Poll: We Get The Infrastructure…

I got the idea for the poll this week from the comments on the post from last Monday: Former River Roads Mall Site Vacant, the Few New Buildings Aren’t Pedestrian Friendly. One person thinks we have what we want, if we didn’t we’d move somewhere else. 

I disagree, but I want to see how you feel about it. This week I ask that you select the sentence that comes closest to matching your view. Here are the options:

1. We get the infrastructure in our communities that most of us want and use.
2. We get the infrastructure that was commonplace years ago, but outdated today.
3. We get the infrastructure that makes developers the most money.
4. We get the infrastructure we want only if we fight for/demand better.
5. We get the infrastructure we get because most people don’t know other options exist.
6. Unsure/No Answer.

The poll, in right sidebar, will randomize the order in which these appear. Infrastructure in this context means the built environment: roads, sidewalks, parks, buildings, etc.

Discuss in the comments below.

— Steve Patterson

Former River Roads Mall Site Vacant, the Few New Buildings Aren’t Pedestrian Friendly

River Roads Mall was located in the north St. Louis County municipality of Jennings, MO:

Opened in 1962, the mall originally featured St. Louis-based Stix, Baer & Fuller as its main anchor store, as well as a Kroger supermarket and a Woolworth dime store. Walgreens operated a store in the mall as well. A 1970s expansion brought JCPenney as a second anchor store. Dillard’s bought the Stix, Baer & Fuller chain in 1984, converting all Stix, Baer & Fuller stores to the Dillard’s name. However, the River Roads Mall store was closed not long afterward in 1986 at the end of the lease. JCPenney converted its store to a JCPenney outlet in 1984. Woolworth closed the River Roads location (along with locations at West County Mall and in South St. Louis City) in early 1991 during one of the chain’s earliest rounds of store closures. By the early 1990s, the mall was briefly renamed St. Louis Consumer Center. (Wikipedia)

Two decades after opening it was already in decline. The surrounding residential neighborhoods remain a decent place to grow up.

I love that sidewalks were provided, those didn’t exist in the 1960s subdivision where I grew up, but they’re meaningless because the sidewalks didn’t lead anyone to nearby retail. You see in the 1960s America thought driving everywhere was the future. Cart the kids around until they get a license then they can drive themselves.

But we know better now, right? We need to design places to accommodate multiple modes of mobility: car, bike and foot. So you’d think the few new buildings that have been constructed in the last 5-6 years on the edge of the site have improved things for area residents. Well, you may not think so but I expected to see an improvement.

Boy was I disappointed on my first visit in 6+ years.

River Roads Manor was a Pyramid Properties project, completed prior to the collapse of the company on April 18, 2008 (see Five Years Since Pyramid Properties Ceased Operations). The McDonald’s & Neighbors Credit Union were started.  So John Steffen’s Pyramid Properties is to blame for not raising the bar in this area.

I just hope  Stacy Hastie of Environmental Operations, the entity that now owns the mall site, will take pedestrian access into consideration in the future. I also hope Jennings will realize their residents do walk places and that new construction should include provisions for them as well as for motorists.

Some of you will say nobody walks, everyone drives. Why then is the area serviced by MetroBus is everyone drives?  All we have to do is take a look at Google Street View to spot pedestrians.

Massive efforts go into accommodating motorists, from municipal codes to vast amounts of paving and land. I just want a pedestrian connection to adjacent streets, I think that’s fair.

— Steve Patterson

Why I Use Washington Avenue Rather Than A More Direct Route

When I leave my loft at 16th & Locust to go east into our downtown central business district I often go north to Washington Ave to head eastbound even if I plan to end up on Locust, Olive, Pine, etc. Why go out of my way rather than a more direct path? Why not just stay on Locust or go down to Olive? Here’s why…

I’ve reported the above problem but like so many others downtown it remains an obstacle.  There are blocks I avoid completely because of a lack of a curb ramp (such as SE corner of 11th & St. Charles, SE corner of 9th & St. Charles).

I’m surprised these have remained for so long.

