Last week Loop businessman & Loop Trolley backer, Joe Edwards, said he thinks we’ll eventually see cars banned in Forest Park. He’d like to see an electric powered trolley (aka vintage streetcar) on tracks circulating within the park. I know weekend traffic in the park can be so bad the #95 (Hampton) MetroBus reroutes to avoid going through the park. Cars are banned/limited at times — like the annual Ballon Glow.
Parking along park roads or in surface parking lots can be difficult at times
Traffic can be obnoxious in Forest Park, ruining the pleasure of being outdoors to some. I recall flying back to St. Louis one night a few years ago and lighting in the parking lots stood out like a sore thumb in an otherwise dark park.
Currently the Forest Park Trolley does a decent job for those of us who enter the park without a car.
The bright Forest Park Trolley loops around in the park and stops just north of the park at the Forest Park MetroLink station. Yes, it is a new low-floor MetroBus with a cartoonish wrap.
Still, the vast majority drive into the park rather than use public transportation. This has prompted the St. Louis Zoo to buy the former hospital site across I-64/Highway 40 for additional parking with plans for a gondola to transport patrons back and forth. By eliminating some, or all, of the surface parking between the zoo and the highway the zoo can expand to the south with more exhibits.
So what are some of the options for dealing with congestion?
Bans cars at peak times or all the time
Construction of a electric trolley on a track, as Edwards suggested
Construction of an electric bus system with overhead wires like the trolley but no track
Run the existing trolley bus more frequently
Some will object to overhead wires and/or tracks, but others object to all the cars.
So this is the poll topic this week, the exact question is: How should we address auto congestion in Forest Park? I’m allowing you to pick up to 3 choices from the list. The poll is in the right sidebar.
Please take a moment to vote in the poll then share your thoughts in the comments below.
— Steve Patterson
I haven’t spent much time around the airport since the latest runway opened in 2006. Planned years earlier, it opened as flights at Lambert had been dropping. By 2008 the thought was get cargo flights:
The RCGA’s Susan Strauder, vice president for infrastructure and public policy, said the $1 billion W1W runway, considered a boondoggle by some in light of the drop in passengers, offers increased opportunities for the airport for expanded service. (stlbeacon)
But that hasn’t materialized either.
Lambert airport’s 1 billion dollar runway opened over 7 years ago
Last week at lunch at India Palace overlooking the airport I saw one small jet take off on the new runway. A few larger jets, mostly Southwest Airlines, took off from an older runway. Sad to have all that concrete without the flights.
Also, old streets in the area no longer connect. I compared 1958 to 2007 on HistoricAerials.com, massive changes. In 10-20 years we’ll know if the $1 billion dollar W1W runway was a good investment, right now it doesn’t look like it was.
The issue of form & style is a hard one to address, but this is exactly where I think St. Louis has failed over the years. The form of buildings, how they relate to the street/sidewalk, has been totally ignored.
Here’s how it often plays out in St. Louis: One story building set back surrounded by parking on a block with 2-4 story buildings built up to the property line. No problem, just be sure to wrap it in red brick with some stone elements so it fits in. Frustrating!
The other view taken in some neighborhoods is the new infill building, in the above scenario, should be detailed from the period of the neighbors on either side so the untrained eye wouldn’t know it was built 100 years later. Also frustrating, they wouldn’t have done this 75 years ago…or 64 years ago.
This former JC Penny store was built in 1949 on MLK in the Wellston Loop in the modern style with an urban form, rather than style of its red brick neighbors that are 20-40 years older.
If the Wellston Loop in 1949 had a design code based on the one used by many St. Louis neighborhoods this structure, which I love, wouldn’t have been permitted. That is the problem I have with how we tend to define “fits in.” Granted, this would be shocking to see on Park Ave in the commercial area east of Lafayette Park. Was it shocking to Wellston Loop shoppers in 1949? Very likely, but freezing an area in whatever period can be the opposite — boring or even offensive.
This 2005 building at 1801 Park Ave has an urban form but a poorly executed attempt at blending in.
I don’t have the answers, I just think we need to give more attention to form and less to particulars of style.
