Some Reasons for Blighting for Loughborough Commons Remain Unchanged

Today I ran across the city ordinance establishing a CID (Community Improvement District) for Loughborough Commons. Through taxes this will account for about $3 million in improvements for the area. Click here for the 5mb PDF file. Ignore the last few pages as those pertain to another bill wherein Slay Bulk Terminals leases some riverfront land from the city, headed by Mayor Slay. Hmmmm….

What I found interesting in the CID file was an October 2004 report prepared by local firm Development Strategies to justify the blighting and establishment of the tax incentives.

This report describes and documents those conditions that, without TIF will continue to erode the Redevelopment Area’s economic vitality and hasten its transition from an economic asset to an economic liability for the City of St. Louis, its residents, and the taxing districts that depend upon it as a revenue source. The existing I-55/Loughborough Redevelopment Area suffers from a multitude of physical and economic deficiencies including defective and inadequate streets, unsanitary or unsafe condition of site improvements, deferred maintenance, a large soon to be vacant structure, improper subdivision or platting, conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, and economic obsolescence.

Man, that is a lot. Good thing this was passed and everything razed. But what are some of the details behind the report leading to blight?

Well, how about “defective and inadequate street layout resulting from… interupted [their spelling] grid street pattern.” I also like, “Unsanitary and unsafe conditions resulting from: lack of sidewalks, dangerous vehicular movements.” Continuing down the list they cite “deteriorated site improvements resulting from: deteriorated parking areas, deferred maintenance” and “improper subdivision and obsolete planning.”

The report talks about the street grid that once existed many years ago:

As part of the grid, Blow Street and Robert Avenue ran uninterrupted form the west of what is now I-55 to the east of the highway. In addition, Colorado Avenue ran north-south from Robert Avenue to the north. This pattern of streets provided good access and circulation for the property in the Redevelopment Area.

It then explains how the railroad and the highway changed that and how some streets went away. No mention of putting back the grid that was removed for Nordyne and Schnuck’s (formerly a National store).

Lack of sidewalks is a whole section. This is the best part:

Many of the streets in the Redevelopment Area lack sidewalks or have inadequate sidewalks. This creates a hazardous condition for residents, employees and visitors. Specific problem areas include:

1. Lack of sidewalks on both sides of Blow Street
2. Lack of sidewalks on the east side of S. Grand to the south of Blow Street.
3. Cracked and uneven sidewalks along the east side of S. Grand Avenue between Loughborough Avenue and Blow Street.
4. Cracked and uneven sidewalks along the south side of Loughborough Avenue to the east of S. Grand Avenue.

So how did the crack team of Desco, Kowelmann Engineering and Ald. Matt Villa solve each of these blighting conditions? No sidewalks on each side of Blow Street? No problem, lets just remove the street entirely! That took care of number 1 on the list. For number two, the lack of sidewalks along the east side of Grand, they did nothing. Presumably this blighting condition remains. And those cracked and uneven sidewalks between Loughborough and Blow? No problem either, they simply removed them and do not intend to replace them. The final item, poor sidewalks on Loughborough will be fixed through the logical solution of replacement. The fact remains an unsafe condition due to lack of sidewalks along the east side of Grand Ave is unchanged. The blight cited as reasons for tax incentives and the use of eminent domain has not been solved after $40 million of expense. Sad.

The section on “Improper Subdivision or Obsolete Planning” is a propaganda gem:

This subdivision has produced lots that are inappropriate for residential use and are very inefficient to service. Some of the lots are as narrow as 25 to 35 feet wide and 283 feet deep. This is clearly not a desirable lot dimension for residential use. The depth of other lots have been reduced to 100 to 150 feet, but the narrowness of these lots and the lack of an alley create conditions where must of the lot is consumed by driveway and parking area and servicing of the residence must be done from the street in front of the house. These conditions represent a deviation from the typical residential pattern in the neighboring residential blocks and are not representative of good residential planning.

