Coming Soon to Kingshighway & Delmar: More Low-Density Sprawl

The site of the former National/Schnucks at Kingshighway & Delmar, long vacant, has now been cleared for new development. I’ve viewed the site as an opportunity to build a dense urban project, ideally connected with a Delmar extension of the future Loop Trolley. But current plans may delay dense development of the 4+ acre site for at least the next 20-30 years.

Former grocery store building sat back at the east end of the site

The long-vacant building was recently razed.

Discount grocer ALDI has announced a new location here.

But ALDI doesn’t need over 4 acres! Looking at city records online I see The Roberts Brothers has divided the site into three parcels, with ALDI buying one of the three.

Outline of the parcel ALDI purchased with Kingshighway on the left, Delmar on the bottom.

The boundaries of the three parcels is intriguing, my guess is so all three can have automobile  entrances facing Kingshighway, or at least a Kingshighway address.  This new store will be part of three recently announced locations also including Creve Coeur & Des Peres (source).

My assumption is this Kingshighway & Delmar location will replace the ALDI less than a mile to the north at Kingshighway & Page (1315 Aubert).

The Aldi at 1315 Aubert (Page & Kingshighway) was built in 1991.

Below is a look at a few ALDI locations in the area, showing size of parcel, year built, and the building size:

Comparison of a few select ALDI locations

The most recently completed ALDI on the list above is the 7701 Olive location. I visited that ALDI in May 2006, shortly after it opened.

View from the Olive auto entrance

A route is provided from Olive but it is not ADA-compliant.

An ADA-compliant route is provided off North and South

This is how ALDI builds US locations from coast to coast. For example, in late 2010 a blogger noted the design for a dense Washington DC neighborhood (see Terrible Aldi design shows need for new parking zoning). As with so many retailers, they’ll do the cheapest design they can, barely meeting minimum standards. If we want/expect better we must demand better — raising the minimum. Retailers will meet the improved standard as long as they can get sales & profit growth.     ALDI does have a few urban locations, but only in super-dense places like Queens, NY.

And before anyone says ALDI and Trader Joe’s are part of the same company let me clarify their relationship.

The [ALDI] chain is made up of two separate groups, Aldi Nord (North – operating as Aldi Markt), with its headquarters in Essen, and Aldi Süd (South – operating as Aldi Süd), with its headquarters in Mülheim an der Ruhr, which operate independently from each other within specific areas.

[snip]

Both Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd also operate in the United States; Aldi Nord is owner of the Trader Joe’s chain while Aldi Süd operates as Aldi. (Wikipedia)

Thus the ALDI we see in the US is NOT related to our Trader Joe’s stores. Another difference between our ALDI stores and our Trader Joe’s is the latter is willing to go compact in dense, walkable areas. For example, the Trader Joe’s I visited in 2009 located at 1700 E Madison St, Seattle, WA.  The store is located on the ground floor with sidewalk entrance, a level of structured parking over the store and four levels of housing over that.

Garage of the Trader Joe’s in the Capital Hill neighborhood of Seattle

Madison St. in Seattle still has low-density development, like the gas station across from the Trader Joe’s, but one property at a time it is getting more urban. As it gets more urban it attracts more people, increasing the need to be more urban.

Back in St. Louis, we do the opposite. We continue to build low-density sprawl, then scratch our heads wondering why more people don’t walk, use transit, or why our population declines. I’m not suggesting development patterns are the reason for our population decline in the past, but it is a factor today.

A single story ALDI surrounded by surface parking on this corner is totally inappropriate given the context to the east and south.

– Steve Patterson

Crappy Little Commercial Boxes Rarely Go Away

Buildings are largely permanent structures, although a demolition crew can change that quickly. Much of what we build stays with us for decades. Lowest common denominator auto centric structures, such as gas stations, seem to live on forever.

Early gas stations of the 1920s were small, much closer to the sidewalk and had details similar to housing of the day. Today these are often viewed as charming.

