How Representative is St. Louis City Government of our Population

I’ve never been much of a numbers person but in grad school we’ve been looking closely at the 1990 and 2000 census for the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis region (site 1 and site 2). Many have theorized about the meaning of these numbers but I want to look at if those we have elected represent us in terms of race, age and other factors.

My goal is not to get into a big debate about racial make-up and what that means. It is clear from the city’s chart at right that the city is pretty much black and white. We are not a melting pot. Our city is 95% white & black. Still, we have a large asian and hispanic population, both of which I believe are on the rise. Through some methodology I don’t understand at this point, hispanics are classified in an “ethnicity” category separate from race. Hispanics are a hair over 2% of the population, presumably classified as “white” on the question of race.

Two aldermanic seats is equal to 7.1% of the population. I think we are just about there with asian, hispanics and others such as native american. Not that I want to create quotas or rig districts to create a couple of seats reserved for a certain race or ethnicity but our elected officials do not send the melting pot image to the world.

Currently blacks hold 12 of 28 seats, or just under 43%. This while having over 51% of the population in 2000. To be truly representative of who we are I could see blacks having an additional two seats on the board of aldermen.

Of course, these two seats plus the other two seats that, at least theoretically should be occupied by say an asian and a hispanic, would come at the expense of seats held by whites (current 16 down to 12). I could see a Bosnian person holding one of the remaining 12 white seats.

Currently nine aldermen are women (Alderwomen, Alderpersons). This is 32% of the total number of seats yet women made up 53% of our population in 2000.

I think what these numbers show is the composition of who is representing us doesn’t quite jive with our actually demographic make-up. Must we force these 28 seats to look like us? No. Can we conclude that our political system is heavily weighted toward white men? Yes, I think we can. And yes, duh!

Nearly 16% of our population in 2000 was comprised of adults aged 25-34 and another 27% ages 35-54. Are four of our aldermen under age 34? Another seven between 35-54? I don’t know their ages but I don’t think so. Just under 21% of our population in 2000 was 55 and older (which would represent 5-6 seats). The remaining 36% were 24 and younger (25 is the minimum age to run for alderman). Of course, someone has to represent those under age 25. Not only is our board of aldermen comprised of white men it is comprised of an age group that is smaller in number compared to younger groups. A number of current aldermen were elected while in their 20s or early 30s so it can be done.

But Steve, you are white male, you say. Yes, yes I am. I’m also openly gay, yet another group not represented at city hall. What is our gay population? 10%? What about 10.7%? Well, that would equate to 3 seats on the Board of Aldermen! Now, I’m not holding my breath until we’ve got three openly gay representatives at City Hall, but I’d like to see us have at least one openly gay alderman by 2009.

I would love to see a more diverse group of candidates seeking the office of alderman in the Spring 2007 elections, in the Democratic primary as well as in the general election. Where are the Republicans, Green, Libertarian and independent candidates? Where are the foreign born (that have been citizens for 5 years) the hispanics and the asians? Come on folks, we need to bring a more diverse viewpoint to city hall.

In the 2007 elections the even numbered wards are up for election, 8 are held by whites while 6 are held by blacks (yes, it was worked out that half of each would be up re-election so that it was not skewed either way). Only three of these 14 seats are held by women, one black and two white. Six white males will presumably be seeking re-election. Of these six Craig Schmid (D-20th Ward) probably has one of the most racially diverse wards with good doses of white, black and hispanics. While I seldom agree with Schmid on planning & development strategies I will concede that he is very passionate about doing his best to represent his constituents. Note: many other aldermen may be passionate as well but I’ve had more interaction with Schmid over the years so I’m able to characterize him better than an alderman that I’ve never even met. My point is a white male is seeking re-election in a very diverse ward. Do we re-elect him because of his past performance, ideas and work ethic or do we look to someone to help diversify the board of alderman? Your call.

We’ve had a good many immigrants since the 2000 census so it will be interesting to see from the 2010 census how our makeup has changed. Have whites continued to leave this city? Those elected in 2009, and potentially those elected in 2007 (if re-elected in 2011), will help create the new ward boundaries that will take us clear into 2021. These next two aldermanic cycles, first for even wards in 2007 and odd numbered in 2009, will have a long-term affect on our future.

Thinking about running? I want to help, even if you are a straight white male. Just try to find the most basic of information, such as when can I file to run for alderman, on the Board of Elections website. Go ahead, I dare you. Guess what, it is not there. You’d think the entity responsible for running elections in this city would provide a minimum of information on how to actually seek public office. You and me, the common people, are not supposed to know this information. Ssssshhhh, this is top secret stuff important to ensuring the longevity of their political careers. If people knew how and when to run for office they might actually do so, and then where would we be?