Yes, and they are all about good planning at Loughborough Commons! It appears five residential properties had this amazingly long yards which is a bit unconventional although certainly appeal to some. Such oddities exist all over this city but that is reason to wipe it clean and start over. Furthermore, three of the long properties faced the now removed Blow Street. Their combined width and depth would have ben an ideal candidate for an in-fill townhouse or condo project much like those we might see in the West End.

Stand-alone grocery stores, like the Schnuck’s store in the Redevelopment Area, are becoming increasingly difficult to economically sustain in a competitive retail environment where shoppers prefer to have all the convenience of multiple purchasing or service options at a single location. All of the major competing grocery stores that are closest to the Redevelopment Area have the benefit of being part of a strip center or a concentration of retail offerings.

This argument falls flat when examined. First, I think this holds true in suburban ares where people don’t want to navigate the family minivan from one parking lot to another on say a hellish road like Manchester in Ballwin. While this report cites a number of grocery stores attached to some sort of strip center they failed to mention the closest store — the former Schnuck’s on South Grand near Holly Hills.

The residential properties represented maybe 4 acres out of a total of roughly 30 acres. This land was at a far corner and in no way represented a block to redeveloping the remaining 26 acres. The city represented by Ald. Matt Villa and Mayor Francis Slay failed to do due diligence and correct all of the reasons the area was blighted in the first place.

We need new and better representation at City Hall or such fleecing will continue. This is incompetence at all levels of the development design and approval process.

– Steve

Old North’s Pedestrian Mall May Soon Be Gone!

Although it has now been a dozen years since I moved from Old North to Dutchtown I still have a soft spot for the area. It has been in the last five years or so that things have really begun to accelerate in the neighborhood — more rehabs as well as new construction. Proximity to downtown and friendly neighbors are among the selling points.

The most recent meeting of the neighborhood was this past Tuesday where the topic of the 14th Street Pedestrian Mall was addressed. For years area residents have been trying to undo the mistake made in 1977 of removing the street and creating a dead environment. Recently this has started to become a reality with the help of RHCDA and Rosemann Architects. But first, some history.

Pedestrian Malls where thought to be a the saving grace of downtowns and other urban shopping districts. Cities all over the country followed Kalamazoo Michigan after they turned created the first pedestrian mall in the US in 1959. It was in 1998 they reopened the street. For more history on Kalamazoo’s pedestrian mall click here. Boulder Colorado did a pedestrian mall at the same time as the 14th Street mall, 1977. They seem to be updating but retaining and celebrating theirs (link). Throughout this country most have been removed. In places, such as Memphis and Denver, these malls permit transit vehicles such as vintage streetcars (Memphis) or buses (Denver).

Anti-car advocates, of which I consider myself on the fringe, favor car-free environments. Where you have really high density this works well. Where you don’t have density the spaces look abandoned and unsafe. That was the situation with 14th Street. I never once felt unsafe there and businesses were open but it simply didn’t look that way. The malling (mauling?) of the street had the reverse affect of those that designed it — people were driven away from the street and area in droves.

The proposed site plan returns traffic and parking to both 14th and Montgomery streets — a much needed improvement. In addition to the new street improvements many of the surround buildings have already been purchased and will be renovated during the first phase of the project. Other buildings on 14th are privately owned and will not be taken. New construction is planned on vacant lots both on 14th and around it in future phases.

This project must still work its way through the various approval steps, including the St. Louis Board of Aldermen.

I have some initial reservations about the streetscape plan but I will hold those back until I’ve had a chance to talk with the local residents, the RHCDA and Rosemann Architects. I want to congratulate everyone involved for finally getting a project to this point — I look forward to working with them to see it to fruition.

– Steve

A Review of the Actual Site Plan of Loughborough Commons

I’ve finally seen the approved site plan for Loughborough Commons: Pedestrian access off Grand at the south end near the Lowe’s? None. Public sidewalk along Grand? None. Sidewalk along the west side of the main drive? None. Public sidewalk along Loughborough? Yes. Sidewalk along the east side of the main drive. Yes. Bike Parking? None. Parcel A (aka big pile-o-dirt)? Scary!