Here are the results from the poll last week:
Q: New construction should…
…have an urban form in whatever style the owner desires 34 [41.98%]
…replicate period of surrounding buildings in some historic districts 24 [29.63%]
…look like older buildings, so a lay person might think it is an old building 7 [8.64%]
…NOT be a replica of an older style 7 [8.64%]
Other: 6 [7.41%]
…have any form (urban/suburban) in any style the owner desires 3 [3.7%]
Unsure/no opinion 0 [0%]
And the six “other” answers provided by readers:
New construction should entice people/business to want to be in and/or around itAdd as a poll answer
This guestion isnt a very good one for a poll steve-o
Needs to be complementary to existing architecture.
modern and fit/funtion well on its site
The owner should decide what his new building will look like. MONEY TALKS!
not as simple as the other choices – more dtls req’d
As I’ve done for the last month, this is another post on potential development sites along the proposed initial route of the St. Louis Streetcar. The sections already reviewed are as follows:
This post will cover the section from Olive & Compton to Lindell & Vandeventer (map). For those unfamiliar with the area, Olive splits off to the north but to motorists Olive becomes Lindell (pronounced Lindle). The entire south side of this stretch of Olive/Lindell is the campus of Saint Louis University (SLU). The north is a mix of SLU, private, and institutional properties.
We’ll start at Compton and head west.
Massive SLU parking garage could be fronted with a shallow “liner building” to create a relationship with the sidewalk.
The buildings & land on the other side of Lindell from SLU’s Compton Garage are ripe for development, I’m just lacking images of them.
The intersection where Olive splits off to the right was redone a few years ago.gLooking the opposite directionIt shouldn’t take a streetcar to make it safeHotel Ignacio is just part of the development activity that has taken place here.The Field House Pub & Grill at 510 N. Theresa is an example of positive things already underway in MidtownThe streetcar can help the existing momentum and reduce the need for the excessive amount of surface parking.SLU could reskin this former state office building at 3545 Lindell, adding storefronts and new floors.The SLU campus east of Grand has a prison feel, fences everywhere. SLU could remove the fencing to connect to the street, like the campus west of Grand.With a new building on the right, street trees along Grand would make this a pleasant route to take to reach the streetcarIdeally SLU will build a new building on the SE corner of Lindell @ GrandAs well as the NE corner. I’d love to see a Trader Joe’s on the ground floor, with apartments above.
The corner of Lindell & Grand should get major new buildings. There are already substantial buildings in the area, especially to the north & west. These two corners were land banked by SLU so the streetcar is the perfect time to withdraw them and put them to good use activating the intersection.
I’d love to see the ground floor of Jesuit Hall activated with a cafe or bakeryThe Lindell facade of Jesuit Hall also has opportunities for activity.The Masonic garage on Olive is awful, I can’t see this staying long-termThis section of Lindell has some stunning buildings, this is SLU’s museumThe few gaps can be filled in with massive structures, student housing over retail would be nice at Lindell & SpringMaybe we can widen the sidewalks along SpringEventually the owner of the auto repair shop at 3699 Olive @ Spring will retire and sell.The Coronado was vacant for years until the Gill’s renovated.Hopefully someone will find the right formula for the lower level space, several places have failedA few years ago SLU razed two buildings here to make room for expansion of the law school. With the law school opening downtown this land plus the old law school are availableThe various modifications to the 1914 structure at 3765 Lindell has made it rather odd looking.The Crazy Bows & Wraps location might be developed. This 1961 structure was extensively remodeled in the 90s.In 1978 it was mentioned in the Midtown Historic District nomination as a “unfortunate intrusion which should not have been allowed”, click image to view district nomination.This building, originally built for the Brotherhood of Railway & Airline Clerks, contributes to the 1978 midtown historic district. This building should be saved as it contributes to both Lindell & Vandeventer.
An interesting paragraph from the 1978 midtown nomination:
Unfortunately, Midtown is still perceived by many as a dangerous area riddled with street crime and all manner of urban ills, the most prominent of which is the current “black sploitation” fare served at the Fabulous Fox. In spite of this onus, a 1977 walking tour sponsored by the St. Louis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and New Town/St. Louis, Inc. drew hundreds of curious and concerned
St. Louisans to Midtown. The solution for the revitalization of existing structures and the continuing education of the general public will not be easy, but to abandon Midtown is to dismiss one of the strongest concentrations of architecturally significant buildings in St. Louis.
