Latest Mississippi River Bridge Proposal Getting Warmer

In the past I’ve been a vocal critic of the mammoth Mississippi River Bridge proposal that originally was going to exceed a billion dollars. Recent revisions shaved that down to $900 million and some change. Besides the cost, I was not happy with the implications of the bridge ramps cutting into the near North side.

Thankfully Missouri has refused to fund their share of the project. Missouri has said the only way we can afford the project is if tolls are collected. Illinois complained it would then prove too costly for their residents as they would end up paying twice — once to fund Illinois’ portion and second as the main users paying tolls.

The stalemate has forced what may be a logical compromise. From yesterday’s Post-Dispatch:

Illinois is moving forward with an alternative to a new Mississippi River bridge – one that’s about half as big, about half as expensive, and would get around Missouri’s efforts to pay for the structure with tolls.A source familiar with the idea said the Illinois Department of Transportation has a conceptual plan in hand for a coupler bridge beside the existing Martin Luther King Bridge. The additional structure would carry four lanes of traffic, all of them westbound. Crews would renovate the existing King Bridge to carry three lanes, all eastbound. Currently, the bridge carries four narrow lanes.

I like the concept! It increases the lane capacity across the river yet without breaking the bank or decimating neighborhoods (well, hopefully not). This is, of course, the plan they should have come up with back in 2001. It might well be under construction at this point had they not gone off the deep end with such a wild scheme.

As with prior concepts, I-70 would be directed to this new bridge coupler. The idea being it would reduce traffic along the stretch of highway between downtown and the Arch as well as reduce traffic on the Poplar Street Bridge (I-64). I’m just not sure what this new concept will do to Laclede’s Landing.

With a new bridge built North of the existing King Bridge it opens a number of questions. How close to the current King bridge and what is in the way?

If immediately to the North of the existing King Bridge you’ll find an existing hotel as well as the horrible new casino project, under construction, in the path. Both are ugly so I suppose I wouldn’t mind. The dock for the President Casino is also a visual travesty so no loss there. However, I can’t see much savings by having to buy out these properties.

So will Illinois propose the new Westbound bridge land somewhat to the North such as inline with Carr or Biddle Streets? If so, this has some pros and cons. On the plus side it avoids having to buy out some expensive real estate. On the con side it further divides an area that has potential to become a real neighborhood. Keeping all the traffic confined near the existing King bridge would allow the area to the North to become more defined and a cohesive neighborhood with access to the North Riverfront Trail.

Here are some related prior posts:

Laclede’s Landing, December 2004 (includes rendering of casino and foul language)

Mississippi River Bridge, January 2005

Riverfront makeover, July 2005

Riverfront, I-70 lid and Mississippi River Bridge; August 2005

Mayor Slay on Bridge, August 2005

Mississippi River Bridge, November 2005

Mississippi River Bridge, the numbers, November 2005

I’ve written a lot more on this subject than I realized! Nothing gets me going like a billion dollars being spent on bad auto-centric planning. I’m just really curious to see what the proposal looks like on both the Missouri and Illinois sides. What are your thoughts on this latest twist?

– Steve

Olive: One Street, One Neighborhood, Two Wards

The Northern edge of the Central West End is a maze of street barricades. Nowhere is this more visible than the view where Washington & Olive come together just East of Euclid. This view is looking Eastbound along Washington (left) and Olive (right). Click here to view a map.

I wrote about this recently (see post) and since then I’ve had some calls & emails on the subject. As a result, I’ve done some additional research and want to discuss this further.

So here is the fun part. Olive, a once great road, is politically divided. One side of the street from Boyle Westward is in the 18th Ward (Terry Kennedy) and the other is in the 28th Ward (Lyda Krewson). Both sides of the street, however, are fully within the Central West End neighborhood. From an urban perspective the issues relating to the rebirth of this street do not fall into line with ward boundaries.

What is the big deal?

Say you are visiting the Green Market located on Washington just East of Euclid and you see the new Bowood Farms just down Olive. You can certainly walk from one to the other but barriers tend to have the “wrong side of the tracks” connotation. Here, one wonders, which is the good side and which is the bad side?