Let’s look at each individually:

As indicated earlier no pedestrian access is planned at the south entrance to Loughborough Commons. This secondary entrance is a wide 35ft and is near many homes to the west of the project as well as other homes where someone might walk along Koeln under I-55. Again, the drawings do not indicate any accommodation for pedestrians at this end — those walking will need to walk along the grass, walk in the auto drive or just get in their car. You can say that someone won’t walk to Lowe’s to buy drywall which is true enough. However, hardware stores of all sizes have many small sales. Furthermore, someone living in this area would naturally go this direction to get to the Schnuck’s grocery store.

Any pedestrian walking along Grand will need to be on the west side of the street as no sidewalk is being constructed along the east side of the street. While not serving any building entrances I am a firm believer in city streets having sidewalks on both sides.

At the main entrance on Loughborough the project drawings do not indicate any internal sidewalk along the west side of the entrance. This is the most logical side for those coming from all the houses to the west of the project. There will be a sidewalk leading to Parcel A but I will discuss that in greater detail later in this post.

Desco is replacing the sidewalk along the length of Loughborough. In an early post from this week I may have suggested this was not the case but in later posts was clear they were indeed replacing the sidewalk.

And finally, as Ald. Villa indicated via email and engineer Dennice Kowelman indicated via phone, they will have an internal sidewalk along the east side of the main drive. The drawings indicate it will be 5ft wide and run adjacent to the drive itself. While this is indicated on the construction documents it was not shown on the public drawings to the public in January 2005 nor does their current construction suggest such a sidewalk. I’m at a loss why the sidewalk was not poured when they did the driveway. I’m also baffled they have graded the soil and planted grass seed if they are going to do a sidewalk. They also have some access covers that would appear to be placed in a manner that will present some challenges. Again, it does not appear they will be putting a sidewalk here but the construction documents do show it. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it was a matter of construction phasing.

The drawings indicate at the bottom of the hill they’d have a crosswalk taking you to the west across a 24ft drive to a striped corner and then south across a 33ft drive to a sidewalk along the front of the as yet to be built additional retail spaces north of the Schnuck’s. While I am happy they have at least this much shown it is simply not enough given the size of the project (30 acres, $40 million) and the size of the public tax breaks ($14 million). So the expectation is someone must follow a maze to get from A to B. But human nature just doesn’t work that way, pedestrians naturally take the shortest path unless the longer path is far more compelling. A plain sidewalk abutting the drive on the east is not more compelling. It dumps you out at the parking and intersection of internal drives. What will happen is people will most likely continue walking along the west side of the drive either in the drive itself or on the grass — we will probably see a worn path next year similar to those at places like Gravois Plaza.

Bike parking? Sorry, you’ll have to lock your bike to the cart racks and hope someone doesn’t hit it as they pull up in their Hummer. And yes, you can bike to a hardware store and buy supplies —- my storage on my bike is more capable than that on my scooter. It is possible some of the outparcel buildings may have some bike parking as they are not yet detailed. Well, I take that back. Parcels B, C, D and E where the current Schnuck’s is located (yes four individual parcels) are not detailed. Parcel A, where homes once stood and where you now see the great mound of Carondelet, is highly detailed. And that is the scary part.

The 13,800sf strip building is facing north toward the park but it is not located along the Loughborough sidewalk where you might expect an urban building to be. No sir, it is set back as far as it can be on that parcel with 85+/- parking spaces between it and Loughborough. Cars coming and going to this section will use the main entrance of the center. A sidewalk is shown from Loughborough where the grass is now but connecting up to this strip center, not down to the main walk in front of Schnuck’s.

Let’s assume for a moment that the St. Louis Bread Co is planning to lease space in the strip portion on this parcel rather than construct a free-standing building with drive-thru in the lower section. And you are there having your “pick-two” lunch and decide to walk over the Schnuck’s to get a few things. Following their sidewalk plan you’d walk back up to Loughborough, cross the main drive to the east, head south along the sidewalk, cross back over the main drive again this time to the west, and then cross another drive before reaching the sidewalk heading to the Schnuck’s store. Or, you cut through the grass and save roughly 350ft in distance. If you are in a wheel chair you’ll be forced to take the longer route.