I will be doing a series of posts on some of the basics — when the filing period opens and closes, how to file, what are the costs, how to get organized, etc. This will likely lead into a workshop or two where you can seek out more information on grassroots campaigning. A little disclaimer, I am not even remotely close to an expert in this area but I may well be the only one willing to share what I do know in a public forum. Also, this does not mean I will support your candidacy over an incumbent or another candidate — I simply want to de-mystify the process so that more people will consider running.

Here are a few starting points. If you want to run in a ward you need to have lived there a year before the election. So, if you don’t already live in an even numbered ward don’t even think you can move and run in March 2007. The filing for the March 2007 will open in November (I don’t know the exact date) and it will close in January 2007 (again, I don’t yet know the exact date). I will get this detail at a starting point for the next post on guiding newbie candidates.

Loughborough Commons On Par with Most Development, Speaks Poorly of Our Standards

Today I’ve got a somewhat random collection of thoughts on the sprawl-centric Loughborough Commons development in south city. If you are tired of this subject, just stop reading now. Otherwise, here we go.

Loughborough Commons, for all its many faults, is on par with most newer development in the city and region. That is both reality and a sad statement of fact. What does this say about us as a region that we care so little about creating worthwhile public spaces, not just private developments with literal acres of asphalt with as much as a tree to break it up. Instead of being happy about a new grocery store we should be concerned, as tax payers, that our government has failed to deliver a project worthy of the incentives given.

The city has a Planning & Urban Design Agency but if they were involved in the project they failed miserably to guide the project to a point where they should not all be fired. If they were not consulted on such as massive project (30+ acres, $14 million in tax incentives) then I would wonder why Ald. Villa didn’t bring in their expertise. Either way something is wrong with how this got built.

The one difference in Loughborough Commons and all the other poorly planned projects is this: I personally spoke face-to-face with Ald. Matt Villa and engineer Dennice Kowelmann prior to starting construction and voiced my concerns about the design and pedestrian access. While I can (and likely will) criticize other projects such as the new 58-acre Dierberg’s development in Edwardville IL, I feel more connected to this one because I tried to make a difference before a single bit of dirt was moved.

This week’s Suburban Journal article on Loughborough Commons read more like a press release than a balanced article. Not addressed is the lack of pedestrian access from the entrance closest to neighboring houses, off Grand. Here is the headline, subheading and relevant quote:

Lowe’s to open in month at Loughborough Commons: Pedestrian access planned after Schnuck’s demolition.`

A spokesman for The DESCO Group, developer of the shopping center, said sidewalks will be added after the old Schnuck’s and its parking lot is torn down. The sidewalk will be where the old Schnuck’s entrance is.
“The development’s not finished yet,” Steve Houston said. “There will be a sidewalk for pedestrian access to that development.”

Sidewalk, singular. As I mentioned on a post on the 1st of the month, their site plan does show a sidewalk abutting the east side of the new entrance off Loughborough. This will be useful to those coming from the current bus stop (assuming it doesn’t get relocated, and those walking from the east side of I-55 along Loughborough. This will do little for those that live west of Loughborough Commons and nothing for those that live near the southwest corner of the project, arguably the greatest number of potential pedestrians. See the next segment for more on this issue.

The red section in the middle of the image at right is Loughborough Commons. The two green dots along the edge represent the two entrances to the site. The blue section in the upper left is the old public school greenhouse site that will soon be developed by Rolwes Homes and C.F. Vatterott and containing a total of 125 units. These will be comprised of 33 detached single family homes, 44 attached townhouses and 48 condos. I will do a review of this project at another time.

As we can see, four streets dead end at Loughborough Commons. Rather than connect to the adjacent neighborhood the projects turns it back to the neighborhood so that it can face the highway. Drivers speeding by at 70mph are seemingly more important than someone living a block away. With only two entrances into the 30+ acre site those walking from adjacent residences have limited choices. The DESCO Group and Ald. Matt Villa are doing damage control by saying they will have pedestrian access but that is only for half the entrance off Loughborough. Those near the south entrance off Grand get squat.

In the world of sprawl development a single token sidewalk is usually sufficient in the minds of the developer (and Ald. Villa in this case). It is clear that careful consideration was not given to bringing in pedestrians from the surrounding area. With the new development just two blocks away is it shameful they will not have direct access to the local grocery store via a short walk down Blow, Roswell or Robert.

