Carnahan School Gets New Sign, Remains Suburban

This summer Carnahan Middle School is transforming into the Carnahan High School of the Future. At least the new sign being erected says it is the future of high schools. While I treasure our classic early 20th Century Ittner-designed schools I’m not so crazy about this 2003 version. It looks like any suburban school. The problem is, it is located at Broadway & Gasconade (map)— hardly suburbia.

The new sign being constructed is the first clue to passersby this is a school. Sure, by the looks, they might assume as much. But I don’t believe it has ever had a sign at the street. In fact, the whole places tends to ignore the street altogether. That is what rubs me the wrong way. Buildings, especially civic buildings, should embrace and celebrate the public street.

This is the view presented to Broadway, one of the oldest routes in our region and along a major bus route. Sadly, an old streetcar storage & maintenance building was razed to construct this school. The old building, even though built for purely utilitarian means, did a wonderful job of relating to the street.

The current school is set back far from the street, much as you’d expect in places like Ballwin or St. Peters. The public sidewalk does run the length of Broadway and it is used often, including during the time I was taking pictures today. From the public sidewalk is another sidewalk which will eventually lead you to the building entrance. However, if you are standing at the intersection of these two sidewalks you cannot see the building’s entrance. With rare exception, a building’s entrance should be in close proximity to and visible from the primary public street.

The lush green lawn does little to benefit the urban streetscape along Broadway. With a nice small park to the immediate south the area did not need more open space. What it needed but didn’t get, is a building to reinforce the public realm of Broadway.

Access to the entrance is assumed by car. You enter from Gasconade St. —- oh wait —- make that the former Gasconade St. since it was vacated and blocked off on the west end. The site, just a hair over 6 acres, has been poorly utilized. Bordered on three sides by public streets (now two public and one private), the building doesn’t relate to any of them.

Unless hidden somewhere, the school does not have any bike racks for students, parents, teachers or staff to use.

One of the more common urban theories, popularized by the late Jane Jacobs, is the more eyes you had watching a street the safer it was. Thus, having multiple entrances immediately off a public street would create many people watching your actions. School age kids, in those times, may have tried to get away with wrong-doings but it is harder to succeed in such acts when being watched by many.

Since opening Carnahan Middle School, named after Gov. Mel Carnahan killed in an October 2001 plane crash, has been problematic since day one. Good urban design can not turn all students into well behaved kids but bad urban design can assuredly support bad behavior.

The solution?

More than a new sign!

The building, just a few years old, probably should be razed as it does such a poor job of fitting into the city. However, I think it could mostly be retained as part of a wing off a new 2-3 story structure built along Broadway. This would allow for a proper entrance along Broadway where parents and buses could use the more than ample on-street parking spaces. I’d throw in a few bike racks along the public right of way so that people coming to the facility, perhaps even for a community meeting, will have a place to secure their bikes. This vision of mine, of course, will likely never happen.

Our schools need a lot of help. As we invest in new schools we need to stop and think about how that school relates to the general public. Great civic buildings from past generations are special for their design and detailing but also their connection to the street and subsequently to the adjacent neighborhood.

– Steve

Flamingo Bowl To Get Flashy Marquee Sign

Developer and entrepreneur Joe Edwards is expanding his magic touch beyond the Delmar Loop. Soon to open will be an instantly trendy new bowling alley, the Flamingo Bowl. Wednesday he appeared before the Board of Adjustment to appeal a routine denial of a sign permit. His proposed sign did not meet the standard criteria.

The Board of Adjustment is pretty conservative when it comes to signs, perhaps a good thing. They try to avoid strobe lights and reader board that are generally considered to be too tacky and possibly overly distracting to drivers. Edwards’ proposed sign will have features like signs at his other establishments such as Blueberry Hill and The Pageant. Namely, it will have a reader board to announce upcoming bands performing at the bowling alley (yes, live music while bowling!).