So maybe Loughborough Commons isn’t the lowest form of development. It is one tiny step above the lowest because of the yet to be built sidewalk on one side of only one entrance. Yet the strip center look facing Carondelet Park will be a horrible sight and perhaps keeps them at the lowest level regardless of the final tenant(s). I’ve made a formal request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law for copies of the site plan — once obtained I will publish them here for you to review and come to your own conclusions.

– Steve

Holly Hills Neighborhood Seeking a St. Louis Bread Company at Loughborough Commons

It appears the neighborhood group in the Holly Hills area near Loughborough Commons is campaigning for a St. Louis Bread Company (aka Panera Bread to the rest of the country). I can’t blame them, the food is great and affordable. They have wi-fi too which is needed in the area. My investment club also happens to be a long-time shareholder of Panera (PNRA).

The following is an email sent out to neighbors:

Dear Neighbor,The Holly Hills Improvement Association Board has been working for the last year to suggest and attain the right type of businesses for the Loughborough Commons development that are a good fit for the neighborhood. I think we can all agree that Saint Louis Bread Company would be a welcome addition to the development. However, Panera Bread (who owns SLBC) is on the fence and we’ve been told directly by the Schnuck family that community support in favor this store locating at this development could possibly sway their decision.

Some of you might recall that this is the same scenerio that happened in St. Louis Hills several years ago. However, the neighborhood rallied in favor and they are currently enjoying coffee and sandwiches at their own Saint Louis Bread Company on Chippewea.

So, here is what we’ve been told to do…write letters…lots of them. They are asking us to bombard the office with support letters to convince them to locate in Loughborough Commons. I’ve put together a sample letter below that you can cut/paste, modify, or of course, you can create your own version. But the address and contact person are who you should keep consistent.

As with most things these days…time is of the essence. If we can get these letters sent by September 8th…that would be most ideal. I’m also interested in keeping track of the number of letters sent for the Schnuck Family. If emailing me to let me know you sent or will send a letter isn’t too inconvenient, I would appreciate that. Also, send this to all of your friends and neighbors and let’s see what we can do.

SEND LETTER TO:

Mr. Ronald M. Shaich
Chairman and CEO
Panera Bread
6710 Clayton Road
Richmond Heights, MO 63117

Dear Mr. Shaich,

I live in the Holly Hills neighborhood in South St. Louis City. Our neighborhood sits adjacent to the new Loughborough Commons currently under development. I am writing to you in support of building a Saint Louis Bread Company in that development. I pledge to frequent your restaurant and encourage my neighbors to do so as well. We are a community that prides itself on city living and supporting Saint Louis businesses, such as yours. We would be overjoyed to have you as our
neighbor.

Thank you,

Your name here
Your address

As you might guess, I love grassroots campaigns. Yes, I would agree with these residents that a St. Louis Bread Co. would be a very welcomed addition to the local restaurant scene and the fact it is a local firm makes it all the better. I have one slight caveat: I want to be able to walk to the Bread Co. from Loughborough or the Schnucks on a sidewalk.

Panera has proven they are very willing to locate in more urban storefront locations — I’ve seen them here and in other cities. They also have a standard suburban free-standing prototype complete with drive-thru. For a stand alone building with a drive-thru their prototype is really quite attractive and exudes a higher quality feel than most such “buildings.” But, it is what it is —- a small detached structure with a drive-thru window.

The Holly Hills residents are wise to take a pro-active stand on the types of uses in the development. Yet issues such as accessibility and bike parking often escapes most local organizations. They are all volunteer and can only do so much. Their main concern is often making sure such projects are not filled with check cashing places or rent to own furniture stores. Some organizations will have a planner or architect among the group that will also inject some physical design issues into the discussion.