ABOVE: The former QT on Gravois in the Bevo area is something new, not sure what though.

Get off the bus or just walk down the sidewalk this spot is an urban void. What are the hours of this business? A menu? Heck, how do I even get to the front door?

ABOVE: The former convenience store structure built in 1991 is set far back from the sidewalk unlike adjacent properties.

Check out the aerial on Google Maps here to see how this is a radical departure from the long-established commercial district. This never should’ve been built 21 years ago. Too late for Bevo but we must prevent further such atrocities to happen to our urban commercial districts.

Hopefully I’ll see the day a new 2-3 story commercial building is built, up to the sidewalk, on this site.

– Steve Patterson

Conditional Use Hearing Today For Blast Fitness In Jefferson Commons

In addition to a new Save-a-Lot the former Foodland site, now known as Jefferson Commons, will have a Blast Fitness. Well, assuming it receives conditional use approval from the Board of Public Service today.

ABOVE: Work has started on Jefferson Commons, a public notice of a zoning hearing is posted

ABOVE: Hearing is this morning regarding zoning.

A hearing is required? To understand why we have to look at the absurdity known as use-based zoning,  in this case our G (Local Commercial and Office) zone in Title 26 of our city ordinances:

Chapter 26.44 - G Local Commercial and Office District

Sections:

• 26.44.010 District regulations.
• 26.44.015 Purposes.
• 26.44.020 Use regulations.
• 26.44.025 Conditional uses.
• 26.44.030 Parking and loading regulations.
• 26.44.040 Specific parking and loading regulations.
• 26.44.050 Height regulations.
• 26.44.060 Area dwellings.
• 26.44.070 Front yard–Nondwellings.
• 26.44.080 Side yard–Nondwellings.

26.44.010 District regulations.

The regulations set forth in this chapter or set forth elsewhere in the zoning code and referred to in this chapter are the district regulations in the G local commercial and office district.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.015 Purposes. 

The purpose of the G local commercial and office district is to establish and preserve areas that accommodate a wide range of businesses catering to the personal and home needs of the general public and to provide for employment activity and service to the public which does not detract from nearby residential uses.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.020 Use regulations.

A building or premises shall be used only for the following purposes:

• A. Any use permitted in the F neighborhood commercial district;
• B. Bars and taverns;
• C. Dyeing and cleaning works;
• D. Laundries;
• E. Livery stables and riding academies;
• F. Milk distributing and bottling plants;
• G. Package liquor stores;
• H. Printing shops;
• I. Restaurants other than carry-out restaurants that operate as described in Section 26.40.026B provided that carry-out restaurants that meet the site requirements specified in Section 20.40.026B2 shall be permitted;
• J. Telephone, outdoor pay, if the proposed telephone is not located on a lot that is located contiguous with or directly across a street, alley, public or private easement from a dwelling district;
• K. Tinsmith or sheet metal shops;
• L. Wholesale business;
• M. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses;
• N. Temporary buildings for use incident to construction work, which buildings shall be removed upon the completion or abandonment of the construction;
• O. Any permitted use exceeding seven thousand (7,000) square feet provided it is not within a commercial structure to be erected, enlarged, structurally altered or moved.

(Ord. 64167 § 4, 1997: Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.) 

26.44.025 Conditional uses.

The following conditional uses may be allowed in the G local commercial and office district, subject to the provisions of Section 26.80.010:

• A. Any use eligible to be a conditional use in the F neighborhood commercial district;
• B. Commercial use similar to those permitted in Section 26.44.020;
• C. Any permitted use which exceeds seven thousand (7,000) square feet within a commercial structure to be erected, enlarged, structurally altered or moved;
• D. Any permitted or conditional use which utilizes a sales or service window or facility for customers who are in cars except those carry-out restaurants permitted in Section 26.44.020;
• E. Carry-out restaurants other than those carry-out restaurants permitted in Section 26.44.020 and that meet the applicable site requirements specified in Section 26.40.026B1;
• F. Telephone, outdoor pay, if the proposed telephone is located on a lot that is located contiguous with or directly across a street, alley, public or private easement from a dwelling district.