It should be noted that Loughborough Commons is in the 11th Ward (Ald. Matt Villa) while the old greenhouse site is in the 12th Ward (Ald. Fred Heitert), Eugene Street is the dividing line. Aldermanic courtesy would have prevented Heitert from questioning the development in an adjacent ward even though it is only a block away from his ward.

This morning carts were completely blocking the sidewalk heading to the south toward Lowe’s. We could argue, I suppose, the Lowe’s is not yet open but there is parking in use in that direction. I’ve also seen workers from Lowe’s attempting to walk to the Schnuck’s having to navigate around the planned obstacles (planting areas) and unplanned obstacles (excess shopping carts). These carts are chained together and locked.

At other times I’ve the carts have been gone from the same area, most likely when the store is busier and more carts are needed. Still, pedestrian circulation within a project should not be dependent upon something like how many shopping carts are in use. This picture and the one above are both off the south entrance to the new store but the same situation is happening on the other side.

This morning a few carts were partially blocking the walkway that right now along connects to a number of accessible (ADA) parking spaces. This walk, however, will at some point be continued as part of The DESCO Group’s planned pedestrian access. So, it is fair to say this bit of sidewalk is part of the main and only planned pedestrian access point to get to the grocery store. And today it was being used for cart storage.

You might say these carts were simply left overs from those using the accessible parking. And such an argument may have some validity. However, this would demonstrate a lack of good planning to anticipate that those using these parking spaces would have carts and need a place to put them out of the way of the main pedestrian path to the nearest grocery store.

The other day, when the south walkway was open, the north walkway was completely blocked. Carts are cabled together and part of the chain is on the sidewalk creating a potential hazzard. Toward the end of the walk, more carts completely close off the end. I watched as a woman parked on the other side of the white van had to walk in the development’s main driveway to get to her vehicle.

Again, this little bit of sidewalk is part only planned pedestrian path from the public street (Loughborough) to the entrance of the Schnuck’s store. Ald. Villa and The DESCO Group can say “it’s not finished” all they want to but their actions speak volumes. Pedestrian movement, even those using ADA spaces, are given very little to no consideration.

One of the items cited as a reason for blighting for this project was the site of the Schnuck’s store, built as a National store, was used for industrial purposes. From the report:

The site of the Schnucks grocery store was previously utilized for decades for industrial uses. During the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s the site was occupied by the St. Louis Machine Tool Company. In the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s it was occupied by a paint manufacturing company. As a result, site remediation will be necessary.

That is interesting since immediately following the opening of the new store workers began removing the old asphalt and transferring tons of dirt from another area of the development site. the image at right was taken earlier today. The old parking lot lights, still working, are simply being buried. Was the contamination limited of this site limited to strictly where the current building is located? Did they manage to decontaminate overnight? Or was site contamination simply a smoke screen to get tax incentives. You can be assured that I will be requesting proof from various local agencies for documentation on the remediation efforts.

These pictures and a few more can all be viewed as larger images in a set on my Flickr account.

As stated at the beginning, Loughborough Commons is really no worse than most development in the city or balance of the region. This is quite unfortunate as we deserve better development, especially in areas where you have existing walkable environments that could greatly benefit from a locally owned grocery store an easy walk down the street. What we got, instead, was an expensive project where you are expected to drive even though you can see if from your front sidewalk. Such practices should not be permitted to continue.

St. Louis Suffers Due to Lack of Urban Design Guidelines

Whenever I speak of making St. Louis’ neighborhoods and commercial streets more “urban” I think people have visions of turning St. Louis Hills into Times Square. Nothing could be further from the truth. It really has to do with how we plan our areas and seek to accommodate people as well as their cars. Pedestrian-friendly is about making it easier for people to walk from A to B to C and back to A. These principals transcend scale and work in a town of 2,000 as well as a city of 2 million.

The conflict I’m having with so much recent development is that it is happening in a system void of planning thought. The developer meets with the Aldermen and they negotiate a few things while trying to keep the public from knowing what is going on out of fear they might sabotage the whole thing. It is the St. Louis way. The problem is that I know this can be done differently and is in cities all over North America.

Our zoning, dating to 1947, says what cannot be done. It basically encourages sprawl development and makes good design an exception rather than the rule. What it doesn’t say is what we, as a community, are seeking. It does not articulate a vision. So how do we communicate what we want? Urban Design Guidelines.

Cities that are actually seeking to improve their physical environment through well-planned development create “Urban Design Guidelines” to help guide the development process. These are most often in the form of non-legal phrasing and graphics that are easily understood by everyone. Typical zoning, on the other hand, often requires an attorney that specializes to help determine what can and cannot be done. Form-based zoning, on the other hand, uses graphics to help illustrate what is sought for that particular portion of the community.