In the past barriers were used to help stabilize an area but of late these barriers have become such an established fixture they are now, in my view, preventing revitalization from expanding into formerly neglected areas. The view at right is a close up of Olive at Walton. On the left of the picture you are in the 18th Ward and on the right you are in the 28th Ward. Same street, same intersection. If one alderman has their barriers removed you’ll just see folks driving around the remaining ones to go the direction they want.

Olive East of Walton has seen some hard times. Lots of buildings have been razed over the years but many hopeful signs exist. I think these barriers are preventing this area from reaching its potential. People who need to get from A to B will find a way to do it. Right now I think that puts additional traffic along McPherson between Euclid and N. Taylor.

Just to the East of the above as we approach N. Taylor we see the remains of what was once a thriving neighborhood shopping district. A number of buildings have been renovated but they are still not fully connected to the neighborhood due to the barriers along Olive. Again, each side of the street is a different aldermanic ward.

A former school, Field School, is being renovated into apartments. An old apartment building next door is being converted into condos. This is all just East of N. Taylor. With all these new residential units coming onto line soon it is a perfect opportunity to connect this area to Euclid via Olive.

Further East along Olive we get to Newstead. This is in the 28th Ward and Newstead is closed to Olive, sorta. The private parking lot on the left of this picture has access to both Newstead and Olive — cars & trucks are simply cutting through to avoid the street closure. This shows a couple of things, people will find ways to get around street closures and that a need exists to get people from place to place — enough of a demand that we need to look at reopening these various closures.

It would be nice to see Ald. Kennedy & Ald. Krewston work together with local residents, business owners and the city’s planning staff to come up with some sort of plan for the area rather than just leaving barriers in place simply because they’ve been there for decades. Both Ald. Kennedy & Ald. Krewson are up for re-election in March 2007.

Additional photos in this area can be seen on Flickr.

– Steve

Arch City Chronicle Misses Mark on McDonald’s & Recall

Most of you are probably familiar with the Arch City Chronicle — both the on again/off again print edition as well as the online blog. While the McDonald’s issue has been going on for several months now the print edition of the ACC has remained quiet on the issue until this past edition. Let’s take a look at their coverage from “The Inside Dirt” section:

The 15th ward recall might usurp the 4th district as the most fascinating political play this year. Jennifer Florida, who supported the stadium deal, fought charter reform, and made cozy in Slay’s camp; was unopposed last year for reelection. Now she’s the subject of a recall because a McDonald’s wants to move across the street?

Oh I get it, a clever way of saying the McDonald’s isn’t such a big deal relative to all her other wrong-doings. Perhaps. But this shows a complete lack of understanding about what motivates individuals: proximity to their home. Did the stadium deal or charter reform threaten resident’s homes with trash and noise from an adjacent drive-thru? No.

And it is not as simple as Editor Drebes (and Ald. Florida) make it out to be — just moving across the street. This shows Drebes has formed an opinion without looking into the issue of the financing behind the site (Federal funds used to acquire & raze old Sears) as well as the quality of life issues that would come from having a drive-thru on your side of a major street rather than the other. It should be noted the Drebes family lives just a block off Grand South Grand with all the various restaurants and shops and a decidedly different feel than the area in question. Location, location, location.

What’s surprising isn’t that it’s a bloody McDonald’s that’s moving the electorate. What’s funny is that the “recallers” apparently haven’t thought much about the future. First, it’s unlikely they’ll get the signatures. In order to so so, they’ll have to improve on their timid approach we witnessed in the park last weekend.

Oh, the discredit approach. Good one, Dave. Let’s observe a fraction of the first two hours of the recall effort and draw conclusions about the outcome of something which arguably takes a couple of months at best. I saw the folks collecting signatures in the park doing really well approaching people — perhaps too well. They were soon asked by Park Rangers to move toward the traffic circle where efforts proved more challenging.

Second, if they get the sigs, Florida has an open and thriving ward organization. Something progressives applaud. It has members. That is to say, she has a base to beat back a recall (Not to mention her $21,000 war-chest.)