I have to wonder if they are getting a Big Lots store at Loughborough Commons because the one on Broadway at Osceola now has a for lease sign on it. The leasing agent? Desco (the developer of LC). I personally like Big Lots as a concept — they have some really good items at excellent prices. The store on Broadway near me is looking a bit tired but some new ceiling tiles, paint and new flooring would do wonders for that building. But stores are seldom interested in such improvements to freshen an old store when they can move to a newer development. So, it appears that I may be staring at an empty Big Lots, the building itself a former grocery store.

The planning issues around pedestrian connections and bike parking remain the same regardless of the types of retailers and restaurants that open at Loughborough Commons.

– Steve

Understanding the Needs of Pedestrians

This week I’ve hit Loughborough Commons pretty hard with my criticisms over their lack of any pedestrian accommodations from the public street to the front door of Schnuck’s, Lowe’s and most likely the rest of the retail spaces. The City, including Ald. Matt Villa, is also at fault here for not having higher standards. It is not about the aesthetics of the building(s) but how people get to and from them. I wanted to share some information to help understand some of these issues, the needs of pedestrians.

The following is brief list of some online sources for more reading on the subject of pedestrian friendly/walkable communities. [Note: If you are a member of the Board of Aldermen or with Desco you probably need to read each of these so you can get caught up]
Walkable Communities
Smart Growth Online: Creating Walkable Communities
Sierra Club: Livable Communities
Walking Info: How to Develop a Pedestrian Action Safety Plan

And finally the Project for Public Spaces. Fred Kent and his staff are simply amazing at communicating why spaces should be built for people and how to get there. This non-profit is probably the leading group in the world working to improve public space (and streets are public space). They also work to improve private spaces such as corporate plazas and shopping areas.

The Project for Public Spaces got their start as research assistants with the legendary William H. Whyte:

In 1969 Whyte assisted the New York City Planning Commission in drafting a comprehensive plan for the city. Having been critically involved in the planning of new city spaces, he came to wonder how these spaces were actually working out. No one had researched this before. He applied for and received a grant to study the street life in New York and other cities in what became known as the Street Life Project. With a group of young research assistants, and camera and notebook in hand, he conducted pioneering studies on pedestrian behavior and breakthrough research on city dynamics.All told, Whyte walked the city streets for more than 16 years. As unobtrusively as possible, he watched people and used time-lapse photography to chart the meanderings of pedestrians. What emerged through his intuitive analysis is an extremely human, often amusing view of what is staggeringly obvious about people’s behavior in public spaces, but seemingly invisible to the inobservant.

Whyte’s last book before his death in 1999, City: Rediscovering the Center, is a classic. First published in 1989 I bought it just as I was leaving architecture school. The insights this man discovers through years of painstaking research is so enlightening. The sad reality is he is not required reading for most architects, planners, civil engineers or aldermen. Our built environment continues to be lacking as a result.

But one not need read Whyte’s detailed research to know much of what needs to be done to make St. Louis more livable. All you need to do is walk places yourself — what streets do you like walking on and which do you not? My guess is you’ll take say Euclid in the West End over Hampton at I-44. And when you walk do you follow the path or do you take the shortest route even if that means walking on grass? Look around and you’ll see worn grass around City Hall, Gravois Plaza and other places where sidewalks are either in the wrong places or lacking altogether.

None of this is new information. None of it is anything I’ve dreamed up on my own. None of this is rocket science. In fact, it is largely simple common sense. Yet, we are failing miserably to recognize basic human behavior.

I can look at many developments from the 1950s and newer and see failings. I don’t talk about past projects much as they were a product of their era when we first fell in love with the automobile, pedestrians be damned. But over time we’ve learned society went too far and ruined spaces for people. We have the knowledge of how to balance seemingly conflicting criteria — make spaces interesting for people and still accept the reality of the car but our elected officials and developers simply don’t get it.

My expectations for a brand new project that included some public financing, took 18 homes and moved a mountain of dirt is indeed high. In the case of Loughborough Commons, they didn’t even meet my lowest expectation of connectedness to the city. Our city will not grow and prosper based on such shoddy planning and development practices.

– Steve