There is more developable area north of Lindell and west of Spring, both vacant buildings and vacant land.
In case you haven’t noticed, Family Dollar stores are popping up all over St. Louis. From November 2012:
Family Dollar Stores Inc. will expand its store base by 500 this fiscal year as it looks to capture a bigger share of the dollar-store market. (Charlotte Business Journal)
A good number of those 500 new stores seem to be in St. Louis, I’ve spotted new locations next to Jefferson Commons, Grand @ Magnolia and now Jefferson near Gravois.
New Family Dollar entrance doesn’t face Jefferson & Victor.
So what does their typical new construction look like? Not much architecturally, with little to no connection to the sidewalk.
Family Dollar at 6000 Natural Bridge, built in 2006, has no connection to public sidewalk. Click image to see my post from March 2011.In 2007 Family Dollar built this location on Dr. Martin Luther King, just west of Grand
When building these two stores in 2006 & 2007 they used a pretty auto-centric approach and the cheapest materials. Now let’s take a look at the south Jefferson location where they built their newest location, starting with the Burger King that occupied the site for years.
Closed Burger King December 2011, looking north along JeffersonNorth side of the former Burger King facing Victor St.
The Burger King was a typical suburban design in what was previously an urban location. Years of chipping away at the urban fabric devalued the urban experience, but money was made. That is, until it got old, then the money stopped flowing. Uses for former fast food restaurants are limited, often to check cashing places or other businesses that could care less about the city where they are located. Okay, back to the site on Jefferson.
By August 2012 the site was back to bare earth.
b
The north side facing Victor St has a red brick veneer, but no doors or windows.The Jefferson facade is narrow, doesn’t come out to the sidewalk, with blank walls at the intersection.
ARTICLE 5: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORRIDORS DESIGN STANDARDS
501 NEW CONSTRUCTION AND EXISTING NON?HISTORIC COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
All new construction within the designated Commercial Development Corridor (the Corridor) must be reviewed and approved by the Preservation Board taking into account the following considerations:
501.1 Height
New buildings must be constructed within 15 percent of the average height of existing buildings on the block. Any additions must be compatible with both the existing building and the surrounding structures.
501.2 Scale
The scale of all proposed new construction in the Corridor must respect the existing scale of any surrounding historic structures by seeking to minimize the difference in height, mass, fenestration and location. Any additions must be compatible with both the existing building and the surrounding structures.
501.3 Location
New or moved commercial structures shall be positioned on the lot to not only enhance the character of the commercial location but also to be compatible with the surrounding streetscape. Any additions must be compatible with both the existing building and the surrounding structures.
501.4 Exterior Materials
All new building materials shall be compatible in type and texture with the dominant materials of adjacent buildings. While artificial masonry such as “Permastone” is not permitted, introduction of new materials for new construction will be considered. A submission of all building material samples shall be required prior to approval. Any additions must be compatible with both the existing building and the surrounding structures.
501.5 Details
Details on new structures should be compatible with the surrounding built environment. Any additions must be compatible with both the existing building and the surrounding structures.
I have numerous problems with the code:
The code is 41 pages of text! Not a single diagram to illustrate what is desired, or what is discouraged. Lawyers might like to read written code, but those trying to design to codes are often visual learners. The general public can benefit greatly from diagrams, increasing understanding.
If someone wanted to build a 5-story urban/mixed-use building on this site, it wouldn’t be allowed because it would be greater than 15% above the few 1-2 story buildings on the block. Never mind that we have 2 story buildings next to 5+ story buildings in many historic neighborhoods. Increased density, if allowed, not required, would be good for area businesses.
The code is too general: compatible, respect, and enhance are all subjective terms.
Form-based codes, for example, deal with issues such as width of the building facing the primary street, more building should’ve faced Jefferson.
I’m very glad this code is in place, but I’d like to see it and others improved.
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
