New “Urban” Target An Improvement, Not Far Off The Mark

Less than a year after the old Target store was closed and razed the new store has opened with much anticipation. Today I visited the store to check it out.

I’ve posted twice before on the new Target. First was in April and the second was in July. You might want to read those to get caught up.

Before I go any further I should state a few things:

I think I’ve covered all the basis with the above statements. Yet as you might expect, I have some critical thoughts on the project. I offer these as something to keep in mind for future projects in an urban area. Yes, I got a bit of a thrill walking into a store that had been open less than 48 hours but it still just a retail store. Let’s get started.

… Continue Reading

Proposed Lowe’s in Charlotte N.C. A Good Urban Compromise

Other U.S. cities are finding creative ways of integrating “Big Box” retailing within older urban neighborhoods. Last week I showed you a big box development in Atlanta that managed to create real streets and a mix of building sizes. Now I’ve run across an interesting proposal for a Lowe’s in Charlotte N.C.

Lowe’s has made substantial changes to its plans for a home improvement store on South Boulevard….The plans also move the garden center to the South Boulevard side of the store, next to a new 5,000-square-foot retail building that could house a coffee shop, a deli or other types of neighborhood retail. As in the previous plan, the store would still have parking on the roof and be lined by up to 60 condominiums.

Just imagine, a garden center next to a coffee shop — sounds good to me. Rooftop parking is also a good solution to massive parking lots. And condos around the building. This peaked my interest and I was pleased with what I found.

First, the proposal is not yet final. At this time Lowe’s is on their 4th revision to the site plan. Neighbors are still upset about a Lowe’s in their neighborhood — they are concerned about too much traffic. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. If only they could see the abysmal Lowe’s/Schnuck’s combination we are getting.

Let me explain the site plan above since at this quality you can’t see the detail. The middle of the image is the Lowe’s with parking & trees shown on the roof. To the lower left is a small but typical parking lot in front of the building. The dark band in the picture is parking at the back of the building. But this parking is not for the Lowe’s but is instead for the residential units facing the adjacent neighborhood.





This section gives you a good idea how the Lowe’s is separated from existing residential by new housing. What amazes me is how Lowe’s has had to rework their proposal numerous times before the city would approve the plan. What a novel concept for the city to not just bend over, grab their ankles, and take whatever big box the developer says they want to build!

Also interesting is the level of detail on the proposal from Lowe’s. For Loughborough Commons we got freshmen level architectural sketches. In Charlotte they’ve got an exceptional level of detail for all to see. Click here to review the full PDF document (it is a big one – be patient). The proposal even included a bike & pedestrian map! This showed locations of bike racks (yes, more than one) as well as pedestrian circulation patterns. Meanwhile, we don’t even get sidewalks on our proposals.

The new Target could have benefited from the same type of thinking. Imagine some townhouses along the back of the newly constructed building facing the residential neighborhood.

This is for the folks at City Hall: The developers are going to do the least they can get away with some rare exceptions. Desco is not one of those exceptions! If we are going to have quality developments we must set standards to maintain a sense of urbanity. Clearly we can do this while still permitting big box developers to locate within the city. And if the current crop of people at city hall won’t make the changes we’ll just have to get new ones that will. How about a full round of recalls?

In development you get what you ask for and based on what is being built in and around St. Louis we are saying, “Give us the crap that nobody else allows anymore.” Charlotte isn’t exactly Chicago or Atlanta. Must we continue to settle for second or third rate developments from our second and third rate developers and elected officials that smile at the ribbon cuttings?

– Steve

Light Rail, Streetcars and Transit Time

I’m still having a hard time justifying the time and expense of MetroLink light rail over streetcars.

Others have made good arguments in favor of light rail, including the ability to move large numbers of people at high speeds which results in substantially lower travel time.

While I have some interest in MetroLink making its way into various parts of the county surround the City of St. Louis it is here in the city where I’m mostly concerned. I assume we still have the greatest population density of the region and we can certainly handle an increase in population. I see an excellent in-city transit system as a means of attracting more city residents. Transit as a means of shuttling suburbanites the 20 miles from their split-level ranch to downtown is a lesser priority for me. Yes, I know that if we get them on rail it is one less car (or SUV) they’ll drive into the city.

But I want a first class transit system in the City of St. Louis. And first class doesn’t include buses. The Northside and Southside MetroLink routes currently being planned include much of their route at grade — that is in dedicated medians in the center of streets such as Chouteau and Natural Bridge. These routes will also make a loop around downtown at grade.

Here is a good opportunity to look at what would happen if we substituted streetcars on the route exactly as planned. First myth we have to dispel is that streetcars run in the street and have to compete with traffic. Not true. Look at New Orleans and you’ll see a couple of routes that run mostly on dedicated medians but running in the street as needed. The same is true of San Francisco with their streetcar lines. Ditto for Portland.

Portland’s streetcars have a modern look — not retro lines as in New Orleans and San Francisco. On the surface you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between Portland’s streetcars and light rail. But when you look closer it becomes more apparent:

Size is a big factor in that streetcars are narrower and shorter than a typical light rail train. This allows for them to maneuver through the streets. Metrolink’s planned loop through downtown at grade certainly means they’ll have to pick a different car stock than our current system. The narrower and shorter trains also mean fewer passengers per run (but still greater than a bus).