(Ord. 64167 § 5, 1997: prior: Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.030 Parking and loading regulations.

The parking regulations for uses enumerated in Chapter 26.20 through 26.40 inclusive, except as modified by Section 26.44.040, shall apply.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.040 Specific parking and loading regulations.

In addition, parking space shall also be provided for the following uses: 

• A. Wholesale, manufacturing and industrial buildings shall provide parking space within one thousand (1,000) feet of the main building sufficient to accommodate one (1) motor car for each ten (10) employees regularly employed at the site, based on the greatest number employed at any one period of the day or night.
• B. All hereinafter erected or enlarged buildings having or to have more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of gross floor area and used for manufacturing, storage, warehouse, goods display, department store, wholesale store, and other uses involving the receipt or distribution by vehicles of materials or merchandise shall provide one (1) loading space, at least ten (10) feet by twenty-five (25) feet and having a fourteen (14) foot clearance, for each twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof in excess of five thousand (5,000) square feet.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.050 Height regulations.

The height regulations are the same as those in the F neighborhood commercial district.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.060 Area dwellings.

For dwellings the area regulations are the same as those in the D multiple-family dwelling district. For other buildings the following area regulations only shall be required.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.070 Front yard–Nondwellings.

The front yard regulations are the same as those in the F neighborhood commercial district.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

26.44.080 Side yard–Nondwellings.

• A. There shall be a side yard having a width of not less than five (5) feet on that side of a lot which adjoins any dwelling district.
• B. Where dwelling accommodations are hereafter created above any nondwelling use there shall be two (2) side yards each of eight (8) feet in width unless every room within that portion of the structure used for dwelling purposes shall open directly upon a front yard or a rear yard of dimensions as required in the D multiple-family dwelling district.

(Ord. 59979 § 12 (part), 1986.)

Well it is clear the type of feel desired for G zones. You don’t find it clear? Use-based zoning (Euclidean) is a maddening collection of regulations cobbled together over decades that do nothing to create desirable communities. In the early 20th century it was a way to bring some order to land development but as a tool it has outlived its usefulness.

Form-based zoning, on the other hand, is all about creating what the community determines is the appropriate feel for each part of a city. Thankfully we are seeing this new way of viewing land-use regulation in parts of St. Louis City and St. Louis County. It can’t happen fast enough.

Earlier this year Blast Fitness bought 39 clubs from Bally’s, including two in our region. (source)

– Steve Patterson

Continued Suburbanization of Delmar Blvd Won’t Revitalize Delmar Blvd

Delmar Blvd., like most St. Louis streets, was once very urban in form. Buildings all were built up to the sidewalk, defining the public vs. private space. This also gave pedestrians a sense of enclosure, they weren’t exposed on all sides.

For decades now we’ve chipped away at the urban form then wondered why we also had population loss, increased pollution and disinvestment. We still would have experienced population loss based on the trend to the suburbs but trying to remake the city to be like th, e suburbs didn’t work to stop the loss and now it’s preventing the rejuvenation of many areas, such as along Delmar Blvd.

Also for decades St. Louis’ “leadership” has thought that anything new — any investment — was better than no investment at all. What they continue to fail to understand is disconnected buildings set back behind parking doesn’t create anyplace special. Furthermore with old storefronts up to the sidewalk and new buildings set back the look and feel isn’t pleasant. It’s not a contiguous wall of buildings or or consistent setback common in suburbia.

St. Louis’ first planner, Harland Bartholomew, wanted to basically raze the city and rebuild in the suburban model — see his 1947 Comprehensive Plan.

So when I saw this building being built in 2006 I was appalled that it was set back from Delmar. This is the offices of 100 Black Men of Metropolitan St. Louis located at 4631 Delmar.