But reader boards are one of those no-nos except in rare cases. Board members were stumped when trying to think of a reader board on Washington Avenue — almost to the point where I thought they’d say no to this feature. I didn’t want to testify in this issue but I could easily think of one — the convention center.

I briefly got a glimpse of the proposed sign for Flamingo Bowl but what I saw looked very interesting. Thankfully they approved his sign request. I think this will be a great addition to Washington Avenue, helping draw visitors westward along Washington Ave from the convention center.

I welcome the return of the artistic and expensive lighted sign.

– Steve

Board of Adjustment Upholds Conditional Use for McDonald’s Drive-Thru

Today the city’s Board of Adjustment upheld the earlier decision to grant a conditional use permit to allow a drive-thru to McDonald’s on the former Sears site.

I’ve got a lot of things I want to say but I’ve pledged not to use that kind of language here. So, I’ll just say this for now:

With development like this, I have serious reservations about the ability of the City of St. Louis to reach its full potential.

– Steve

Appeal of McDonald’s Variance to be Decided Today

The McDonald’s relocation on Grand issue will likely be decided by the Board of Adjustment today. I’ve written so much about this issue to date it is hard to continue but I am sure many of you are tired of reading about it. Again, it will soon be over (barring any lawsuit depending upon the Board of Adjustment’s decision).

Here is the short summary to get you caught up if you are just joining us. The McDonald’s located on the corner of Grand & Chippewa (3737 S. Grand) since 1974 is looking to relocate to the other side of Grand on the site of the old Sears store (@ Winnebego, 3708 S. Grand). This places the McDonald’s in a different neighborhood than where it is currently as well as placing it on a corner with a minor residential street rather than being on a major corner.

Today I want to focus on a few points: Issuance of a variance to the zoning code and the design issues involved.

First the idea of a variance.

Prior court cases have determined in zoning matters “the authority to grant a variance should be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.” The City of St. Louis acknowledges this from a 1994 court decision:

Authority to grant variance from zoning requirements should be exercised sparingly and in keeping with spirit of zoning plan and public welfare. Arens v. City of St. Louis, 872 S.W. 2d 631 (1994).

You see, the city has no obligation to grant a property owner a variance from the code. A variance is usually granted in the case of a hardship or that without the variance the property would not be able to be used at all. If the Board of Adjustment were to be “in keeping with the spirit of the zoning plan” they’d look at the redevelopment plan for the area which specifically prohibited drive-thru service windows.

A restaurant asking for a variance to the zoning to allow a drive-thru window is not reason enough to grant their request. The courts have agreed.

The zoning administrator failed to exercise good judgment when originally granting the variance. The “substantial and competent” evidence does not support allowing a drive-thru at this location. Numerous people testified that it would harm the “health, safety and welfare” of the public. Furthermore, the zoning administrator, either knowingly or carelessly, characterized letters from Mayor Slay, State Sen. Coleman and State Rep. Daus as being in support of the project. This was untrue, their letters were strictly in support of a new project on the current location of the McDonald’s (see post). The zoning administrator ignore the original evidence presented on February 19, 2006.

If the Board of Adjustment upholds the variance this afternoon I believe they will be acting politically rather than rendering a sound judgement based on evidence presented. We can look at the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District zoning (see code) to see what the spirit of the code truly is:

26.40.015 Purpose.

The purpose of the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District is to establish and preserve those commercial and professional facilities that are especially useful in close proximity to residential areas. The district is designed to provide convenient shopping and servicing establishments for persons residing in the immediate neighborhood to satisfy those basic home and personal shopping and service needs which occur frequently and so require retail and service facilities in relative proximity to places of residence, so long as such uses are compatible with and do not detract from adjacent residential uses. (Ord. 62588 § 5 (part), 1992.)
variance

Clearly, this zoning district is not intended to be a regional auto-centric area but instead a draw for the “immediate neighborhood.” Well, the immediate neighborhood, Gravois Park, doesn’t need or desire a drive-thru restaurant.

