Suburban Sprawl Descends Into Uncomfortable Middle Age

Most would agree that West St. Louis County is the poster child for urban sprawl. Over many decades, St. Louis development has crept westward through St. Louis County and into St. Charles County, the current epicenter of unrestrained sprawl. As time has passed, much of central and western St. Louis County have begun the inevitable cycle of aging and renewal that is associated with older urban areas.

My focus of interest is primarily on what urban planners refer to as the “second-ring western suburbs” of St. Louis. They are a microcosm of multiple older rural communities from the mid-to-late 1800s that have been folded into larger, newer cities over the past 50 years. They are all facing the need for urban redevelopment in the face of overwhelming evidence that many of the ideas embraced by the original suburban developers have not turned out so well.

In my city, Maryland Heights, this means a city without a town center. If asked, most people would cite either the Dorsett-McKelvey Road commercial district or Westport as our gathering places. One is a basic commercial crossroads and the other is an aging mixed -use development. Both are modestly successful and neither one represents a true central nexus for residents.

Part of the problem is that Maryland Heights is an anomaly in suburban development: it hosts over 80,000 workers during the day and houses only 26,000 residents at night. The reverse of a bedroom community, it often finds itself beholden to business and commercial interests at the cost of the residents.

This was clearly present in the 2008 fight that residents waged against development in the Howard Bend area of Maryland Heights. This area contains the flood plain around Creve Coeur Park and land on either side of the Maryland Heights Expressway from I-70 to the Page Avenue extension. Residents didn’t want to see a massive development (initially arranged around a proposed Walmart) that would back up against Creve Coeur Park. Maryland Park, as the proposed development was called, was set to build a bland suburban mixed-use project that was fully oriented toward cars.

The City of Maryland Heights has spent 20 years working on a comprehensive plan for Howard Bend that is the embodiment of urban sprawl focused on building commercial warehouses and one (or more) large-scale developments for big-box stores and retail. During the Howard Bend fight, residents became fully aware of what was contained in the comprehensive plan. While the process was public, the lack of effective public engagement by the city over 20 years had the unfortunate outcome of surprised residents visibly upset about the Howard Bend development plan. In fairness, residents also neglected their responsibilities by failing to interact with city government and make their wishes known.

Citizens who fail to monitor and influence their city governments are likely to be surprised and angry when the businesses who do engage with the city are given top priority. To combat this usual state of affairs, a group of concerned citizens originally organized under the flag of SaveCreveCoeur.com has developed into a more permanent organization called Maryland Heights Residents for Responsible Growth. As part of the steering committee, we have launched a new website for the community development organization at MarylandHeightsResidents.com

In the future, I will be contributing posts about the more universal aspects of the issues facing second-ring, western St. Louis County suburbs. Issues I intend to cover include:

• Cities without town centers
• Stagnant population growth
• Diminishing open spaces
• Flood plain development
• Aging apartment complexes and housing stock
• Public-engagement successes and failures
• Community-development issues and specific projects being pursued
• The role of residents in guiding city development

I look forward to hearing from you. Please use the comments section below or email me directly with topics you’d like to see addressed in future posts.

– Deborah Moulton

Plaintiffs Delay Century Case Again

After demolition of the historic Century Building began in the Fall of 2004, the lawsuits by two downtown residents seeking to prevent the demolition became a moot point.  On April 19, 2005 the State of Missouri and the City of St. Louis, through entities, joined with the developer of the Ninth Street Parking Garage and filed a Malicious Prosecution claim against Marcia Behrendt & Roger Plackemeier. The plaintiffs are seeking $1,000,000.

After numerous delays the trial was scheduled to finally get underway tomorrow ( 9/14/2009) at 9am.  But last Friday, at the request of the Plaintiffs, the case was again delayed.  The parties have a new date of 10/26/2009 — that date is just to determine the future trial date.  Most likely we are looking at 2010 for the trial.   When your motivation is to discourage public participation it makes sense to drag these things out.

I should disclose that I personally know both Marcia Behrendt & Roger Plackemeier.  Marcia was the person that found me after my stroke on 2/1/2008.  So I’m not an impartial observer in this issue.  To file such a claim and then delay for years is just wrong.

MISSOURI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE BOARD VS BEHRENDT, Case #22052-01373, can be viewed at http://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet.  The poll this week asks your view on the city & state suing these two for the last four + years.   Right or wrong?

– Steve Patterson

Readers Support Ballot Measure for a Smoke-Free St. Louis County

The poll last week was about the November ballot measure in St. Louis County regarding the relatively weak smoke-free law (excludes casino floors, for example).  The poll question was:

In November voters in St. Louis County have a smoke-free ballot item. My thoughts are:

• I support the measure and believe it will pass. 88 (54%)
• I support the measure but feel it will fail. 31 (19%)
• I oppose the measure but feel it will pass. 20 (12%)
• I oppose the measure and believe it will fail.  19 (12%)
• I have no view/opinion 6 (4%)

If we look at this another way we see that 119 of the 164 votes support the measure (73%) while 39 oppose (24%) and the remaining 6 have no opinion.  That is the support/opposition to the measure.

Of the responses 108/164 (66%) think it will pass while 50/164 (30%)  believe it will fail.  Let’s hope the final outcome follows these numbers, assuming a simple majority is all that is needed for passage.