It should also be noted that Urban Design Guidelines are different than “plans” for an area. Cities, including St. Louis, have stacks and stacks of unrealized plans. In some cases, this is a good thing as earlier plans called for the razing of Soulard & Lafayette Square to be replaced with low-density housing on cul-de-sac streets. Plans are usually grand visions for an area that lack funding. They are created, everyone gets excited about what may be, no funding is given to implementation and the plan sits. In the meantime poorly executed development that prompted the need for a plan continues through the outdated zoning. UDG look at the vision different — setting out goals for an area such as walkable streets. The guidelines then indicate how this is to be accomplished. Guidelines help guide new construction and renovation projects so that, over time, an area is improved. It is a smart and realistic way to guide physical change in a community.

Below are some examples of Urban Design Guidelines and related documents from a variety of cities in North America. This is only a tiny fraction is what is out there. I’ve only scanned each at this point so I am not making any claims we should adopt any of these for St. Louis. What I am saying is we need to be creating guidelines for future development and have debates over what we seek as we develop the guides — not over each and every proposed project.

City of Denver:

• Denver Guidelines by area
•Commercial Corridors
•Streetscape 1993 (excellent!)

City of Ottawa:

•Large-Format Retail
•Gas Stations
•Traditional Main Street
•Drive-Through
•Outdoor Patios

City of Toronto:

•Toronto Urban Design Guidelines
•Townhouses

Various Cities:

•Lawrence KS – downtown guidelines
•Scottsdale, AZ – Gas Stations
•Huntington Beach, CA
•Mankato, MN
•Niagra, Ontario
•Niagra, On — Large Format (big box)
•Mississauga, Ontario
•Tampa, FL

City of Madison, WI

•Best Practices Guide (an amazing document — a must read)
•Inclusionary Zoning (for affordable housing)

Madison even did a study called, “Grocery Stores in City Neighborhoods: Supporting access to food choices, livable neighborhoods, and entrepreneurial opportunities in Madison, Wisconsin”. From the executive summary:

Guiding the decisions of food retailers- and providing support for them- in order to ensure equitable access to food and promote livable, walkable neighborhoods is a difficult task faced by non-profit organizations and local governments in cities across the nation. Since all people require food on a daily basis and shop for it frequently, food retailers should be recognized as far more than simply another retail establishment. However, even as many municipal governments realize this, there are limited ways for cities to intervene in support for grocery stores when particular parcels of land are owned and controlled in the private realm. Market forces and consumer behavior all too often work against the success and proliferation of small grocery stores distributed equitably across the City.

Click here to read the full report.

City of Houston:

As I was working on this post a regular reader sent me an article about how good development in Houston’s midtown is lagging behind because the city’s zoning encourages auto-centric results.

Like explorers hacking a path through the jungle, a small but determined group of developers, planners and civic leaders has
struggled for 12 years to create a unique urban environment in Midtown.

Much of what they are trying to achieve —a walkable neighborhood with a vibrant street scene is forbidden by city development rules still focused on the automobile. Leaders of a civic group have dipped into their own pockets to pay for alternative design plans for a proposed Main Street drugstore that clashes with their Midtown vision.

“Unfortunately,” said developer Ed Wulfe, chairman of the Main Street Coalition, “the Houston way is slow and painful.”

Read through these Urban Design Guidelines and you will see how the community is indicating its desires for a more walkable and cohesive environment yet none of it is designed to force businesses out or create cities without cars. Cities have been working on guidelines for a good 15 years or so but St. Louis remains way behind the curve. This places us at an economic disadvantage when it comes to attracting both new residents as well as potential employers. What would it take to get us working toward community design guidelines — probably the one thing we don’t have enough of: political will.

Developer Curran Tosses Egg on Preservation Board’s Face

Developer Michael Curran just reduced the number of units at the Mississippi Bluffs project from 56 to a measly 34. I say measly because the site is a massive 8.2 acres. Part of the site, as you may recall, had the wonderful but tired Doering Mansion (shown at right). This formerly graceful mansion sat on the far north 1.79 acres. Myself and others argued before the Preservation Board the Doering Mansion should be saved which would still leave 6.4 acres for new construction. The Doering Mansion was razed earlier this year.

From the Suburban Journal last week:

Curran had argued before the St. Louis Preservation Board late last year that he had to have the larger amount to make the project feasible.

At the time, Curran was seeking the Preservation Board’s permission to tear down the Doering Mansion on the north side of the property to make room for more townhouses.

