I’m a huge advocate of recycling. I also know making it easier will get more people to recycle. But that convenience shouldn’t come at the expense of walkability. Unfortunately that’s what happened in south St. Louis recently.
Trying to reach Chippewa along Clifton Ave behind Target I encountered a big blue obstacle blocking the sidewalk.I had to go off into the grass to get around the bins. Not all wheelchairs/scooters are as capable. Someone walking with a cane or walker would have trouble walking on the grass.The six recycling bins, oriented to the street, viewed from across Clifton Ave
It wasn’t until this point in writing this post that I realized the dumpsters probably sit on the road most of the time, they likely got moved to the sidewalk while Clifton Ave was being resurfaced. I’m going to verify with city officials to ensure this was only temporary.
Recently I was critical of a proposed big box development along Forest Park Ave, adjacent to the main Saint Louis University campus. My issue isn’t with big box retail stores themselves, my issue is with how big box developments are typically laid out: massive surface parking lots, large blank walls facing public sidewalks, too few pedestrian connections to the outside & internally.
From page 12 of a 2010 Brookings report:
Considering the economic benefits, walkability should be a critical part of all strategic growth plans. The implications of this study cut across the federal and state, metropolitan, and place levels.
Public policy should become more favorable toward walkable placemaking. Currently, many federal and state subsidies substantially favor low-density development and tip the scales against walkable development. Further, many local zoning codes make walkable development illegal, necessitating costly and time-consuming zoning changes with no guarantee of success. Federal, state, and local policy makers should conduct a systematic review of existing public policies that are biased against walkable development, and adopt new measures aimed at facilitating (or at least removing roadblocks to) this type of development.
For their part, local and regional planning agencies should incorporate assessments of walkability into their strategic economic development plans. Planning entities should identify where regional- serving and local-serving walkable urban places exist within a metropolitan area, seek out those places that are positioned to become more walkable, and determine potential locations of future walkable places. This type of assessment will help determine where infrastructure and other built environment improvements are needed. Since high-density walkable urban places seem to account for a small amount of a metropolitan area’s existing land mass, it is probable that the infrastructure cost per dwelling unit or commercial square foot will be a fraction of that of existing low-density drivable suburban infrastructure costs.
At the same time, the apparent supply-demand mismatch for walkable places may be contributing significantly to the price premium these places demand. To the extent that this is the case, the short- and medium-term shortage of walkable places makes them inaccessible (unaffordable) to many people who desire to live in such places. As such, it is important to have an affordable housing strategy in place while those improvements are being implemented. (Walk this Way: The Economic Promise of Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Christopher B. Leinberger and Mariela Alfonzo)
The proposed “Midtown Station” project would turn its back on both Vandeventer & Forest Park Avenues, which is only marginally acceptable pattern out in suburbia, but unacceptable in an urban context — especially adjacent to a major university.
In searching for alternatives I remembered a project I visited about a decade ago and blogged about in 2005. This development has multiple big box stores including a 2-level Target, a Best Buy, a Sport’s Authority, and a Ross. Smaller size spaces front the sidewalk.
Urban big box development on Northgate in SeattleA Quizno’s fronts onto the Northgate Way sidewalk
This project isn’t located in downtown Seattle either, it’s nearly 8 miles up I-5 (map). The main mode in this part of Seattle is private automobile, but thankfully newer development isn’t geared solely to motorists.
The best local example of rethinking big box development the Market at McKnight in Rock Hill, with a 36,000sf Stein Mart that opened in October 2007. Ok, not exactly a big box, but a big portion of the 130,000sf development.
The Market at McKnight project in Rock Hill is the best local example of providing a more pleasant front along the roadway with big box behindOne story buildings along Manchester Rd give a more urban feel, windows give something for pedestrians to look into as they walk byNo business has a door onto the Manchester sidewalk, but it is pleasant as a pedestrian and motorists can see businesses as they drive by.The businesses actually front the surface parking lotPedestrians have a clear path to reach the Stein Mart on the far side of the development.My window view from The Original Mongolian Grill
The view isn’t great, but the point is there’s a relationship with the sidewalk & street. From inside I could see others going by and they could see me. Instead of creating something active along Forest Park Ave. Midtown Station wants to create something like this:
Back (Clifton Ave) side of the Hampton & Chippewa Target location.
Dreadful anywhere, but especially so close to a college campus and near public transit. Developers have shown there are alternatives to the standard big box project of the last 15-20 years.
Recently I wanted to cross Manchester Rd, state highway 100, at McKnight. I quickly found out doing so is far from ideal in a wheelchair. On the surface it looks good: crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc. Let me show you one glaring problem I discovered:
Looking north across Manchester at McKnightLooking southwest from the NE corner of Manchester & McKnightClose up of cut out for those crossing McKnight. Attractive, huh?But those trying to cross Manchester are out of luck
Over the last 20+ years three out of the four corners at this intersection have been redeveloped, and Rock Hill has been trying nearly as long on the fourth. Why is this still an issue? Who cut out part? How long ago?
The cutout existed in 2011. I drove this day so I didn’t attempt to cross either McKnight or Manchester
Three possible culprits: Rock Hill, St. Louis County, or most likely, MoDOT. I suspect MoDOT because Manchester Road is Missouri State highway 100. I hope to find out why this wasn’t addresses recently when a gas station replaced the stone Rock Hill church on this corner.