– Steve Patterson

Highway Lid Concept is Really a Pricey & Inadequate Tunnel

For over 40 years I-70 has been a major barrier dividing downtown St. Louis from the the Mississippi River.  Isolating Laclede’s Landing.  Hovering over the Missouri side as you exit the historic Eads Bridge:

At the Gateway Arch the freeway dips into what us known as the “depressed lanes.”  Depressing indeed. For years now the political establishment has been talking about the idea of a lid over the sunken highway lanes.  Sounds simple enough, just put a lid over the top.

The problem is, “lid” is the wrong word.  The correct word is tunnel.  A lid implies you might use a crane to set it in place just as the final piece of the adjacent Arch was set.  But for our officials to keep saying lid is misleading.  They want to put the highway into a new tunnel.

The Highway 67/Lindbergh tunnel under the extended runways at Lambert Airport is probably the closest example to what will be required next to the Arch.  Hardly a lid.  The ventilation and security requirements of this tunnel contributed to the billion dollar runway price tag.  Ouch.

The extensive tunneling required for the latest MetroLink expansion drove up the price tag for that project.  Face it, tunnels are expensive.  In many cases, too expensive.

I can’t help but think of the biggest of the big in terms of tunnel projects:

The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006),^[3] over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006. A July 17, 2008 article in ^{[update][update]}The Boston Globe stated, “In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.”  (Source: Wikipedia)

Estimates of under $3 billion but ending up over $22 billion.  Our tunnel will not have the complexity of Boston’s Big Dig but I think that project serves as a lesson for cost overruns and delays to completion.  Our own Cross County Metrolink expansion is a local lesson on costs and completion deadlines.

At least in Boston the Big Dig addressed how their Central Artery freeway had divided their city.

Above is one of many points where the former elevated freeway divided Boston.  Their expensive tunnel resolved the division issues not for a mere 3 blocks but for more than a mile.

But in St. Louis our tunnel would resolve access to the Arch grounds at the center only.  My solution, first advanced in August 2005, is to remove the freeway lanes once I-70 is routed across the new river bridge currently being planned:

So imagine the existing I-70 removed from the PSB to the new bridge (North of Laclede’s Landing & the proposed Bottle District). In its place a wide and grand boulevard lined with trees and shops. The adjacent street grid is reconnected at every block. Pedestrians can easily cross the boulevard not only at the Arch but anywhere along the distance between the bridges. Eads Bridge and the King Bridge both land cars onto the boulevard and into then dispersed into the street grid. The money it would take to cover I-70 for 3 blocks in front of the Arch can go much further not trying to cover an interstate highway. Joining the riverfront and Laclede’s Landing to the rest of downtown will naturally draw people down Washington Avenue to the riverfront.

In one bold decision we can take back our connection to the river that shaped our city. The decision must be made now. The interchange for the new bridge is being designed now — we’ve only got one chance to get it right. Similarly, the lid project in front of the Arch could shift to a removed I-70 and connecting boulevard design before we are too far along the current path.

We are at a crossroads at this point with three major projects involving billions of dollars and affecting St. Louis for at least the next half century. Removing I-70 would, in twenty years, be seen as a pivotal decision. Will our government leaders have the courage to make such a decision?

In the four years since I wrote those words more people agree.  Some are banding together to sell the concept to the region, moving the idea forward.  Property owners along this section of interstate that will no longer be I-70 favor the idea.  The problem is our leadership is still stuck on the costly lid concept.  They want to address 3 blocks rather than 30 blocks — for 10 times the cost.  Sounds about like St. Louis’ leadership.

The problem is they have….well…tunnel vision.  They see only a problem at the center of the Arch whereas most of us see the access problem along the length of the highway as it slices through downtown. Examples of problems that will not be addressed by a tunnel:

We can fix all of the above with a tree-lined boulevard.  Remember, this 1.5 mile stretch will no longer be I-70.  Those drivers using these lanes as a pass through can still use the boulevard to get North-South.  The choice is simple, repair a large portion of the downtown and near North side where it has been divided by a 1.5 mile long stretch of highway or focus on 3 blocks for at least twice the price.  The solution is a no-brainer to me.

The first thing we must do is get our officials to stop insulting our intelligence with the overly simplistic “lid” idea.  The highway is not a Tupperware container that you can just close up with a simple snap-on lid.  Even if the price tag were the same, the boulevard concept reconnects much more of the city — 1.5 miles vs. 3 blocks.

Unfortunately our officials are all talking the same 3 block tunnel.  Many have a say from the Mayor to MoDOT to the National Park Service.  Getting them to be open to other, more encompassing, solutions will be challenging.

Take this week’s poll in the right sidebar to vote on how to reconnect the city to the river.

– Steve Patterson

Former Alderwoman Still Using Board of Alderman ‘Official Business’ Placard

A personal friend of mine, last week on Monday August 24th, spotted former 25th Alderwoman Dorothy Kirner park at a parking meter and place an “official business” placard upon the dashboard of her Ford Escort before going inside without feeding said parking meter.

Kirner defeated me in the March 2005 Democratic primary election for Board of Alderman for the 25th Ward.  She did not seek re-election in the 2009 race.  Shane Cohn was sworn into office as the new Alderman for the 25th Ward in April 2009.

Above you can see the placard placed on the dash.

These placards are issue to elected officials for, well, official business.  I’m not sure what official business a former Alderperson is conducting for the Board of Aldermen.  Could it be she expects to continue receiving the perks of the office she no longer holds?

– Steve Patterson