St. Louis Should Abandon Linear Gateway Mall Concept

A week ago St. Louis’ Director of Planning and Urban Design, Rollin Stanley, unveiled the latest in a long series of plans for the linear park known as Gateway Mall. From a city press release:

Thomas Balsley and Associates and Urban Strategies, Inc. have been selected as the team to develop a plan to rejuvenate the 18-block Gateway Mall. The Gateway Mall extends from the Old Courthouse to 22nd Street and was a part of the grand “Civic Plaza” plan originally conceived by the City’s Civic Plaza Commission, chaired by noted landscape architect Harland Bartholomew in the early 1920s.

Last week I went into a too-long post about the history of the mall in the last few decades, including many of the players and politics. In short, everyone thought the mall was done when two “final” blocks were landscaped in the early 1990s. The only problem? People stayed away from the mall despite a resurgence in downtown activity and thousands of new residents in nearby lofts. The Gateway Mall is one of the biggest and most expensive (unofficial) dog parks ever created.

The team selected for this task appears to be quite talented, but restricted by local politics and process. In this post I plan to explain the latest concept for the mall, illustrate the reasons why I don’t think it will work and finally argue for the abandonment of the linear concept but not all of the open space.

First I should explain that I’ve seen nearly every plan produced since the 1920s as well as having read a good bit about the mall and the repetition of failed assumptions over the decades. I also participated in the organization of the local design charette held in the Fall of 2005 as well as serving on a team during the charette. I’ve also walked every block in question as well as surrounding blocks numerous times. Therefore, I believe I have a good grasp on the area and the issues facing it.

Last weeks presentation is available in PDF format here. The following were listed as objectives, that the mall should:

• “Play an active role in the life of the city and the region”
  
• “Attract and amaze”
  
• “Bring the region together to celebrate and remember”
  
• “Be innovative and interactive for its entire length”

At this point in the presentation I was all excited to find out just how 18 blocks can accomplish all this. To start off with they are describing the linear fashion as having a “Structuring Framework” of “6 Rooms, 1 Hall.” That is planning talk for this thing is so long we have six different spaces connected by one sidewalk. Sidewalks, trees, lighting and even millions in art can only do so much for a space.

The shotgun style mall is neatly divided by the team into the six rooms, starting from the west: terminus, neighborhood, civic, urban garden, Kiener Plaza and finally the Arch grounds. The hall, they say, will bring people together and create a strong connection between the various districts. The hall is a sidewalk with a double row of trees. Oh sure, it will be a nice sidewalk and the trees will be quite nice and well lit but I’m not convinced that we will all of a sudden begin to walk from the Old Courthouse at Broadway down to Union station along this particular sidewalk. Tourists might be convinced to walk part of it, but doubtful about the full length.

One of the objectives was to “play an active role in the life of the city and the region.” Sorry guys but the park space that has the region’s attention is the massive Forest Park only a few miles West. It gets, and fully deserves, this regional view. Remember too, we just leased a small section of Forest Park to BJC to help fund maintenance of Forest Park to free up limited park funds to help keep up all our other parks. We are a city of 353K, not 850K+ as we were in the 1950s — we must live within our means which translates to not having more park space than we can maintain or use. Neighborhood parks serve their areas, we need an appropriate amount of park space for downtown.

The Arch grounds are more than enough total area for city residents, tourists and the region. Unfortunately, it is also hard to access and frankly pretty boring after the first visit. The US National Park Service keeping a military style Hummer at one of the entrances isn’t exactly welcoming either. A “lid” over I-70 to better connect the ground to downtown have been discussed for decades but nothing has happened. Connecting this massive green space with downtown, in my view, is more critical to the city than a tricked out riverfront, a new Mississippi River bridge or a $20 million gift for an urban sculpture park.

But even once we properly connect downtown to the Arch grounds we still have all these open blocks it fill up. Like previous plans, the latest calls for a series of things to attract and retain people. It may look good on paper and sound well in a presentation but I believe in reality it will be simply things to fill up the space. Will people really play volleyball across from the post office? Will “world-class” sculpture across from the AT&T tower make those blocks come alive 24/7? Maybe for the first couple of years until everyone has had a chance to see it and the newness has worn off.

The team did an “analysis” of the area and concluded the park space is 22.3 acres and the roadway was 28.7 acres. Many of the roads are too wide but to count the area of the adjacent streets outside the park area is misleading. The omit the acreage of the Arch grounds is highly misleading. Besides, a tree-lined street can be wonderful public space.

This latest plan is more of the same, toss in the latest things of interest and cross your fingers that this time it will work. One of the most absurd notions put forth by the team is that cars parked on the cross streets like 15th and 9th are part of the reason people don’t use the mall. Similarly, they think we should eliminate on-street parking from market street because that will block the view of the park space presumably from those driving down Market. This thinking is that with the vista open a motorist driving down Market will pull over and park in one of the many parking garages facing the Mall and take a gander on foot. Yeah, right.