ABOVE: Under construction in May 2006

ABOVE: 100 Black Men of Metropolitan St. Louis on Delmar, April 2012

ABOVE: On the Delmar sidewalk facing the entrance after exiting the bus pedestrians are less important than the cars.

ABOVE: The required ADA access route does exist but you have to go to the side street to reach it

ABOVE: The building to the east is having it's front removed to make it less urban than it's been for decades.

None of this will encourage investment and improvement of the area, it’ll likely accelerate disinvestment and abandonment. I hope to live long enough to see the 100 Black Men of Metropolitan St. Louis building razed and replaced with 2-3 urban buildings.

- Steve Patterson

Urbanizing A 1980s Suburban Municipality Is A Lengthy Process

In April 2007 the St. Charles County municipality of Dardenne Prairie held a design charrette led by new urbanist firm DPZ, the goal was to plan a walkable town center.  Dardenne Prairie was incorporated in 1983 and they wanted a town center? Were they crazy? I attended several of the charrette events to observe the process.

ABOVE: Residents at the opening of the charrette in April 2007

Many of the residents attended came ready to oppose anything different than the standard suburbia typical of St. Charles County.

ABOVE: DPZ staff & consultants talking with residents

ABOVE: Sketch for a new city hall to replace the trailer they used

Over the few days I witnessed the local residents buy into the urban/walkable vision. Not urban as in high rise buildings but buildings defining the streets and connected via sidewalks. Urban as in not suburban. In 2009 the city hall was finished but I didn’t get out there until earlier this month.

ABOVE: Dardenne Prairie's city hall, click image for aerial in Google Maps

ABOVE: Hanley Rd will soon have on-street parking

When I arrived I briefly chatted with Mayor Pam Fogarty, but I’d arranged to meet my friend Alderman Scott Kolbe for a tour.  Dardenne Prairie has three wards with two aldermen per ward for a total of six. These municipal offices are non-partisan. Buildings near the road and on-street parking are all part of Dardenne Prairie’s new urbanist City Plan.

ABOVE: Ald Scott Kolbe talks about the park behind city hall from the mayor's balcony

While city hall opened in 2009 the park opened in September 2011.

ABOVE: View of park from the mayor's balcony

ABOVE: On the weekday afternoon I visited the playground area was filled with kids and their parents

Kolbe tells me residents of the subdivision directly behind the park welcome the activity and encourage people to trespass through their yards to reach the park. I can imagine a paved path in the future. As I left city hall people were walking to city hall. If you connect the dots people will, at least on nice days, walk rather than drive.The sidewalk has to replace the roadside drainage ditch for that to happen. Down the street a senior housing development conforms to the new city plan, built up to the sidewalk with a pedestrian entrance facing the street.

ABOVE:

It will be years before Dardenne Prairie has a complete walkable downtown but they are putting the right pieces in place to make sure each new private development contributes toward the long-term vision. – Steve Patterson

Walkability Impacts Number of Pedestrians Using Sidewalks & Transit

The form our buildings take has a direct connection to the number of pedestrians on the sidewalk: streats lined with urban buildings will see more pedestrians than those with anti-urban buildings (read: suburban). Transit riders are pedestrians on part of their journey, but many of us have no choice but to be pedestrians in unfriendly places where few pedestrians are spotted. On a recent ride on a packed #95 (Kingshighway) MetroBus this became clear.

ABOVE: Car storage separates pedestrians at the bus stop from numerous businesses.

ABOVE: The able-bodied can get inside but not everyone can

ABOVE: Eventually this building will get reused or replaced, but will pedestrians have access?

We don’t design buildings to be used by pedestrians. Sure, some will say there are no pedestrians so why should we? I say there are few pedestrians in many places because that is the result of decades of anti-urban policy.