At this point an in-median streetcar system and in-median light rail look very similar. Both are operating on a dedicated right of way and are most likely similar in size to each other. I’m far from an expert on these systems so at this point I’m speculating but rail type and speed are probably the main differences. Portland brags about how its system required little in the way of construction but light rail is certainly a bigger undertaking because of the speeds. The bed for the rail is more massive and crossings require gates. Money aside, fewer crossings for light rail verses streetcars means those walking or bicycling will have fewer places to cross the lines. This is a net reduction in our interconnectedness.

My problem with in-street MetroLink is that it not friendly to other modes of transportation. The cost of street crossings is high enough that pedestrians, bicyclists, scooterists and auto drivers will all have to make right turns coming from side streets until they get to the next crossing. With streetcars in the same median you could have crossings not necessarily every block but certainly more often. The downside is a slowing of transit time. Compared with bus service on the street and stopping every block, streetcars are a good middle solution between buses and light rail.

The number of stops affects transit time but also convenience. In particular the Northside route has the potential to renew interest in a long-neglected part of the city. The number of proposed stops along Natural Bridge is more frequent than our current system, ranging between 0.4 miles to 0.9 miles. I’d argue that the in-street/median portions of these routes should be designed more like the streetcar lines in New Orleans and San Francisco where they are easily crossed by pedestrian, bike or car. When they get into the old rail right-of-way let them pick up speed there. Think of it has a hybrid streetcar/light rail system.

– Steve

Missouri Botanical Garden Gets a D- on Bike Parking

I’m typically not one to simply send my readers to another blog on a subject I’d normally cover but I want to make sure people see this. Toby Weiss has brought attention to a horrible bike parking situation at one of our major institutions in town – The Missouri Botanical Gardens.

Their 2003 Annual Report (last available online) shows annual revenue in excess of $30 million and assets of $165 million. Keep this in mind when you see what kind of bike parking they provide!

Click here to read Toby’s post and view pictures of the sorry state of bike parking at the gardens! While you are there check out her other postings because she has a great site.

– Steve

St. Louis: More Light Rail vs. Streetcars vs. Bus Service

Few topics raise so much debate as public mass transit. Some, mostly wealthy suburbanites that profit from sprawl, suggest we shouldn’t subsidize mass transit (leaving money to subsidize their sprawl). Others strongly advocate expensive light rail systems including our own MetroLink. Still others advocate an expansion in bus service as a means of reaching more people, in particular those that can’t afford private cars. And finally you have streetcar advocates looking to use their retro charm to invigorate areas while providing transportation.

In July Post-Dispatch reporters Shane Graber and Elisa Crouch questioned the $550 million being spent on eight more miles of MetroLink:

Graber and Crouch continue their argument with some interesting math:

So for $550 million, here’s how many more buses Metro could have put on the road every day of the year for 16 hours a day: 241 new bus routes for five years; 120 bus routes for 10 years; 80 bus routes for 15 years; or 60 for 20 years.

That is a lot of buses. Perhaps too many? But their point is well made. Light rail is very expensive and doesn’t always serve the population that needs it most.

I’ve been utilizing our bus service in combination with my bike quite a bit over the last few months. I’ve been very impressed with the cleanliness of the buses, their on-time rate and the friendliness of my fellow riders. The economic difference between riders on the bus and light rail is pretty apparent but in the end not a deterrent. But the stigmatism of the bus is alive in many people’s mind.

Streetcars are basically a bus on a fixed rail. Well, in truth, the bus was a streetcar removed from the rails and given a diesel engine. People universally seem to love streetcars. Even new streetcars that don’t have the retro look. Something about the rail and the overhead wires. Not even the wires so much. Seattle’s buses become electric in the city, connecting to overhead wires. It really comes down to the fixed rail.

You’d think the flexibility of the bus would be more appealing but I believe we all have this secret love of railroads and the rails. The streetcar is the most accessible form of rail transportation. Light rail is superior to streetcars in that one train can hold many more passengers. Each operator carries more passengers a day than would an operator of a streetcar or bus. This is ultimately the big argument in favor of light rail. However, the cost to get those people from place to place is high.

Before people start attacking me let me say that I love our MetroLink system and I’m glad we are expanding it. But I’m wondering about the wisdom of expanding the system further. I’m not suggesting we stop building our mass transit system, just changing from light rail to streetcar.

Part of my reasoning is purely selfish. Where I currently live MetroLink will never be convenient. In about 20 years I might have a stop about a mile West of me that will take me downtown. Twenty years! I’ll be pushing 60 years old by then. Sorry, but I’m not that patient. The #40 Broadway bus is just three blocks to the East and it gets me the six miles to downtown in very short order.

I see the future Northside MetroLink route as being a critical component to repopulating and reinvigorating North St. Louis. But can we afford to wait the 15+ years for it to be finished? As much as I love light rail I think we’d be better off substituting streetcars along the Northside and Southside routes. We can have an efficient system in place years earlier and for millions less. Streetcars offer the lower cost per passenger of buses while increasing ridership through their magical charm.

Ultimately, the sooner we get more mass transit in place the better off we’ll be as a region. Streetcar lines would reach more people in more neighborhoods than light rail. And, after all, that is the goal of mass transit.

– Steve