Removing Highways to Restructure the St. Louis Region

Rather than spend hundreds of millions on rebuilding highway 40 (I-64 to the rest of the map reading world) we should just tear it out completely. Don’t look so confused, I’m totally serious. This is not a belated April fools joke.

Our highways in the middle of urban areas are relics to the cheap gas economy that is quickly coming to an end. In addition to removing highway 40, we should remove all the highways within our I-270/I-255 Loop: I-55, I-70, I-44, and I-170

I’ve not gone crazy nor have I been smoking anything.

And before you scroll down to the comments section to explain all the conventional wisdom reasons why this won’t work I ask that you hear me out first. I know we cannot just remove the highways and leave the balance of our political entities, zoning and other systems in place and expect this to make a lick of sense. Therefore, I have some basic assumptions & qualifications that would need to accompany the removal of any or all highways in our main urbanized area of the region. The likelihood of this coming together in our lifetime is slim but as the economy changes we will need to change and adapt to remain competitive with other regions.

Keep in mind that 60 years ago men took maps and drew lines where we’d wipe out entire neighborhoods for highways and housing projects. In hindsight, huge mistakes were made that disrupted lives and cost millions. Today we are still dealing with the aftermath of these poor decisions. So I’m taking a map and looking at ways we can undo damage previously done without inflicting new damage.
… Continue Reading

Target Bike Rack Completely Useless

Recently I was heading into the fairly new Target Greatland at Brentwood Promenade and noticed the bike rack adjacent to the entry (left of entry in photo).

I’m always happy to see businesses include a bike rack, however, it is nice when they actually install it in a place where someone might actually be able to use it.

The only way this bike rack, a unit designed to hold five (5) bicycles, can actually be used by someone is to lock a single bike parallel to the rack. So the five-bike rack becomes a single bike rack.

The reason it cannot be used as designed is the rack is mounted too close the back wall. If it were pulled out from the wall a foot or so it would allow the front wheel of a bike to go beyond the rack. This would allow for three bikes — the two outer positions and the center — to be secured. The other two spaces are designed to be approached from the opposite side. But even pulling the rack forward by a foot leaves little room for a cyclist to get around the bike to lock the frame and wheel to the rack.

This facility was professionally designed and professionally built. Someone thought to include a bike rack, perhaps that was a Target requirement. But the professionals, somewhere along the line, failed to make sure the proper rack was specified for the location. Yet another example where someone knowledgeable of such issues should have been reviewing the drawings, specifications and monitoring the construction process.

– Steve

Proposed McDonald’s To Be Most Suburban Among Fast Food on Grand

Unfortunately the seven blocks or so along South Grand between Potomac St and Alberta St are littered with fast food establishments, many with drive-thru service. North of this area is quite nice with urban storefronts. South of the area you get a nice urban feeling again with storefronts and homes facing Grand. It is the one section, centered between Gravois & Chippewa, that has been ravaged over the years by inappropriate development.

I decided to take a closer look at the existing drive-thru establishments to see how they compared to the proposed McDonald’s (view site plan). The numbers were startling.

First, only the 1996 White Castle and the proposed McDonald’s have any sort of auto drive separating the public sidewalk from the building. The Taco Bell, KFC, Burger King, Arby’s and existing McDonald’s all have no autos between the sidewalk and building. This places the building closer to the building line and is therefore more accommodating to pedestrians. The proposed McDonald’s will follow the newer White Castle by setting back the building and separating it from the sidewalk with an auto drive, making it less accommodating to pedestrians.

Here are some quick observations:

The Taco Bell has the smallest site. The proposed McDonald’s site is 223% larger than the Taco Bell site!

The Taco Bell and KFC sites combined are the same size as the current McDonald’s site.

The proposed McDonald’s site is 38% larger than the current McDonald’s site.

The site of the proposed McDonald’s is 64% larger than the next biggest site, White Castle.

The proposed McDonald’s will have 62% more parking spaces than the current location (29 vs. 47).

The mixed-use project just South of the Grand View Arcade includes a Wing Stop, a Subway a Papa John’s Pizza and a Head Start program. This project includes, for all four business, a total of 42 parking spaces. This is five less than the proposed McDonald’s. Keep in mind the McDonald’s owner is saying this move is necessary to increase his drive-thru business.