Part of the ACC mission is to be, “challenging to the status quo.” Uh, is that going to start anytime soon? Sounds more like trumpeting the status quo to me. First we have the scare mongering technique to squash any potential rebellion by saying an incumbent has a whole ward organization and second a big pile of cash. What the ACC is really saying is this is St. Louis where ward politics reign supreme and money talks so even though we talk about challenging the status quo we really don’t mean it.

If blogger Steve Patterson couldn’t out-door-knock Kirner in his aldermanic race, it’s unlikely he can out-work the spunky Florida.

This sentence seems added later, just as a quick jab at me. It doesn’t really relate to the rest of the piece. Funny, a year ago Dave Drebes said it was the work of Lou Hamilton and the $14K+ that Kirner paid him that was why I was defeated in my race. Still, I managed to get more votes in the two precincts on my side of Grand with only two months from the date I entered the race to election day.

Florida is trying to paint me as the person behind the recall and the ACC doesn’t seem willing to examine that assumption. The truth is I don’t have the time to recall every alderman that makes bad development decisions — can you imagine the coordination required to run 28 recalls? Clearly I am a supporter of the recall and I am in communications with those that are but I have no intention of going door-to-door collecting signatures. It is their baby which may or may not succeed. My focus remains on the planning issues behind the McDonald’s issue on Grand.

Third, suppose they win a recall, the Democratic nominee would be chosen by the committeepersons — hardly the people that the recallers would consider a positive improvement from Florida. Greg Thomas is going to vote in favor of a civilian review board? “Not bloody likely.”

In other words, the alderperson whom you disagree with on moving a McDonald’s across the street will be better on 90% of your issues than the one that you get when you recall her.

Wow, more of that challenging to the status quo writing! The 15th ward has two committees. Florida’s committee though “thriving” apparently failed to have any candidates for committeeman or committeewoman. As such, the old guard committee would determine the Democratic nominee. The ACC is presuming committeeman Greg Thomas would nominate himself (certainly a possibility). I just adore the argument that we are better off with what we have because any replacement would be worse. Was that a jab at William Waterhouse in the 24th, the former committeeman that replaced recalled Tom Bauer?

The problem here is the ACC is promoting the idea that citizens should not be engaged in the process, that an incumbent with money cannot be beat so why even bother. This is not progressive thinking. This is what the status quo wants people to believe so they can go about their business and stay in office for 20+ years with seldom being challenged.

I’ve been disappointed the ACC hasn’t taken a closer look at the various issues of planning, zoning, aldermanic courtesy, funding sources, redevelopment plans and such all at work in this complex issue. You’d certainly think a paper with a mission to challenge the status quo would do so. But maybe not.

Ald. Florida is a regular advertiser in a paper that has struggled to stay afloat. Last year it got new investors but we don’t really know who they are. We do know advertisers include status quo PR folks Richard Callow & Lou Hamilton. Then we have Pyramid Construction, the developer behind all this. Not only are they big advertisers in the ACC they are also their landlord. Yes, the ACC leases office space from Pyramid.

The ACC is not about challenging the status quo but simply another voice for the status quo (besides the St. Louis Business Journal that Dave Drebes also writes for).

UPDATE 5/31/06 @ 5pm – At the suggestion of Thomas Crone, Dave Drebes and I are meeting tomorrow morning to “hash out” our perspectives in a civil face-to-face meeting.

– Steve

Ald. Florida & Co Submit Revised Site Pan for McDonald’s

As expected, the beleaguered team of McDonald’s, Pyramid Companies and unofficial spokeswoman Ald. Jennifer Florida submitted a revised site plan for the controversial McDonald’s proposed for the old Sears location at 3708 S. Grand. Last month when Ald. Florida told the Board of Adjustment they’d return with a design following Toronto’s excellent urban design guidelines for drive-thrus I was quite skeptical. Based on the new plan, I was right.