This is part of the problem with having too many entities: municipal, county, & state.
Recently I defended the city’s planned use of asphalt to bridge the gap between a sidewalk that sank next to a water main lid (see post). One comment started an interesting side thread: “Then let’s do this at every intersection that lacks a curb ramp!”
So today I’m going to show you uses of asphalt that are both acceptable & unacceptable, and try to explain the difference.
Acceptable
Asphalt was just added at 11th & St. Louis. This intersection has never been ADA compliant, still isn’t.Aspalt added to transition between two levels of the sidewalk
In both cases it looks like a half-ass fix, because they are. When you have very little money you must often make due. These weren’t ADA-compliant before and they still aren’t now. In both cases though, I can now get through where I couldn’t before.
Unacceptable
During the $70 million dollar library renovation I emailed this pic to director Waller McGuire, noting how high the ramp was above the street level.Asphalt was the solution, but this isn’t ADA-compliant. In such a major project I see no valid excuse. This was either poor planning or execution.
This case is like the step at Park Pacific across the street, a major project with new concrete that ended up non-compliant. Not only was this poured inches above the street level, it is pointing into the intersection. This corner should’ve had one directional ramp for 14th and another for Olive. The other ramps around the library have similar problems.
If I had to chose between non-ADA compliant where I had to pick another route or non-ADA compliant where I (and others) can still get through I’ll always pick the latter. Just as I’ll always expect new work to be done correctly.
In the poll last week readers made it clear they want to see St. Louis County use Prop A funds to expand MetroLink. I’ll show the results later in this post but I want to share information on BRT informational meetings this week, starting today:
The Shrewsbury MetroLink station opened with the blue line extension on August 26, 2006.
Public meetings will be held in September 2013 to gather public input on two final, recommended projects to be advanced into competition for Federal funding. The same meeting will be repeated at three locations along the proposed routes.
September 10, 2013 11a-1pm, open house with presentation at noon City of St. Louis City Hall, 2nd floor 1200 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63103
September 11, 2013 5:30-7:30 p.m., open house with presentation at 6:30 p.m. The Heights (City of Richmond Heights Community Center) 8001 Dale Avenue, Richmond Heights, MO 63117
September 12, 2013 5:30-7:30 p.m., open house with presentation at 6:30 p.m. St. Louis Community College – Florissant Valley Campus, Student Services Center, Multipurpose Room 3400 Pershall Road, Ferguson, MO 63135
Here’s a summary:
The study is now in the alternatives analysis phase. Four alternatives have been identified:
Halls-Ferry Riverview BRT
West Florissant-Natural Bridge BRT
Page Avenue BRT
I-64 Highway BRT
These four potential BRT routes are options for improving transit connections between St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis. One of the study’s main goals is to address the need for quick, direct travel from neighborhoods north and south of Downtown St. Louis to employers located in north and west St. Louis County. The “Central Corridor” stretching from Downtown St. Louis to the Central West End and Clayton still holds the region’s largest concentration of jobs, but the largest job growth is occurring in places like Chesterfield, Earth City, and St. Charles – areas easily accessible by highway, but currently not by public transit. The type of BRT service currently being studied is intended to expand access and improve travel time to those job opportunities – of particular importance to reverse commuters traveling to major job centers in suburban areas – while also providing a premium transit alternative for car commuters. The Rapid Transit Connector Study will identify candidates for Metro’s first two BRT routes; Metro will continue to work with the region to identify future BRT routes. Other transit options identified in Moving Transit Forward, such as expansions of the MetroLink System, are intended to meet other long-term goals such as strengthening neighborhoods and encouraging transit-oriented development.
Four alternative BRT routes, click image to view larger version
The top three answers in the poll were for more light rail (MetroLink), not Bus Rapid Transit:
Q: How should St. Louis County invest Prop A funds to expand public transit? (Pick 3)
MetroLink (light rail) extension into South County from Shrewsbury station 41 [21.93%]
MetroLink (light rail) extension from Clayton to Westport Plaza 37 [19.79%]
MetroLink (light rail) extension into North County from North Hanley or airport 33 [17.65%]
Apply to operations to increase frequency of current routes 24 [12.83%]
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to West County 13 [6.95%]
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to South County 11 [5.88%]
Other: 11 [5.88%]
Add new regular bus routes 10 [5.35%]
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to North County 6 [3.21%]
Unsure/No Answer 1 [0.53%]
I was delighted to see more funding to operations place 4th, rather than lower. Here are the 11 other answers:
Better accomodation for cyclists
MetroLink South City
Expand metrolink into South city. Add double-buses on busiest lines.
BRT to North and South City
focus on service, not equpt – demand-responsive service & grid route structure
North South Metrolink Roue
Metrolink expansion to Chesterfield
metrolink from shrews to webster and kirkwood
Both North and South County Extensions
How is north/south Mettolink not an option. This poll is meaningless.
LRt to N County and S County through downtown.
For some reason 7 of these think County voters will let their tax money be spent within the city limits of St. Louis. The north & south light rail planning that took place a number of years ago had the extensions ending in park & ride lots on Goodfellow & Broadway, respectively. They’d never cross out of the city limits. Like Shrewsbury, they’d be built to expand further in the future.
Shrewsbury has been open for 7 years and it doesn’t look like we’ll be expanding south from there anytime soon. Just as well, where would it go?
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