Another half-baked idea was a 10ft wide lane along the North side of Market to serve as a 2-way bike system like “they have in Paris.” Uh, sure but this ain’t France. I can just picture head-on bike collisions along Market, never mind how to cyclists get into this system from the opposite side of the street. The assumption is that with cars banned from Market and side streets and a 10ft bike lane people will rush to the area on foot and bike. The main assumption continues to be that people will want to traverse downtown in an east-west direction along Market. This ignores the fact that so many other things are happening both north and south of Market St.

The plan presented last week basically ignores the properties outside the mall boundaries. With only a few exceptions, the buildings forming the urban edge to the mall are horrible urban renewal era structures which are inwardly focused. The presentation showed urban parks in other cities that actually had real architecture around the edges. As long as we have mistakes like blank walled parking garages and lifeless mirrored buildings the urban space is doomed, no matter how much bling you toss inside. What is around a successful urban park is as important, if not more important, than the space inside.

We generally don’t use cities in strict linear fashion unless that is the direction we are headed. Downtown has transit stops, sports venues, lofts, retail, employment and entertainment on both side of Market St — we don’t want people sticking to this strick linear hallway as we might damage what we have going in other areas. I don’t think any risk exists of this hallway hurting the other areas though, people go where they have activities. Going against the emerging areas throughout downtown would be a big waste of money and energy.

As indicated in the headline, I think St. Louis needs to abandon the entire Gateway Mall concept. We should just accept that perhaps a few generations ago the idea of this linear park was a good solution for the time it is not what we need in 21st century St. Louis. I’m not suggesting we build on every open parcel, not by any stretch. Let me explain my thoughts and then I will show you some of the ideas mapped out:

• Market Street from Jefferson to Broadway should become a grand boulevard, an elegant street that is a joy to walk along on both sides for however long someone is doing so. This would also continue in the current role as a parade route. It is currently, however, way too wide and should be narrowed. On-street parking should be retained while the various pedestrian crossings need to be shortened. All streets downtown should be a joy to walk along — active edges and tree lined and spotted with controversial public art.
• The 22nd Street Interchange, part of an abandoned highway concept from a few decades ago, needs to be ripped out with the land returned to active tax-paying use. The Missouri Dept of Transportation (MoDOT) should rework the interchange at Jefferson Ave to allow for on/off ramps in both directions and therefore eliminating the need for the current ramps at 22nd. MoDot could sell the land to fund the revisions to the highway ramps.
• A friend had the idea of attracting Centene Corp from the non-blighted Clayton area to the arguably blighted Gateway Mall area. Centene could take a couple of the blocks created by the space used for the 22nd interchange. The fact the area is already dug out would help make underground parking all the more feasible. We have other blocks to offer them as well if they don’t like that location.
• Park areas would be left in front of Union Station, around the Soilders Memorial, one block in front of AT&T and the one block west of the Old Courthouse. Five blocks along this linear path would be sold to developers along with form-based codes about how new structures should be built — basically no blank walls. I should note here that in 2005 I spoke one-on-one with St. Louis’ Mayor Slay about selling some of the land for development — he didn’t think that would go over well. A few months later he supported leasing park land to BJC for development. Given a recently passed law, city voters would have to approve the idea of developing some of the parcels.
• With considerably less park space downtown and more development area I think the balance would be more successful.
• I have many more ideas about this space, many of which are not original to me I should add. I simply do not have the time to fully elaborate here unless some foundation wants to pay me to assemble a local team to flesh out the concept. I think we could do it for a fraction of the $400K the current team is getting from the Gateway Foundation.

Click here to view a Google map with some of my thoughts mapped out. The blue/purple areas are blocks that should be developed which includes land owned by the city, state, and private interests. As you will see, I’ve done my best to restore the street grid and I’ve created a few streets where they did not exist before (back of Union Station). I didn’t mark all the parking lots and other areas that also need developing but you will get the idea.

Missouri Supreme Court Rules Against Developer & Municipality in Takings Case

My friend Antonio French at PubDef has the scoop on the court’s ruling on the Centene Corporation in Clayton Missouri.  At issue was Missouri’s definition of “blighted;”

“that portion of the city within which the legislative authority of such city determines that by reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration have become economic and social liabilities, and that such conditions are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes.” 

While the crux of the Kelo decision related to economic development to justify the taking of property the “and social liabilities” phrasing in Missouri law seems to have created a road block to those justifying taking functioning property in the high-value City of Clayton, the county seat of St. Louis County.