— Steve Patterson

McKee’s Northside Regeneration Moving Forward

As you’ve likely heard by now, last week the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a 2010 ruling that Paul McKee’s Northside Regeneration development plans were too vague for TIF financing:

After over 3 years of litigation, developer Paul McKee’s controversial Northside Regeneration Project is being allowed to proceed.  On Tuesday the Missouri Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision blocking McKee’s use of so-called “Tax Increment Financing,” (TIF) for the development. (St. Louis Public Radio)

I’ve never been thrilled about how McKee handled property acquisition and maintenance, but I recognize the city’s total absence of planning and working toward a common vision left an opening for private interests without public input.

The project area is large but it’s a fraction of the city as a whole. There are many other parts of the city, north & south, dealing with continued population decline, increases in vacant buildings, and other signs of decay. Where’s the people upset the city isn’t doing anything to solicit public input in the rest of the city? Transportation, housing, jobs, education, etc are all being ignored.

The Jaco report just had Paul & Midge McKee on taking about their project, see the video here.

One of the biggest issues is the massive TIF (tax increment financing) package for the project. What needs to be understood is the pros and cons of the TIF tool. When a municipality invests in new infrastructure in stable and up & coming areas few tend to object since people see the value of improving desirable locations. Conversely, this means declining areas don’t see improvements in public infrastructure (sidewalks, roads, sewers, lighting, etc).  Both are self-fulfilling in that rebuilding public infrastructure in the sable/improving areas further helps these areas while the lack of infrastructure investment in others accelerates decline in others.

Begin replacing sidewalks & lighting in sparsely populated declining neighborhoods and people will quickly question the return on that investment.  This is where the TIF tool come in, a private developer agrees to invest in a blighted area and pay much more in property taxes than the municipality currently collects but only in part of that tazx is used to pay off bonds used to rebuild the public infrastructure the municipality can’t afford to rebuild otherwise.

The developer needs the new infrastructure to attract investors/buyers/tenants but the municipality can’t rebuild the infrastructure without a way to pay for it. The municipality can’t risk existing revenues to pay off bonds to rebuild the infrastructure so that means new revenue must be used.  Sales taxes are a bad source for these revenues

• Residential & office development don’t pay sales taxes
• Sales taxes would take too long to accrue
• Our sales tax rate is already sky high

This leaves property taxes as a source of revenue. To simplify things say the property is paying $100/year in property taxes but after redevelopment the property taxes will now be $200/year. With the TIF the municipality/school district would still collect the $100 it always did, $5o (increment) would go to pay off infrastructure bonds and the remaining $50 would go to the municipality/school district. Do nothing get $100/year or do the project and get $150/year.

The actual numbers will be different but you get the point: public infrastructure gets rebuilt, building happens, more taxes are collected than if nothing happened. This is a simplified view and there are cons such as favoritism for the developer(s), risk of pushing out good people, etc.

My concern is St. Louis won’t require good urbanism such as strong pedestrian connections. The infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and TIF is the best way to do that, but we need to have a say on characteristics of the final development.

— Steve Patterson

Five Years Since Pyramid Properties Ceased Operations

Five years ago today major St. Louis developer Pyramid Properties, led by John Steffens, collapsed, leaving a long trail of unfinished properties.  From May 2010:

City leaders and Pyramid’s former partners say the transfer of properties is remarkable given the size and scope of the properties involved and the timing of the deals in the midst of the Great Recession.

“It has worked out far better than I expected,” said Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay’s chief of staff. “The fact that people were willing to not race to the courthouse steps is the only reason this didn’t end up a total disaster.”

Instead of filing lawsuits or filing for foreclosure, many of Steffen’s lenders, investors and former partners suspended disbelief and instead participated in a workout process that began days after Pyramid closed its doors. (St. Louis Business Journal)

With the properties untangled many have since been completed by others, including, but not limited to:

The above properties show that even in a down economy projects can happen. Still, the future of a few other former Pyramid projects remains unclear or just getting started:

Considering how much property Pyramid had tied up in complicated financial transactions it’s remarkable what has been accomplished in the last five years. Hopefully the  remaining projects will be completed in the new few years.

— Steve Patterson