The existing McDonald’s location, built in 1974, is the oldest of all the locations. One could argue it is due for replacement but I say it was the one that started the trend of suburban fast food in the area. However, the White Castle that was razed in 1996 may have pre-dated the 1974 McDonald’s.

The proposed McDonald’s is less urban than the current location in that it will be set back from the public sidewalk and will have a lower building to land ratio (10.7% vs. 7.1%). Truly urban development would occupy a minimum of 30-40% of the parcel with buildings.

All signs indicate the proposed McDonald’s is not only out of scale with the idea of a pedestrian friendly neighborhood but also relative to other fast-food drive-thru establishments in the immediate vicinity. Nobody involved has their act together. The city’s zoning is ancient with no guidelines to make drive-thrus more urban. The elected officials, alderwoman and mayor, seem glad to help McDonald’s more than help the area residents work toward a good compromise. The developer, Pyramid, seems convinced they are doing the city a good service. McDonald’s will generally push the standard formula unless they are forced to do something better which brings us back to zoning.

Here is what I’d like to see happen:

An immediate moratorium on new projects on Grand between Potomac & Alberta with the exception of the SSNB & Melba/Grandview Arcade.

A community planning workshop to envision the potential of the area. Property owners, neighbors, aldermen, and the city’s planning staff should be involved in the process.

Ald. Florida & Ald. Schmid co-sponsor a bill enacting a special zoning overlay for the area. Zoning does not prohibit drive-thru restaurants but it does establish guidelines which mitigates the negative aspects associated with these building types. Drive-thru guidelines might follow this example from Toronto.

Moratorium is lifted with everyone now on the same playing field. Developers know if they invest in the area in an urban fashion that others will also be held to similar standards.

Will this happen? Probably not. This would require some leadership and frankly I don’t think Ald. Florida has either the will or ability to do it.

– Steve

Pyramid’s Sullivan Place Senior Housing An Anti-Urban Monstrosity

Pyramid, the company proposing a highly suburban McDonald’s for South Grand, has dumped an atrocious housing project on the city’s north side (map). Forget the high-profile loft projects downtown, Pyramid is making a name for themselves with suburban rubbish throughout our once urban neighborhoods.

Sullivan Place, named for Sullivan Street closed for this project, will be a 190-unit 55+ affordable housing project when completed. Half the project has been open for a few months yet lots of units remain available. No wonder, these “affordable” apartments run $511/month for a one-bedroom and $631/month for a two-bedroom. The income limit for a single person is $27,660 and $31,620 for a couple. Still, $511/month isn’t too bad depending upon what you get.

Well, the six one-bedroom floor plans range in size from 461 sq. ft. to 515 sq. ft. Both two-bedroom layouts are 634 sq. ft. Laundry facilities are down the hall — two per floor. Units have very basic finishes and do not include a dishwasher. The only luxury are two call for help devices — one in the bedroom and one in the bathroom. Residents are treated to a fortress-like security setup designed either to keep others out or the them inside.

These units range from $0.99 per square foot per month to $1.10 per square foot per month. The only thing making these even remotely affordable is the fact they are so miniscule in size. Not that everyone needs massive places to live but I have to wonder about the total project costs and how much we, as tax payers, underwrote this project.

Aside from the question of affordability is the suitability of the design for the neighborhood. In fact, I question the design for any location, even the most sprawling of suburbs. I will say, however, I have no objections to the material choices. I actually like that they didn’t try to make this some trumped up retro project (like Pyramid’s own King Louis Square at Tucker & Lafayette). No, the material selection and detailing is actually quite nice. It is the overall massing and site planning where this project goes into the unacceptable territory.

The project is massive, occupying a block and a half. Based on dimensions from Google Maps I estimated the site to be roughly 5.4 acres. With 190 units that works out to a low density of less than 36 units per acre. I might be willing to accept a low density if much of the parcel was some sort of monumental park or other community asset. But that didn’t happen here. Instead we have an X-plan with the east & west triangles for parking and the north & south triangles as sort of left over green.

The building is not an asset to the neighborhood. With its street setback, high fence, security gates and surveillance cameras it is clear Pyramid’s designers didn’t want to engage the area. Instead, the building retreats from having anything to do with the adjacent residences. Add some barb wire across the top of the fence and one might mistake this for a minimum security prison.

In other parts of the city developers are creating new housing which makes connections with the public sidewalk, thereby contributing to a sense of connectedness. Not here. Clearly, the folks at Pyramid simply don’t understand what a city and urban neighborhood are about. And based on the rents vs. size, they have a warped view of affordability.