 - Steve Patterson

One Less Urban Building on South Jefferson (Updated)

Driving home recently I spotted the demolition of the storefront building on the NW corner of Jefferson & Ann (map), I stopped to snap a picture and went on. ?

ABOVE: Feb 2012

It’s just another old vacant building, what’s the problem?

ABOVE: Former storefront at Jefferson & Ann. Source: City of St. Louis

The problem I have is we have absolutely nothing in place to require any new construction to continue to be urban in form — built up to the sidewalk and at least two stories in height with windows and doors. The only other building on this block of south Jefferson Ave is a former Taco Bell, built in 1994.

ABOVE: Former Taco Bell built in 1994 was out of place on Jefferson

The Taco Bell was an affront to good urbanity and it didn’t stay open long. The last use of the building was a credit union but it closed in 2010.

ABOVE: The intersection of Russel & Jefferson is becomes less and less urban with each demolition, reducing the number of pedestrians

One by one urban buildings are razed and replaced with non-urban buildings, creating a place not worth caring about much less walking through.

ABOVE: Like so many suburban fast food places, this former Taco Bell didn't include an ADA access route.

Non-urban buildings are designed to be approached only by car, even making access by pedestrians difficult.

ABOVE: The NE corner of Jefferson & Russel is still very urban in form

We must change our zoning to require new construction to have an urban form so we don’t erode our commercial streets with non-urban structures that end up vacant and useless.

- Steve Patterson

Update 3/6/2012 @ 9:20am:

Thanks to @icsesq for a link to a story on what’s planned for the site — a new facility for the Southside Early Childhood Center:

To get a conditional use permit, the new building had to meet Fox Park’s historical building standards, which require a brick facade and alignment similar to buildings along the block. Demolition is expected to start fairly soon, after a plan for asbestos abatement is approved. (full story)

The drawings in the article illustrate how inadequate Fox Park’s standards are. An entire block of a one-story building? Sure, it will be up to the sidewalk and wrapped in red brick.

The Future of 18th & Washington Ave

Last week I went to the MetroBus stop on the NE corner of 18th & Washington Ave to catch the #97 Delmar bus westbound. The normally full parking lot behind the bus shelter was empty except for a for lease/sale sign.

ABOVE: Lot is listed by L3 Corporation but it's not listed on their website (click to view)

The lot is owned by a couple in Glencoe Missouri but had been leased by Consumers Program Inc, aka CPI, located across the street.

ABOVE: CPI is located at 1706 Washington Ave in a structure built in 1912

Presumably CPI didn’t renew the lease to save money, having employees use one of the three parking lots they own. One is city block #831 bounded by Washington, 16th, St. Charles St and 17th — this is the block directly east of their building. This block once was occupied fully by a building that was part of Brown Shoe.

ABOVE: Entire block of surface parking east of CPI's building shown in the background

CPI’s other two lots occupy two more corners at 18th & Washington — the SE & NW.

ABOVE: The SE corner held the 10-story Marquette Hotel until it was razed in 1988

ABOVE: CPI's largest lot occupies city block 2002 bounded by Washington, 19th, Lucas and 18th

Three of the four corners are surface parking, the fourth corner (SW) is occupied by Mulligan Printing.

ABOVE: SW corner of 18th & Washington is the only one left with a building, occupied by Mulligan Printing

Mulligan Printing’s 5-story building was built in 1928. The closed up windows at the street level are unfortunate but at least the building massing is good — far better than a surface parking lot.

What is the future of this intersection? Will it always be mostly surface parking lots? The planner in me would like to see form based codes to replace our old use-based codes. Instead of detailed regulations depending upon the original intended use of any new construction, a form-based code would require a minimum height, the building pushed out to the property line, windows and doors at sidewalk level, etc. The architectural style, just like the use inside, of any new construction is of little concern me.

In the future I’d like to see the current situation reversed with buildings on three corners and only one corner with surface parking. It might take 40 years to happen but it’ll never happen under our current zoning.

