Pedestrians Walking to Loughborough Commons Despite Lack of Internal Sidewalks

Look, pedestrians from adjacent areas walking from the store! See, not everyone drives a car for every errand they must do.

But look close at the image, the silver Grand Am pulling into Loughborough Commons is in the left turn exit to avoid hitting the pedestrians who are walking in the entrance lane. What would have happened if a car leaving L.C. intended to turn left? Would these cars have hit head on? Would the silver Pontiac swerve and risk hitting the pedestrians? A brand new $40 million project should not have elementary design flaws such as this.

This couple walked westbound along Loughborough.

… Continue Reading

Schnuck’s Opens in Loughborough Commons, Pedestrians Unwelcomed.

Yesterday I brought you an image from the new Loughborough entrance to Loughborough Commons. I showed how no provisions were being made to allow people to walk from the public sidewalk along the street to the front door of the new Schnucks, the Lowe’s and other smaller retail buildings yet to be constructed.

Apparently Ald. Villa is taking exception to my statements and has indicated, to others, pedestrian access will be provided. He also suggested people should question where they get their information, implying I’m misleading the facts. Of course, my photos do a good job of documenting the reality of what is built and you are also free to attempt to walk to the Schnuck’s yourself. In fact, I may just organize such an event — walking to the neighborhood grocery store.

But, I want to share a few more images that I took today during the grand opening. First, the image at right is the bottom of the hill as you enter from Loughborough. As you can see, the grass is planted and no curb cuts are in place. If they come back and remove grass and add curb cuts for sidewalks it will only be as an afterthought.

To Matt Villa and/or the Schnuck’s family:
Show me the drawings indicating your plans for pedestrian access. I will gladly publish them here for all to see.

The right hand drive coming into Loughborough Commons is for trucks to access the docks for the Schnuck’s store. Among the pictures on Flickr you can see this area.

… Continue Reading

Loughborough Commons Fails to Accommodate Pedestrians

No real surprise but the sprawl-centric new shopping center being constructed in the City of St. Louis lacks pedestrian connections. Loughborough Commons is the lowest form of development, suitable only for an auto-only exurb. Such clearly anti-urban development has no place in an established core of a region where pedestrians do exist.

And before the sprawl apologists tell me we need the sales tax revenue that Lowe’s and Schnuck’s will generate please read carefully:

It is entirely possible to construct sidewalks in and around big box stores. The big box and pedestrian access are not mutually exclusive. Just because you may not walk to the store does not mean we should prevent, by design, others from doing so. Got it?

But to developers like Desco the concept of pedestrians is completely foreign. Desco, if you will recall, is one of the developers that razed the historic Century Building in downtown St. Louis to construct a parking garage next door to the Old Post Office building. The argument was people using the Old Post Office needed an adjacent parking garage — they could not walk a block or two from numerous other garages or MetroLink. And if you take a look at many of the Schnuck’s they’ve built all over the region you’ll see pretty much the same thing — zero planning for pedestrians.

Using the same decades-old development formula in various sprawl areas is hard to question. With the various areas of suburbia being so isolated from each other by design it is virtually impossible to walk anywhere except in circles within your gated subdivision. But more urban areas are different. And this is another of those places where people get confused. Urban does not necessarily mean 6-story buildings in a gritty neighborhood. Urban generally means a grid pattern of interconnected streets that affords a high level of pedestrian access and multiple route choices. In this regard, much of suburban communities such as Ferguson, Kirkwood, Webster Groves, Maplewood, Alton, Edwardsville and Belleville are “urban.” While technically suburbs they do not, at least in their older areas, invoke the images of suburbia/sprawl. Downtown Webster Groves is more urban than Chesterfield.

So, with older urban municipalities such as Maplewood around the city I personally expect the entire City of St. Louis to be urban in design. Again, this does not mean everything should be high-density housing. Many areas can and should remain as single family and 2-family housing types. The area adjacent to Loughborough Commons is primarily single family homes but it is still very urban in nature — gridded streets that are all connected and walkable (the complete opposite of sprawl which has few access points and numerous streets that end).

Within a mile radius of Loughborough Commons we have over 7,000 households and nearly 17,000 people. That is quite urban relative to our sprawl areas. Granted, people aren’t to walk a mile but they will walk a quarter of a mile. That would still place several thousand people within walking distance of the development. Do we, as a society, really expect someone that can see the project to get in their car and drive to it?