The sad part is Pyramid wants to move the McDonald’s at Grand & Chippewa to the old Sears so they can build an 87-unit senior housing project on the current location. Where is the demand for those 55+ that earn less than $28K and want to pay $511 for a tiny place? I fail to see the logic here.

The Sullivan Place project is one of the most horrific projects in recent memory. In my mind, thought not even complete, this project will need to be razed if we hope to rebuild the neighborhood. I can’t imagine someone wanting to build or live adjacent to this generic geriatric penitentiary.

One can only assume that 5th Ward Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin approved of the plan. Perhaps she is having a contest with 15th Ward Alderwoman Jennifer Florida to see who can get away with the most suburban sprawl before getting recalled by voters? If so, Ford-Griffin will get lots of points for this one. Of course, Florida already has a rebuilt White Castle, a new Walgreens with excessive parking and the Gravois Plaza strip center under her belt without the proposed McDonald’s. They better watch out because 11th Ward Alderman Matt Villa’s Loughborough Commons project may trump them both. And they’re off…

But it is not the Aldermen that are designing and building these projects. For Sullivan Place the blame lies solely with John Steffen’s Pyramid Companies. I know many talented people that work at Pyramid but they are not the ones calling the shots. It seems Pyramid has a complete lack of leadership where it counts. I couldn’t sleep at night if I was the decision maker that determined this was what St. Louis needed.

Matt O’Leary, whom I’ve know for a number of years, is a Senior VP for Development but his territory is confined to downtown’s loft projects. Desiree Knapp, presumably another VP, is the person in charge of Pyramid’s neighborhood projects such as the nearly abandoned Keystone Place, the ugly King Louis Square, the proposed Grand McDonald’s and now Sullivan Place. In May of 2004 I met with O’Leary to see about working for Pyramid (taking Knapp’s place) but I don’t think he wanted to get involved in that side of the company so I never got a meeting with John Steffen. From the look of the resulting projects, O’Leary has kept a hands off approach. Too bad because I would have enjoyed doing some nice urban neighborhood projects with Pyramid. If by chance this post should make its way in front of Pyramid’s President, John Steffen: I’m available as an hourly consultant to help your staff evaluate future projects. Trust me, you need my help!

Pyramid enjoys a favored position with the Mayor and others. But their track record leaves much to be desired. Now is the time to unite and fight Pyramid’s anti-urban sprawl projects. Additional photos of Sullivan Place can be seen on Flickr.

– Steve

Proposed McDonald’s Siteplan Now Available Online

Thanks to Missouri’s Sunshine Law I have obtained the site plan for the proposed McDonald’s on South Grand. To view a PDF version please click on the thumbnail to the right.

In reviewing the site plan we can see just how suburban this McDonald’s really is. Asphalt is the primary material on the 40,000 sq. ft. site as the building occupies only a small percentage of the total area. Forty-five regular and 2 handicap parking spaces cover much of the area. Judging by this much parking they must expect to far more popular than they are now.

Pedestrians are not given any consideration as they must walk in one of the three auto drives to get to the restaurant door. Heaven forbid someone in a wheelchair actually want to visit this McDonald’s as they must wheel all the way from the public sidewalk to the ramp on the south side of the building in the same path as cars going toward the drive-thur.

The site plan reveals two “monument” signs — one at Grand and one at Winnebego. No street trees are indicated along Winnebego and we are losing several tree spaces along Grand. No bike racks are indicated. This could not possibly be any more inappropriate for the City of St. Louis.

Ald. Jennifer Florida, in supporting this project, wrote:

“McDonald’s has been sensitive to including an urban architectural design, pedestrian friendly to the neighborhood.”

I’m not sure how Ms. Florida even remotely comes to this conclusion. What makes this, in her mind, as being urban in design or pedestrian-friendly? I’d hate to see her idea of something that is not urban and anti-pedestrian. I can come to only a few conclusions: either she is really stupid or she thinks we are. Well, I’m not stupid. I’m not buying your lines Jennifer.

Everyone involved in this project should be embarrassed for even suggesting such a thing in a fairly pedestrian area. Jennifer Florida should be laughed out of office. Mayor Slay should question why his staff hasn’t pulled the rug out from under this project. John Steffen of Pyramid should question the values of his own company if this is what they want to dump upon our neighborhoods.