Before you tell me these people bought next to a commercial district and they should expect this sort of thing please consider the following, the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District permits many uses:

A. Any use permitted in the “E” Multiple-Family Dwelling District;

B. Art galleries and studios;

C. Bakery Shop;

D. Barber and beauty shops;

E. Bed and breakfast guesthouse, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);

F. Bed and breakfast homestay, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);

G. Bed and breakfast inn, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);

H. Bookstores;

I. Butchershops;

J. Computer stores;

K. Drug stores;

L. Dry cleaning stations (not having on-site processing);

M. Financial institutions;

N. Florists;

O. General offices;

P. Grocery and other retail stores;

Q. Hardware stores;

R. Professional offices;

S. Shoe repair shops;

T. Video and record stores;

U. Mixed uses which include any of the permitted residential and commercial uses;

So while it is reasonable for the residents of Gravois Park to expect any or all of the above uses in the commercial zoning area along Grand, you’ll note a restaurant is not one of them. In fact, in the “F” Commercial District opening any restaurant requires a variance. In this case McDonald’s is requesting two variances — a restaurant and a drive-thru service window.

This is not about being next to a commercial district. For example, I’m sure many of the residents would love to see an urban storefront building on the site in question with an art gallery, hardware store, a florist and bakery — all uses that do not require any variance. Furthermore, I believe most would welcome a restaurant of any type so long as it does not have drive-thru service & excessive parking which comes with noise, trash and light pollution (from parking lot lights).

Also of note are the other uses that require a variance in the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District: bars and taverns, liquor stores, parking lots, private clubs or lodges, theaters and gas stations. I guess we are supposed to be thankful a liquor store didn’t want to relocate to the old Sears site.

Variances from zoning are a necessary evil. Sometimes the letter of the code is too restrictive to a property owner and it is reasonable to grand them a variance so as not to create a situation of hardship. The lot in question is roughly 40,000sf (200ft x 200ft) — not granting a variance for a drive-thru window will not render this vacant land unusable.

Proponents of the project; Ald. Jennifer Florida, Pyramid Construction and McDonald’s; have all argued the McDonald’s will close if they are not allowed to relocate from their current site to this site. They say, they cannot possibly reconstruct a McDonald’s on the current site. This is simply untrue, and I’ve proven as much.

If you care to review the various drawings you should probably start with McDonald’s original proposal. Then you can take a look at their revised proposal prepared for today’s hearing. They had indicated at the last year, through Ald. Jennifer Florida, the revised design would comply with what is considered one of the best guides to integrating drive-thru facilities in urban areas, The Toronto Urban Design Guidelines (large file).

Sadly what they have proposed represents only a minor attempt to satisfy concerns about urban design — they basically moved the building close to one of two streets and made a few other improvements. However, this revised design fails miserably compared to the standards. For a point by point analysis of the revised design vs. the Toronto standards click here.

Perhaps you say it can’t be done. Well, a local licensed architect was kind enough to prepare a couple of examples of placing the new standard McDonald’s building on the site in a more urban fashion more closely following the Toronto standards. See Alternate #1 and Alternate #2. Both are similar with parking toward the back while #1 has a second building facing Grand. You may think that is a long way to walk from the parking to the McDonald’s but in reality those arriving by car will most likely use the drive-thru. By eliminating both curb cuts on Grand this leaves on-street parking intact and reduces conflicts with traffic exiting the site as well as Winnebego.

But what about their current site? Again, I believe they can rebuild on the current site. Yes, it will require a retaining wall to create a more level site but I don’t think they can argue financial hardship. Click here to see the standard McDonald’s building sited on their existing location in an urban fashion. This location even permits them the ability to construct the new building while the current restaurant remains open.

And if McDonald’s choses to rebuild on their current site then Pyramid could build senior housing on the old Sears site, see concept.

The Board of Adjustment will once again take up this issue at 1:30pm today in Room 208 of City Hall. I hope they do the right thing and follow the spirit of the code and deny the variance (grant the appeal). They should see the overwhelming public opposition, the substantial evidence questioning the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as numerous alternative solutions.