One judge, concurring with the decision but disagreeing with some points of the main decision had this to say about blight:

The difficulty is that, although the PGAV report quotes the language from section 353.020(2) defining “blight” and, thus, its authors seem to have been aware that social liability is part of the analysis, the entirety of the conclusion, as well as the relevant discussion relating to the specific factors analyzed, focuses on economic liability. While Centene suggests that the absence of the term “social liability” may just have been an oversight, the level of detail and attention given to every other aspect of the statutory definition of “blight” makes the suggestion that a finding of social liability was accidentally omitted and should be “read into” the report rather implausible.

I intend to take a detailed look at this case in the near future.  In the meantime, here is the court’s summary ruling.

Open House for St. Louis’ Latest Gateway Mall Plan; Implimentation Underway Before Public Viewing (Updated)

In a classic St. Louis move, the city’s “leadership” is already moving forward with a plan the public has yet to see. Mayor Slay, Aldermanic President, Alderman Phyllis Young, and Downtown Parnership’s Jim Cloar last week talked of the newest concept as a done deal even though we the public have not seen anything yet. Typical.

The public open house is scheduled for this evening, Monday June 11, 2007 at 6:30pm in the rotunda at City Hall. This is one of those meetings designed to give the appearance of public participation without any actual participation. The usual round of types — officials, business executives, etc… — have already approved of the plan on our behalf. How big of them to do so. I assume tonight will also be a chance for all these folks to congratulate each other on a job well done. I’ll be there simply because I need to see what sort of disasterous plan the city has drafted this time. Any comment forms will likely be a waste of paper.

… Continue Reading

Mayor Slay Opens EcoUrban’s LEED-Registered Modular Home (w/video)

For a few hours yesterday afternoon and evening the crowds of people toured EcoUrban’s first project, a modular construction green home located at 3140 Pennsylvania in the City of Saint Louis.

Mayor Slay and 9th Ward Alderman Ken Ortmann helped with the grand opening festivities.

… Continue Reading

21st Ward: Unfinished Subdivision for Sale

This past April I did a post on the unfinished subdivision, Ville Phillips Estates, in the City’s 4th Ward. It was an interesting story involving multiple aldermen, a recall election and buyers stuck in the middle. It is my understanding newly elected Alderman Sam Moore intends to set things right at Ville Phillips Estates.

Here is the sequel, similar story but different setting and actors.

The subdivsion started by current and former 21st Alderman Bennice Jones King is called King’s Estates. City records show building permits issued in 1999 for new homes on each of the seven lots, none were started. In 2001 King was not re-elected, Melinda Long was instead voted into office. Apparently Long went on a quest to take properties up and down the 21st ward’s section Natural Bridge — enough of a plan to get her recalled just two years into her term (KSDK story on recall vote).

Bennice Jones King was re-elected and is the current aldermen. Additional city records show new building permits were issued for new homes in 2005. Three of the seven were built, two are sold and owner-occupied. A third, shown above at left, is completely finished but boarded up. MLS (Multiple Listing Service) records show Pyramid Realtors was the listing agent for the houses. However, Pyramid had nothing to do with the development and construction of the homes. The development and construction was by Mosley Construction, Inc of Kirkwood.

From Mosley’s website:

In our twenty five years in commercial construction and construction management, we have never failed to complete
an awarded contract. Our commitment to quality and hard work is what we deliver to our clients.

Boy, time to update that website.

In December 2006 UMB Community Development Corporation foreclosed on the properties. Mosley Construction has not returned my call. My email to Mosley Construction from 6/5/07 was returned, “user is over quota.” Twenty-first ward Alderman Bennice Jones King has not responded to my email, also from 6/5/07.

I also contacted real estate attorney Daniel J. Burke from the firm Armstrong Teasdale which handled the foreclosure on behalf of UMB Community Development Corp. Today I spoke with a representative from UMB, Mary Amburg, who called me back regarding my request to speak with someone about the disposition of the properties. Ms. Amburg indicated they are accepting bids for the sale of the four remaining lots and the one finished but unsold house, the offer deadline is 5pm tomorrow. When I asked for a website or other information to pass along she said none existed.

Homes across the street are more of what you’d expect to see in the city although this area does have newer homes from the 1940s-1960s.  Very few streets in this area have alleys with homes having front garages or rear garages accessed via front driveways.  Apparently this site was part of a dairy at one time. From the city’s development webpage on this project, last updated on 6/27/2005:

This former dairy location is being developed by the Mosley Group into five dwellings that will be for-sale, market rate homes. Construction of the new housing is expected to begin in 2004.

The land, as you might suspect, was city owned property.  This project received 10-year tax abatement and who knows how much additional subsidies.   The homes that sold and the last listing on the finished home were all around $200,000.  The street name is Kingston Court, click here for a map.