So am I just bitching after the fact? Well, yes and no. I bitched beforehand as well. In fact, I attended and spoke out at the public meeting held on January 25, 2005. This meeting was a bit of a farce. The intention was not to get feedback to create a better project but a chance for Desco and Ald. Villa to say they went to the public. It was a cover your ass meeting. In addition to speaking publicly at the meeting I also talked one on one with Ald Villa and with a representative from Desco’s engineering consultant. Disingenuous claims of “we can’t show sidewalks at this scale of drawing” were said to give me the brush off. However, as I pointed out, they were able to show the thickness of the curb and parking lot strips — they could show sidewalks. The real issue is they didn’t plan any sidewalks. None. Zip. Nada. Not even along Loughborough and Grand where they would be removing existing sidewalks!

Again, this is the lowest form of design. The only way to make it any lower would be if the buildings were constructed only out of concrete blocks or faced with vinyl siding. Desco is basically scraping the bottom of the urban design barrel with Loughborough Commons. Are we as a city and region that desperate for new construction that we are not willing to insist that developers raise their standards just a tad? I’m not saying require a high-density mixed-used project (although that would have been great) but simply to allow a neighbor to walk from their home to the grocery store on a sidewalk. Is that really too much to require? Instead, this neighbor seeking a few items will either have to drive or walk in grass or in the entrances used by cars, SUVS and trucks. Schnuck’s claims to be the friendliest stores in town but walking to them is anything but friendly.

This view is looking south from the new main entrance on Loughborough. The new Schnuck’s is down the hill but as you can see they’ve already planted grass next to the entrance. Pedestrians must walk in the drive or on the grass.

The curb cut does show provision for a sidewalk along Loughborough, something not even shown on their original drawings in January 2005. I suppose they assume that people just wander around on main streets but don’t actually walk to destinations such as a friendly neighborhood grocery store.

Turning to the west we see the curb cut in the foreground for the sidewalk running along Loughborough although at this point it is not clear which side of the massive traffic signal controller the sidewalk will take. My hope is the sidewalk will go to the left so that it is set back from the curb and traffic. This would allow for street trees to be planted, although developments like this usually don’t like trees as they tend to block views of the buildings. The curve of the plantings suggests the sidewalk will be pushed out toward the street and to the right of the traffic control device.

The massive pile of dirt is where homes once stood. I certainly hope a stack of dirt is not the highest and best use of this land.

This is a view of the other entrance to the project, off of South Grand. It should be noted that Grand south of the park and Loughborough is a very residential street — much different than most of Grand.

This is the most convenient entrance to the hundreds of people living immediately adjacent to this project and as you can see the Lowe’s is actually quite close so walking is not unreasonable. However, no provisions have been made for any pedestrians at this entrance — no curb cuts in the new entrance. No sidewalks for pedestrians.

We as a city should be embarrassed that we’ve allowed such a project to be built without even minimal (token) accommodations for pedestrian access. If we want to be a strong urban core city we’ve got to start acting like it at some point.

Prior Posts:

January 25, 2005 (Initial Public Meeting)
June 4, 2005 (Construction Begins)
September 27, 2005 (Alternate Development from Atlanta)
October 4, 2005 (A more Urban Lowe’s with rooftop parking)

- Steve

Loughborough Commons, Eminent Domain and Fairness

Today I was have a “conversation” about Loughborough Commons with another REALTOR® that lives and works in my area. Quick background, the Schnuck’s grocery store wanted to build a new building and create a big shopping center and in the process 12+ homes were bought out and razed. A single family held out — not wanting to move.

This is where our conversation turned to disagreement. We were discussing value — fair market value. He felt it was “unfair” of the family to hold out for a higher price on their family home than what was the “market” value prior to redevelopment and rezoning of the land. I countered that it was unfair they were being forced to sell something they didn’t wish to sell. Furthermore, I stated I thought it was immoral that Desco, Ald. Villa and the City of St. Louis forced this situation upon these families for an outparcel.

When a client comes to me and wants to sell their property my job is to help determine the best price for them relative to their debt, how quickly they wish to sell and what the market will bear. Some property is in more demand than others and prices generally reflect that. If you buy all the homes around me and then want mine I am going to be wise and recognize the value just went up. Developers know the “value” of that land is considerably higher than if located in an area not being targeted for redevelopment.