– Steve

What Would You Want In A Downtown Loop?

In response to yesterday’s post on the discussion of an expanded MetroLink system some were saying the two alternate routes for downtown just didn’t do enough. I tend to agree.

So it got me thinking, again, about what kind of internal downtown loop I’d want to create. This, in my mind, would be self contained and not connected to future north & nouth MetroLink lines. I’ve argued in the past for a modern streetcar system but I thinking at this point getting something running sooner might help spur additional development (residential, retail & office). Waiting for the funds for a streetcar system might result in a slow down of development.

So what would I do?

For cost reasons I’d start with a rubber tire (aka bus) vehicle. I would not want one of those ugly fake trolley looking buses nor would I want a standard shuttle or regular city bus. I’ve seen buses which look more like a rail transit vehicle — that is what I want.

In the ideal world I’d make this new rubber tire transit vehicle electric with overhead wires but again I am trying to be realistic rather than too far fetched. Perhaps a future phase would switch to electric vehicles and the original vehicles move on to serve shuttle purposes in another part of town like Cherokee St.

Where would it go?

The route would be simple so people aren’t confused about where it goes. I’d do a couplet by going eastbound on Olive and westbound on Locust. The question becomes which streets create the eastern and western Ends. I think on the east end I’d use either 7th or 9th, both being close enough to the 8th & Pine MetroLink station. On the west end of the loop I’ve got three choices: 23rd Street (just before Jefferson), Jefferson or Beaumont St (one block West of Jefferson).

While my proposed route is a basic rectangle that is easy to understand and put on signage it excludes many areas it leaves off many major stops. Not connected are Union Station, Savvis Center, 14th Street Transfer Center, Busch Stadium, Convention Center/Jones Dome or the riverfront. I don’t think a downtown loop can or should serve each and ever area of interest, if so, it would make the entire round trip a good 45 minutes or more. The question becomes what is the ideal compromise route and how close can we get so that people are willing to walk the rest of the way.

My route is heavily focused on the emerging West Downtown neighborhood located between Jefferson and 18th or 12th (depending upon who you ask). I think this area has great development potential and a transit line to get residents to offices in the CBD as well as others out to the area for lunch/dinner would be quite helpful in making development happen at a faster pace. If it extended to Beaumont & Olive it would be right at the foot of all the workers at A.G. Edwards.

How would we pay for it?

Such a circulator should probably be free or a minimal charge like a dollar, not enough to cover actual operations. So who would foot the bill? To a degree I think such a line serving downtown is in the interest of everyone in the city and region. As our downtown continues to prosper this attracts attention from outside the region which might result in a business relocating to the city or other parts like Belleville IL or Fenton, MO. I don’t know that we can convince the region of the benefit but it could be worth a shot. At the very least such a downtown loop would benefit downtown property owners, business owners and residents. We already have a CID (Community Improvement District) with special taxes for the Eastern portion of downtown. Create another to the West and perhaps that is the start.

How often and how long?

The issue of frequency and hours of operation is tough. I’d hate to see tax money pay for an empty bus to drive around all day although I think that is inevitable at times. I could see a morning rush getting residents from lofts in the West to jobs in the CBD with the reverse in the afternoon. The downtown loop could help bring workers from the CBD out to restaurants in parts West for the lunch rush. In the evening I could see residents from all over downtown using the shuttle to get to dinner, the soon to open bowling alley and the planned movie theatre. The potential does exist to make it possible to get around downtown without using a car. For a downtown worker on a limited income, not having a car could possibly allow them to buy or rent a small loft in the West Downtown area.

Future expansion of the loop could continue west toward Grand. This might be phased in over a period of a few years with each year adding 3-4 more blocks to the West. I’m not so crazy about Olive west of Compton with SLU’s massive parking garage and gated campus. Perhaps at some point the route switches to Locust & Washington?

What are your thoughts? Tell me what you think of my initial thoughts or outline your own concept.

– Steve