Urban McDonald’s in Chicago Could Serve as Model for St. Louis

Fast food restaurants, with drive-thru lanes, can fit into an urban streetscape. But, the typical fast food establishment — surrounded by parking — just won’t due anyplace except out in suburbia.

A couple of years ago a McDonald’s on the NE corner of Chicago & State (map) in Chicago was completely replaced by the example shown at right. Architecturally it is no gem. The site planning, however, is a major departure from typical McDonald’s or other fast-food establishments.

This McDonald’s is on a corner site and includes a curb cut onto each street. It does not include any off-street parking, however, it does have a dual drive-thru lane. Cars enter the drive-thru from Chicago. The dual lanes keep traffic from backing up across the public sidewalk and into the street. Cars then make a left behind the building to pick up their orders, exiting onto State.

The corner of the site is an outdoor park/seating area. Customers can eat indoors, outside or take their order to go.

The franchise owner of the McDonald’s on south Grand in St. Louis has made it clear his business relies heavily on drive-thru service and they are seeking to increase that business by relocating. So why have 47 parking spaces? I can’t imagine they will need that many spaces. If the McDonald’s is going to relocate why not move the building to the corner of the site and reduce or eliminate off-street parking?

The McDonald’s in Chicago occupies roughly a third of the land area as the proposed McDonald’s on south Grand. The Chicago example will most likely will do a higher volume of business while occupying less space. That is what urban is all about — getting more from less land. I view the Chicago example as the very least that we should accept in St. Louis.

Photo from A Daily Dose of Architecture. Additional photos on Flickr.

Gravois Park Neighborhood Files Appeal in McDonald’s Drive-Thru

Gravois Park, the neighborhood to be impacted by a relocated McDonald’s on south Grand, has filed an appeal with the City of St. Louis over zoning approval of the drive-thru. Residents indicate this is against the wishes of the neighborhood and does not conform to the development plan for the area. At this point a hearing date has not been set.

The Gravois Park Neighborhood Association is meeting tonight at 6pm at St. Matthew United Church of Christ, 2613 Potomac St. at Jefferson Avenue. The McDonald’s will be discussed but it is only a part of the agenda.

Meanwhile residents in Florida’s backyard of Tower Grove Heights are talking about organizing to support Gravois Park in opposing the McDonald”s relocation. Sounds to me like the only one out of step is Ald. Florida herself. Makes you wonder what she has to gain by supporting something nobody wants?

– Steve

Urbanists Need to Stand Up To Ald. Florida on Future of Grand

It seems 15th Ward Alderwoman Jennifer Florida is upset a committee of the Dutchtown South Community Corporation opposed her new pet project, the relocation of a McDonald’s fast food restaurant. Her letter to the DSCC President Brian Bast and copied to the board:

I think it inappropriate for a subcommittee to oppose or support commercial development no South Grand, an area outside of your neighborhood association.

Appropriate process would prescribe a subcommittee making a recommendation to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors would vote to make comment of support or opposition regarding development projects in your area. I assume you did not have the support of your Board. I question your process.

I disagree with your reasoning for opposing the overall development of South Grand. I am enclosing my testimony from the conditional use hearing regarding McDonald’s, February 16, 2006.

Oh, Bravo Ms. Florida. This all sounds good except you are in no position to question anyone’s process. As I reported earlier, Ald. Florida shows up at the committee meeting two days before the hearing on the subject without a site plan on the project. She instead attempts to divert attention to the glorious Southside National Bank project already underway. All the while she actually has a copy of the site plan with her but she doesn’t want to show it because she realizes nobody would be happy. And yet she questions the process of this committee?

The fact is the project was submitted to the city more than a month earlier and she had possession of the drawings. She had sufficient time to present full information to the Dutchtown board, but didn’t. The Board was aware the information would be presented to the committee just two days prior to the public hearing.

As far as being outside the neighborhood association that is technically true — by one city block. Dutchtown’s northern boundary is Chippewa, directly across the street from the current McDonald’s and just one block from the proposed site. The DSCC also serves part of the neighborhood known as Gravois Park — the neighborhood where the new McDonald’s is to be located. This is highly appropriate for Dutchtown to speak up.

What is questionable is the Grand-Oak Hill’s support of the relocated McDonald’s. You see, they’ll end up losing the current problem McDonald’s from their area. Also, one has to wonder how influenced they were in their support since they are heavily reliant on Ald. Florida for their operating funds. We also have to question the testimony of 25th Ward Committeewoman Maggie Lampe. She testified at the hearing about questioning Dutchtown’s process but failed to mention her job is funded by Ald. Florida.

Supporting Documents (PDF) for your review:

Dutchtown’s Letter

Ald. Florida’s Letter to Dutchtown

Ald. Florida’s Testimony at Hearing

For a counterpoint to Florida’s testimony please read Ald. Craig Schmid’s testimony from the same hearing.