– Steve

Urban McDonald’s in Chicago Could Serve as Model for St. Louis

Fast food restaurants, with drive-thru lanes, can fit into an urban streetscape. But, the typical fast food establishment — surrounded by parking — just won’t due anyplace except out in suburbia.

A couple of years ago a McDonald’s on the NE corner of Chicago & State (map) in Chicago was completely replaced by the example shown at right. Architecturally it is no gem. The site planning, however, is a major departure from typical McDonald’s or other fast-food establishments.

This McDonald’s is on a corner site and includes a curb cut onto each street. It does not include any off-street parking, however, it does have a dual drive-thru lane. Cars enter the drive-thru from Chicago. The dual lanes keep traffic from backing up across the public sidewalk and into the street. Cars then make a left behind the building to pick up their orders, exiting onto State.

The corner of the site is an outdoor park/seating area. Customers can eat indoors, outside or take their order to go.

The franchise owner of the McDonald’s on south Grand in St. Louis has made it clear his business relies heavily on drive-thru service and they are seeking to increase that business by relocating. So why have 47 parking spaces? I can’t imagine they will need that many spaces. If the McDonald’s is going to relocate why not move the building to the corner of the site and reduce or eliminate off-street parking?

The McDonald’s in Chicago occupies roughly a third of the land area as the proposed McDonald’s on south Grand. The Chicago example will most likely will do a higher volume of business while occupying less space. That is what urban is all about — getting more from less land. I view the Chicago example as the very least that we should accept in St. Louis.

Photo from A Daily Dose of Architecture. Additional photos on Flickr.

Gravois Park Neighborhood Files Appeal in McDonald’s Drive-Thru

Gravois Park, the neighborhood to be impacted by a relocated McDonald’s on south Grand, has filed an appeal with the City of St. Louis over zoning approval of the drive-thru. Residents indicate this is against the wishes of the neighborhood and does not conform to the development plan for the area. At this point a hearing date has not been set.

The Gravois Park Neighborhood Association is meeting tonight at 6pm at St. Matthew United Church of Christ, 2613 Potomac St. at Jefferson Avenue. The McDonald’s will be discussed but it is only a part of the agenda.

Meanwhile residents in Florida’s backyard of Tower Grove Heights are talking about organizing to support Gravois Park in opposing the McDonald”s relocation. Sounds to me like the only one out of step is Ald. Florida herself. Makes you wonder what she has to gain by supporting something nobody wants?

– Steve

Urbanists Need to Stand Up To Ald. Florida on Future of Grand

It seems 15th Ward Alderwoman Jennifer Florida is upset a committee of the Dutchtown South Community Corporation opposed her new pet project, the relocation of a McDonald’s fast food restaurant. Her letter to the DSCC President Brian Bast and copied to the board:

I think it inappropriate for a subcommittee to oppose or support commercial development no South Grand, an area outside of your neighborhood association.

Appropriate process would prescribe a subcommittee making a recommendation to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors would vote to make comment of support or opposition regarding development projects in your area. I assume you did not have the support of your Board. I question your process.

I disagree with your reasoning for opposing the overall development of South Grand. I am enclosing my testimony from the conditional use hearing regarding McDonald’s, February 16, 2006.

Oh, Bravo Ms. Florida. This all sounds good except you are in no position to question anyone’s process. As I reported earlier, Ald. Florida shows up at the committee meeting two days before the hearing on the subject without a site plan on the project. She instead attempts to divert attention to the glorious Southside National Bank project already underway. All the while she actually has a copy of the site plan with her but she doesn’t want to show it because she realizes nobody would be happy. And yet she questions the process of this committee?

The fact is the project was submitted to the city more than a month earlier and she had possession of the drawings. She had sufficient time to present full information to the Dutchtown board, but didn’t. The Board was aware the information would be presented to the committee just two days prior to the public hearing.

As far as being outside the neighborhood association that is technically true — by one city block. Dutchtown’s northern boundary is Chippewa, directly across the street from the current McDonald’s and just one block from the proposed site. The DSCC also serves part of the neighborhood known as Gravois Park — the neighborhood where the new McDonald’s is to be located. This is highly appropriate for Dutchtown to speak up.