Developers often will offer 25% more or so above the normal residential assessed value but often this just approaches the true market value. They’ll use scare tactic arguments to suggest all development will stop if we try to curtail these practices but little evidence if offered to back up these claims.

Taking someone’s occupied personal home is unjustifiable. Sure, if it is falling in and they’ve been dragged through every housing court in town I’ll grant you an exception. But in terms of fairness I think preference should be given to home owners, not developers. I always wonder about the people that advocate for developer’s rights in such terms — how they’d feel if it were actually their home being threatened.

Fair is relative but what is fair to me is allow people to not fear their homes being taken away from them at the whim of a developer or sales tax starved municipality.

- Steve

Proposed Lowe’s in Charlotte N.C. A Good Urban Compromise

Other U.S. cities are finding creative ways of integrating “Big Box” retailing within older urban neighborhoods. Last week I showed you a big box development in Atlanta that managed to create real streets and a mix of building sizes. Now I’ve run across an interesting proposal for a Lowe’s in Charlotte N.C.

Lowe’s has made substantial changes to its plans for a home improvement store on South Boulevard….The plans also move the garden center to the South Boulevard side of the store, next to a new 5,000-square-foot retail building that could house a coffee shop, a deli or other types of neighborhood retail. As in the previous plan, the store would still have parking on the roof and be lined by up to 60 condominiums.

Just imagine, a garden center next to a coffee shop — sounds good to me. Rooftop parking is also a good solution to massive parking lots. And condos around the building. This peaked my interest and I was pleased with what I found.

First, the proposal is not yet final. At this time Lowe’s is on their 4th revision to the site plan. Neighbors are still upset about a Lowe’s in their neighborhood — they are concerned about too much traffic. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. If only they could see the abysmal Lowe’s/Schnuck’s combination we are getting.

Let me explain the site plan above since at this quality you can’t see the detail. The middle of the image is the Lowe’s with parking & trees shown on the roof. To the lower left is a small but typical parking lot in front of the building. The dark band in the picture is parking at the back of the building. But this parking is not for the Lowe’s but is instead for the residential units facing the adjacent neighborhood.





This section gives you a good idea how the Lowe’s is separated from existing residential by new housing. What amazes me is how Lowe’s has had to rework their proposal numerous times before the city would approve the plan. What a novel concept for the city to not just bend over, grab their ankles, and take whatever big box the developer says they want to build!

Also interesting is the level of detail on the proposal from Lowe’s. For Loughborough Commons we got freshmen level architectural sketches. In Charlotte they’ve got an exceptional level of detail for all to see. Click here to review the full PDF document (it is a big one – be patient). The proposal even included a bike & pedestrian map! This showed locations of bike racks (yes, more than one) as well as pedestrian circulation patterns. Meanwhile, we don’t even get sidewalks on our proposals.

The new Target could have benefited from the same type of thinking. Imagine some townhouses along the back of the newly constructed building facing the residential neighborhood.

This is for the folks at City Hall: The developers are going to do the least they can get away with some rare exceptions. Desco is not one of those exceptions! If we are going to have quality developments we must set standards to maintain a sense of urbanity. Clearly we can do this while still permitting big box developers to locate within the city. And if the current crop of people at city hall won’t make the changes we’ll just have to get new ones that will. How about a full round of recalls?

In development you get what you ask for and based on what is being built in and around St. Louis we are saying, “Give us the crap that nobody else allows anymore.” Charlotte isn’t exactly Chicago or Atlanta. Must we continue to settle for second or third rate developments from our second and third rate developers and elected officials that smile at the ribbon cuttings?

- Steve

Atlanta’s Edgewood Development Offers Inspiration for Saint Louis

Much of my time is spent ranting about “missed opportunities” at local developments such as Loughborough Commons. Responses are often along the lines of well we don’t like it either but we have to compete with the suburbs. We have such a void of good design in the St. Louis area our expectations are so low. Architects and planners in this town need to have some balls and show clients what is possible rather than continuing with the same crap.

But new big box developments need not be the drab single-use wastes of land that litter the St. Louis region. If you combine creative developers and architects with higher land cost in municipalities that actually demand urbanity you get something along the lines of Atlanta’s new Edgewood shopping district.