They’ve made a few simple changes — mostly good but still a long way from even approaching anything like what is suggested by Toronto’s standards. First, they have reduced the amount of extra paving which permits a planter area along the Southern property line. Similarly, they’ve created a 20ft+ landscape buffer at the alley with plantings and a 6ft high solid wood fence. Curb cuts on Grand have been reduced from 30ft wide each to 26ft wide. The main thing they’ve done is reduce the drive between the building and public sidewalk — this allowed them to move the building closer to Grand. Again, a good baby step but far from urban.

While the building is nearly abutted to Grand it is set back from Winnebego. To be truly an urban form it should conform to the corner. Three curb cuts is one too many. Lighting is from four poles and may potentially create excess light outside the property boundaries. I’d rather see more smaller lights so as to illuminate the parking area but not all the neighbors. All of the neighbor’s valid concerns about noise, pollution, trash and traffic remain unchanged.

If McDonald’s wishes to continue operating in this area they simply need to rebuild on their current location and not inflict their ill on a new set of adjacent homeowners.

– Steve

Patterson & Florida Duke it out in St. Louis Magazine

If you haven’t seen the June 2006 of St. Louis Magazine be sure to find a copy. They did a short piece on the McDonald’s issue going through various issues with a point-counterpoint format with quotes from myself and Ald. Jennifer Florida. In “Round Five: The Opponent” here is what Ald. Jennifer Florida has to say about me:

“He’s a minister of disinformation. A zealot, the take-no-prisoners no compromise type.”

I consulted the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the term ‘disinformation’ and here is what I found.

Function: noun
: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

If I am a “minister of disinformation” I’m doing a lousy job. All those Sunshine Law requests for documents and audio recordings does not look good on the resume of a MoD. Then, to top if off, actually publishing the letters, statements and actual audio to allow people to review the facts themselves. Not to mention publishing a well-read website with my name appearing prominently, not exactly covert. What was I thinking?

Ald. Florida, on the other hand, seems to be making an outstanding run for MoD. For example, deliberately telling Gravois Park they’d not be getting the McDonald’s in their neighborhood while working behind the scenes to do just that. That my friends is disinformation done right (well, wrong… you get the point).

Now ‘zealot’ is a different issue. Typically you see the word religious as a preface and we mostly acknowledge zealot as a derogatory term. I’m quite certain Ald. Florida did not intend to offer a compliment by labeling me a zealot.

Again, from Merriam-Webster:

Zealot:

2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Zealous:

: filled with or characterized by zeal (zealous missionaries)

Zeal:

: eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something :

Ardent:

: characterized by warmth of feeling typically expressed in eager zealous support or activity. synonym: see impassioned.

Impassioned:

implies warmth and intensity without violence and suggests fluent verbal expression (an impassioned plea for justice)

You know, I kinda like the progression above. Perhaps zealot isn’t so bad? An urban zealot, arden urbanist, or impassioned urbanist. What I am about is pretty clear in over 600 postings on this site. Few, if any, agree with me 100% — that is to be expected from thinking individuals. But I have to ask what is it that Ald, Florida is about? What is she impassioned about?

But I am supposedly the “take-no-prisonors no compromise type” of zealot. So my pursuit of this issue is an indication of being excessively ardent. I suppose if I were in Ald. Florida’s awkward position I might agree. From day one people have said the McDonald’s should not be relocated and she has continually said that is not an option — that it will indeed happen and she is just trying to make the best deal. If anyone in all of this is excessive in their position it would be Ald. Florida. She is refusing to even entertain the notion of looking at rebuilding the McDonald’s on its current site. Through many postings here I have continued to illustrate various viewpoints, explain the logic behind them and show viable alternates. To a degree I think Ald. Florida could be willing to seek a compromise but politically she doesn’t want to appear weak. She may well be getting bad advise from higher ups that view her as expendable — better for her to take the fall than themselves.

I do want to end with one more quote from St. Louis Magazine (you’ll need to get a copy to read the rest). From Ald. Jennifer Florida as quoted in St. Louis Magazine:

“This strip has been commercial for 30 years, and, looking at it, it’s all messed up anyway.”

Finally something out of the mouth of Jennifer Florida that I can think is her genuine feeling, “it’s all messed up anyway.”

– Steve