- Steve Patterson

Readers Support Proposed Bike Parking Ordinance

ABOVE: Bike parking on the campus of Washington University

Readers overwhelmingly support a bill before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to require bike parking for some projects:

A proposed law would require bike parking for new construction or renovations in access excess of $1 million dollars. Auto parking requirements would be reduced.

1. Great, more bike parking is needed 44 [50%]
2. A good start, but it doesn’t go far enough 18 [20.45%]
3. Ugh, more government regulation 16 [18.18%]
4. Other: 9 [10.23%]
5. Unsure/No Opinion 1 [1.14%]

I had a stupid mistake in the poll, corrected above, and a few of the other votes pointed that out:

1. A good first step; besides handicapped parking there should be no reqirements
2. don’t you mean “in excess?”
3. What comes first demand or supply?
4. need more bike lanes and paths first…
5. Like the bike part, but no reduction for cars
6. excess =/= access. We need more accessible and safe biking paths first.
7. How about an option for not a good idea?????
8. excess, not access
9. Security is a MAJOR concern of those who use bike racks. Theft is a conern.

The 20% that said this bill is a good start but it doesn’t go far enough are correct, the number of projects in excess of $1 million dollars are few.The amount of verbiage to describe what is required in the context of our tired & old use-based zoning code is a nightmare to read and understand. Take a few minutes and read any section of Title 26 (Zoning) and you will quickly realize it’s easy to get lost in the cross references and lists of prohibitions all the while you don’t get an image of what’s actually desired.

Instead of trying to improve the city by amending our 1947 zoning code to current standards we need to toss it out completely and start over with a form-bsased code that is easy to read and understand.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Thoughts on Bill That Would Require Bike Parking In Some Cases

St. Louis alderman Scott Olgilvie (I-24) has introduced a new bill that, if passed, would modify our zoning code to require bike parking for some major new construction or renovations:

ABOVE: Bike parking on the campus of Washington University

BOARD BILL NO. 258 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN SCOTT OGILVIE, ALDERMAN SHANE COHN, PRESIDENT LEWIS REED, ALDERWOMAN JENNIFER FLORIDA An Ordinance recommended by the City of St. Louis Planning Commission, requiring residential and commercial bicycle parking under the Zoning Code for all new construction or renovations equal to or in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000);ontaining definitions; bicycle rack construction requirement, bicycle rack site requirements, bicycle parking requirements, exemptions, off-street parking reduction, an administrative waiver provision and a severability clause. (BB258)

From Olgilvie’s blog:

On Wednesday the Planning Commission approved an ordinance that will require bike parking be included in new commercial construction and certain renovations. The bill is a collaborative effort between myself and members of the Mayor’s staff. A lot of assistance was provided by the city’s legal and zoning teams to craft an ordinance that will be effective, yet flexible for existing structures. The idea follows the lead of other cities like Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Portland, to provide secure and convenient bike parking where people will use it: at their work and the stores they visit. The specific amount of parking is determined by the size of the structure, or the number of employees for warehouse, hotel, and industrial uses. The goal is to provide adequate bike parking facilities to accommodate up to 5% of trips – a goal which some other cities have already achieved and surpassed. The rules build upon the bike infrastructure progress made in St. Louis over the last decade, including GRG trails and bike St. Louis on-street routes. (ward24stl.com)

Section Two E of the bill:

The total number of vehicle off-street parking spaces required under the Zoning Code shall be reduced at the ratio of one (1) automobile off-street parking space for each one (1) bicycle space provided. The total number of required automobile off-street parking spaces, however, shall not be reduced by more than ten (10) percent for any newly developed or rehabilitated structure.

The following shows bike rack styles, half allowed and half not allowed:

ABOVE: Ald Scott Olgilvie provided this image showing types of racks allowed and not allowed

I have some strong opinions on this bill but I’ll reserve those until I post the poll results on Wednesday February 8th.

- Steve Patterson