He said at the time with a smaller amount of townhouses – 42 – he couldn’t recover the cost of preparing the property for development, including demolishing the old Good Samaritan Home. To recoup the investment on a smaller area, he would have to build a larger condominium development with about 120 units.

That would overwhelm a prime piece of property, Curran said at the time. Rather than do that, Curran said at the time he would sell the property to another developer.

The Preservation Board wound up voting to approve the project and demolish the mansion.

OK, just so we understand. Before the mansion was razed it was argued by the developer that if he could not tear down the historic structure that would reduce his planned 56 units to 42 units and at that rate he could not make any money and would be forced to abandon the project and sell the property. The only way he could recoup his costs if the mansion stayed was to build a bigger structure on the balance of the site containing 120 units. The classic doom and gloom argument.

Now, he says, due to site costs he cannot build 56 units because it would be too expensive!!! Thus, he is placing only 34 units on the 8.2 acre site. He couldn’t make money with 42 units on 6.4 acres plus a mansion but he can somehow make money with 34 and no mansion? Was the Preservation Board taken for a ride when they approved the demolition of the Doering Mansion? I think so.

This is yet another example of a poorly executed project in this city. The Mansion was razed in February and yet no construction has begun. Had they started razing the old Good Samaritan Home first they might have realized the folly of their plan and been able to go back to the drawing board before the loss of the mansion. This developer has an excellent track record with historic rehab projects but is not doing so well with new construction. He probably would have been better off with the old mansion. This fine example of planning shares the same ward as Loughborough Commons, Matt Villa’s 11th Ward.

The New QuikTrip at Gravois & Chippewa Should Be An Urban Prototype

The general consensus is the relocation of an existing QT from the Bevo area up the street to the wedge at Gravois & Chippewa is OK. Assuming that to be these case, let’s discuss the design options for the site.

But it is a gas station you say, implying options to do not exist for the site layout. After all, everyone knows you place the building as far back on the site and put all the pump islands out front. What is to debate?

Well, that very assumption!

Yes, I’m calling for QT to build an urban gas station like those required in other cities around the world. Not only are the design options interesting and more urban, it makes better use of the land which can return higher profits. Here is the basic argument: flip the typical site plan around — put the building next to the street and the pumps in back.

First, let’s see just how wasteful QT is with land development.

At we can see from the existing QT to the east on Gravois they have made little attempt to maximize the site. As a result, a very large land area that was originally many smaller parcels is reduced to only serving one function: the QT. This is not an urban model and is well suited to far suburban areas but not in an urbanized city environment.

But this post is not about what they did wrong at this site and what it could look like if rebuilt. I’m showing the example at right to demonstrate wasteful site planning practices common among such entities as large gas stations.

At left is my crude diagram of the [proposed] site [at Gravois & Chippewa]. The teal color represents the canopy over the gas pumps with the red rectangle representing QT’s standard building design. The blue triangle represents an urban opportunity. Here is what I picture: a 2-3 story building with street-level retail and small living spaces above. These might be rental, perhaps condo? The building might be designed to create some live/work spaces. The building might end up being more than a single building.

What does all this change accomplish? Several things. First, an urban building at the corner reduces the visual impact of the gas station while still providing that service. The urban corner building also begins to place some “community” in the area where, according to Ald. Kirner, none exists. This would be an incremental step toward rebuilding what was once two highly pedestrian friendly urban corridors.

I am not calling for QT to design a special building to house their function —- I’m tolerant of the standard formula. They actually do a decent job of connecting their buildings to public sidewalks which could be easily accomplish in the site plan mockup I’m showing. And the urban building?

I’m guessing folks are going to say two things. One being there is no demand for either retail or living spaces in the area and second that QT is not in the business of building such buildings. True, demand may not exist at the moment or even five years. But if QT builds their facility in the manner I’m suggesting and plants some evergreen trees behind the building it certainly wouldn’t look any worse than coming down Gravois looking at nothing but gas pumps. As demand increases and say MetroLink ends up on Gravois or the tracks nearby then we are ready to do some urban in-fill without having to relocate or rebuild the QT — we’d be that much ahead. And I wouldn’t expect QT to build the building — I’d expect them to sell or lease the land. A non-profit housing group could lease the land from QT on a long term lease so that QT got a good tax write off and then build some smaller living spaces without any off-street parking. This would be great for those who either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. On-street parking could serve the retail spaces.

Think of this as land banking — we are saving this corner that might normally be wasted through typical sprawl planning and holding it until we are ready for something a bit more urban. To move the process along I’d favor some sort of tax incentives to QT so they could offer this land on the cheap to a developer that completed a structure that met some basic urban criteria. This could be a win for the city and QT.

– Steve