasing and graphics that are easily understood by everyone. Typical zoning, on the other hand, often requires an attorney that specializes to help determine what can and cannot be done. Form-based zoning, on the other hand, uses graphics to help illustrate what is sought for that particular portion of the community.

It should also be noted that Urban Design Guidelines are different than “plans” for an area. Cities, including St. Louis, have stacks and stacks of unrealized plans. In some cases, this is a good thing as earlier plans called for the razing of Soulard & Lafayette Square to be replaced with low-density housing on cul-de-sac streets. Plans are usually grand visions for an area that lack funding. They are created, everyone gets excited about what may be, no funding is given to implementation and the plan sits. In the meantime poorly executed development that prompted the need for a plan continues through the outdated zoning. UDG look at the vision different — setting out goals for an area such as walkable streets. The guidelines then indicate how this is to be accomplished. Guidelines help guide new construction and renovation projects so that, over time, an area is improved. It is a smart and realistic way to guide physical change in a community.

Below are some examples of Urban Design Guidelines and related documents from a variety of cities in North America. This is only a tiny fraction is what is out there. I’ve only scanned each at this point so I am not making any claims we should adopt any of these for St. Louis. What I am saying is we need to be creating guidelines for future development and have debates over what we seek as we develop the guides — not over each and every proposed project.

City of Denver:

• Denver Guidelines by area
•Commercial Corridors
•Streetscape 1993 (excellent!)

City of Ottawa:

•Large-Format Retail
•Gas Stations
•Traditional Main Street
•Drive-Through
•Outdoor Patios

City of Toronto:

•Toronto Urban Design Guidelines
•Townhouses

Various Cities:

•Lawrence KS – downtown guidelines
•Scottsdale, AZ – Gas Stations
•Huntington Beach, CA
•Mankato, MN
•Niagra, Ontario
•Niagra, On — Large Format (big box)
•Mississauga, Ontario
•Tampa, FL

City of Madison, WI

•Best Practices Guide (an amazing document — a must read)
•Inclusionary Zoning (for affordable housing)

Madison even did a study called, “Grocery Stores in City Neighborhoods: Supporting access to food choices, livable neighborhoods, and entrepreneurial opportunities in Madison, Wisconsin”. From the executive summary:

Guiding the decisions of food retailers- and providing support for them- in order to ensure equitable access to food and promote livable, walkable neighborhoods is a difficult task faced by non-profit organizations and local governments in cities across the nation. Since all people require food on a daily basis and shop for it frequently, food retailers should be recognized as far more than simply another retail establishment. However, even as many municipal governments realize this, there are limited ways for cities to intervene in support for grocery stores when particular parcels of land are owned and controlled in the private realm. Market forces and consumer behavior all too often work against the success and proliferation of small grocery stores distributed equitably across the City.

Click here to read the full report.

City of Houston:

As I was working on this post a regular reader sent me an article about how good development in Houston’s midtown is lagging behind because the city’s zoning encourages auto-centric results.

Like explorers hacking a path through the jungle, a small but determined group of developers, planners and civic leaders has
struggled for 12 years to create a unique urban environment in Midtown.

Much of what they are trying to achieve —a walkable neighborhood with a vibrant street scene is forbidden by city development rules still focused on the automobile. Leaders of a civic group have dipped into their own pockets to pay for alternative design plans for a proposed Main Street drugstore that clashes with their Midtown vision.

“Unfortunately,” said developer Ed Wulfe, chairman of the Main Street Coalition, “the Houston way is slow and painful.”

Read through these Urban Design Guidelines and you will see how the community is indicating its desires for a more walkable and cohesive environment yet none of it is designed to force businesses out or create cities without cars. Cities have been working on guidelines for a good 15 years or so but St. Louis remains way behind the curve. This places us at an economic disadvantage when it comes to attracting both new residents as well as potential employers. What would it take to get us working toward community design guidelines — probably the one thing we don’t have enough of: political will.