It is hard to tell from this site plan but a lot is happening on this 37 acre site. The developer’s promotional literature does a good job of summarizing the mix:

“This distinctive project will allow for anchor tenants and small box tenants as well as local retailers and restaurants, featuring a variety of architecture to suit the diverse tenant mix and compliment the area’s unique history. The center’s proposed ‘Main Street’ element with its blend of local boutiques, friendly eateries and exciting national retailers is sure to become a thriving hub of neighborhood activity for families and singles alike. Additionally, an existing historic building will be converted to residential lofts and this conversion will be the cornerstone that blends new to old thus making the entire project a true live-shop-play community.”

This is exactly how big box developments like Lowe’s and Target can be integrated into neighborhoods. The smaller buildings provide opportunities for local retailers with offices or living units above. Shared parking encourages walking from store to store creating an energy that most sprawling developments lack. I’m not fond of Atlanta but I may have to schedule a visit soon to see it first hand. The development opened this summer. To see some photos of the project under construction and of the surrounding homes click here.

UPDATE 9/27/05 @ 10AM – See more images of the Edgewood Retail District and an analysis of the design from a New Urbanist perspective here.

Like Desco’s Loughborough Commons this development is in the middle of existing housing and is adjacent to a rail line serving commuters (MetroLink will stop at the Loughborough Commons site in the future). Both have a Lowe’s and a major grocery store. The similarities end there.

Other recent developments in the region, like THF’s Wal-Mart & Lowe’s project in Maplewood, is a conventional drab single use project. Just imagine how different that area would feel had they gone in the same direction as Atlanta’s project.

Locally our developers, architects, planners, and city officials are selling us short. We deserve no less than such a vibrant mixed-use development.

Predictable and Anti-Urban Loughborough Commons Has Begun

Demolition work has begun on the site of the new “Loughborough Commons” at Loughborough & I-55 in South St. Louis (map). It will continue to Loughborough and Grand but it is the all mighty highway that sprawl developments cater to. I talked about this development before in a post from January 25th.

Before the sprawl apologists comment that we need development and progress let me say that I agree. We cannot simply say nothing is ever going to change. Cities change, I accept that. It is the type of change I have issues with. To call this development or any of its kind “progressive” is highly laughable.

This development is the least progressive way to redo this site!

What we are getting in the name of progress is a couple of big boxes which ignore the neighborhood and cater to the highway crowd. How is this progress? This is what suburban sprawl is all about. We’ve seen this same thing being built in every American city over the last 50 years. Making the City of St. Louis look more like Fenton or St. Peters is destructive in the long term.

St. Louis’ best assets are our architecture and street grid!

… Continue Reading

Loughborough Commons will be Common indeed!

Desco’s proposed Loughborough Commons is a case study in thinking only about the box and certainly not outside the box. Tonight’s public meeting had some pretense of a public input forum but in reality it was a ‘here is the generic strip center we are giving you let us know what color flowers you want planted under the monument sign’ type of meeting.

Prior to the meeting I had a chance to speak with Alderman Matt Villa as well as an representative from the engineering firm and Desco. First let me say that I like Matt. We are close in age and I’m personal friends with his wife’s sister and her husband. But, any association with someone on a personal level can’t an excuse for keeping silent on a bad proposal. To Villa and the engineer I raised concerns about connecting the public sidewalks to the development. The woman, I believe her name was Denise Coleman (she didn’t offer a card), said at this scale they couldn’t show sidewalks but they be there. Hmmm… [Note 8/31/06: Her name is Dennice Kowelman]

At right is the overall site plan for the proposed project. Loughborough is on the far right and is the Northern boundary of the project. To the bottom (East) is the railroad line and I-55. The top of the picture is Grand. For those of you that know the Grand Blvd which goes all the way from North St. Louis to Carondelet Park this Grand is much different – it is residential street. The part of the site on the left is the old Nordyne site.

Apparently in the last year Nordyne just closed up shop and moved out of the area – not bothering to tell the city they were leaving. Nice. Villa says it was a call from Desco that alerted him to the fact Nordyne was selling the property.

The upper right corner of the site plan – marked Outparcel A is where 18 single family homes now sit. With room enough for three out parcels, 50,000sf of additional retail and more parking than is required by the city I just don’t get why they need to take the existing homes. Two answers are most apparent. One is the home owners, if left, would hate backing up to such a boring big box development and second developer wants maximum exposure. Houses along Loughborough will block the view of the side of the Schnuck’s store. With the houses gone and some sort of typical fast food establishment on the corner people passing by will quickly realize this isn’t a pleasant residential neighborhood but a boring strip center.

… Continue Reading