The residents in the area oppose a drive-thru restaurant on the site of the old Sears. They are part of the 15th Ward (Florida) and 20th Ward (Schmid). Remember that Schmid’s ward is a mere two blocks from the site and only a block from Dutchtown. Ald. Florida is pushing hard for this project over the objections of her constituents. The fact most of her constituents are near Tower Grove Park and probably are not that involved with this far edge of the ward is often overlooked.

I ask that everyone reading this site email Jennifer Florida and tell her what you think of a low-density fast-food drive-thru in an urban area. If Florida is not your alderman I suggest you contact your alderman as well and tell them you don’t want them deferring to her on this subject. I also ask that everyone email Aldermanic President James Shrewsbury and Mayor Francis Slay. Until these officials hear from us they will continue with business as usual. Feel free to post the text of your emails in the comments section below for all to read.

– Steve

An Analysis of Lafayette Walk’s Doors & Transoms

Two weeks ago the City’s Preservation Board, in a tediously long meeting, voted to require the developer of the new Lafayette Walk townhouses, Orchard Development, to replace the front door and ‘transoms’ on the units already complete and to make changes going forward.

I must admit that at first glance I agreed with their decision. In spending some more time looking at this project, other new construction projects, and period buildings I’ve some to a slightly different conclusion.

Correctly discussed at the meeting was the lack of a proper transom sash. At Lafayette Walk the developer somehow thought they could just insert glass in the frame and do without the sash. Of course, real opening transoms (like the six in my building) all require a sash frame to work. It is part of the look and should have been a no brainer. The staff & board also focused on the lack of thickness of the header frame between the door and where a proper transom should have been.

Cultural Resources director Kathleen Shea focused on the height of the doors as the other problem. All evening long she asked those speaking the height of their doors. As a result, the Preservation Board voted to require the front doors to be 7ft tall rather than the 6ft 8 in doors that are already in place.

Looking at the entry to the right it is certainly true the door could be taller without any issues. However, if they also thicken the header and do a proper transom sash the amount of area will be significantly reduced.

I have an issue with the light area over the window in the eyebrow. Historically this area would be the same color as the window frame. Why this hasn’t been addressed is beyond me. It is possible this area just hasn’t been painted yet…

The building from above includes six units, three with half circle opening like this one. In this case, a taller door would be a horrible mistake as you’d lose the entire view of the transom. So, the first mistake from the Preservation Board was to apply the 7ft door to all openings, including ones like this.

While we are here at this picture I want you to note a few things that I’ll reference later. The front steps leading to the small front porch rise to the point where you are nearly flush with the interior floor — no step up from the porch to get inside the house. As a result the steps are way above the dividing line between the foundation and brick line.

One last thing, I’m surprised they are not required to have a “graspable” handrail given the height of the steps above grade. I know I’d want something to hold on if the steps are covered in snow & ice.

Vollmer & Deferring Colleagues Vote to Raze St. Aloysius

I’m not sure what feeling is the strongest: anger, disappointment, sadness. In truth it is all of these. According to the Post-Dispatch the Board of Aldermen passed legislation to bypass the Preservation Board and allow the demolition of the former St. Aloysius Gonzaga complex. Keep in mind the Preservation Board is a volunteer citizen board appointed by the Mayor — the very ones who are supposed to give a balanced view of demolition requests as they relate to the development potential.

On December 19, 2005 the Preservation Board gave the property owner a very clear message: no you can’t tear down these buildings. It was a preliminary review and the owner could have come back another time with more documentation as to why he couldn’t save the buildings.

But instead he relied on the area’s Alderman which delivered the required legislation to snub the city’s 1999 Preservation Review ordinance. Basically the legislation stands to protect our neighborhoods and building stock unless one person, the area’s alderman, decides otherwise. Why even bother having a Cultural Resources Staff and a Preservation Board? Why not streamline the careless destruction of those very buildings and urban settings which make our city unique.

In the end Ald. Vollmer make a horrible decision not only for the immediate area but for the city. As expected, the other 27 “legislators” deferred to his judgement. I guess we have 28 cities within a city.

In place of this unique setting we’ll have some very ordinary houses — maybe. I’m not holding by breath. Based on what I’ve seen to date this developer he won’t get very far beyond razing the historic structures. My prediction is he’ll get no more than 5 houses completed and sold this calendar year with another 5 in 2007. More than half the sites will remain vacant eyesores.

This is if he does the project at all. Some have suggested he is busy shopping the building lots to other builders. This might be a good thing as ugly suburban looking homes are better than vacant lots with weeds and debris.

Neighbors will be hugely disappointed by the end result of all this. Of course, at that point it will be too late. As with so much of what we’ve lost, we don’t miss it until it is gone.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about all of this is we’ve failed to learn from past mistakes. Mistakes around razing great old buildings. Mistakes around electing the same types of folks.

You can express your feelings on this project in the comments below, to the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor.

– Steve