What is questionable is the Grand-Oak Hill’s support of the relocated McDonald’s. You see, they’ll end up losing the current problem McDonald’s from their area. Also, one has to wonder how influenced they were in their support since they are heavily reliant on Ald. Florida for their operating funds. We also have to question the testimony of 25th Ward Committeewoman Maggie Lampe. She testified at the hearing about questioning Dutchtown’s process but failed to mention her job is funded by Ald. Florida.

Supporting Documents (PDF) for your review:

Dutchtown’s Letter

Ald. Florida’s Letter to Dutchtown

Ald. Florida’s Testimony at Hearing

For a counterpoint to Florida’s testimony please read Ald. Craig Schmid’s testimony from the same hearing.

The residents in the area oppose a drive-thru restaurant on the site of the old Sears. They are part of the 15th Ward (Florida) and 20th Ward (Schmid). Remember that Schmid’s ward is a mere two blocks from the site and only a block from Dutchtown. Ald. Florida is pushing hard for this project over the objections of her constituents. The fact most of her constituents are near Tower Grove Park and probably are not that involved with this far edge of the ward is often overlooked.

I ask that everyone reading this site email Jennifer Florida and tell her what you think of a low-density fast-food drive-thru in an urban area. If Florida is not your alderman I suggest you contact your alderman as well and tell them you don’t want them deferring to her on this subject. I also ask that everyone email Aldermanic President James Shrewsbury and Mayor Francis Slay. Until these officials hear from us they will continue with business as usual. Feel free to post the text of your emails in the comments section below for all to read.

– Steve

What is Next For the Former St. Aloysius Complex?

One thing is known about St. Aloysius, the city’s Preservation Board will not be hearing an appeal from owner Jim Wohlert. I have confirmed with Cultural Resources Director, Kathleen Shea, that no appeal has been received by her office. Ms. Shea had sent letters of denial to Mr. Wohlert on January 24, 2006 following the December 19, 2005 Preservation Board meeting. The ordinance stipulates that any appeal must be filed within 30 days.

So if the developer continues to push his plan for detached housing where the graceful church buildings now stand he’ll have to go a different route. Enter Alderman Vollmer and his deferring accomplices. Look for legislation to exclude the 2+ acre site from preservation review or perhaps to exclude the neighborhood from the preservation review process altogether.

This would be an interesting turn of events now that Alderman Waterhouse is introducing legislation to put the adjacent 24th Ward back into the preservation review process (full story). Vollmer should keep in mind that removing the 24th Ward from preservation review was one of the actions that got Bauer recalled.

– Steve

The McDonald’s Saga Continues

This morning’s hearing on the proposed McDonald’s at 3708 S. Grand was interesting to say the least. On one side we had folks from Pyramid, a McDonald’s rep, the McDonald’s franchise owner and Alderman Jennifer Florida. On the other side you me, a number of nearby residents and Alderman Craig Schmid.

Here is a brief summary:

The part after the meeting was better than the meeting. I watched as residents had words with Ald. Florida (I always like a free show). Myself and others opposing the project are getting organized for the bigger fight on remaining hearings on the project. Look for the campaign to kick off in the near future!

Earlier today I was finally able to get a copy of the site plan for the project. OMG, It is worse than I had expected.

The plan is also interesting in what it does not include. The “F” Neighborhood Commercial District requires a number of things before permitting a conditional use when adjacent to a residential district. One item is:

f. Parking areas shall be screened at all property line with a 10-foot landscaped strip contiguous with or directly across an alley or public or private easement, other than a public street, from any existing residential use or dwelling district. Parking area screens shall consist of a minimum 2-foot high berm and a masonry or wood barrier that is at least 70 percent opaque and not less than 6 feet in height and shall be maintained in good order.

In this case they show 15 parking spaces along the eastern edge of the site which is across an alley from a residential district. But the plan conveniently omits the required 10-foot landscaped strip along the alley. Out front we’ve got another issue:

g. A landscape strip not less than 3 feet in width shall be provided along all public streets and shall contain 2-foot high solid landscaping or a masonry wall not less than 2 feet in height except that these elements shall not be required in approved driveways. Street trees shall be installed in the tree lawn, between the public sidewalk and public street, when the tree lawn has sufficient width, or street trees with gates shall be installed in public sidewalks where the sidewalk has sufficient width and is on an earth base with a minimum of 25 feet between trees not including driveways. A minimum of 15% of the lot area shall be landscaped, including screening areas.

Looks like they might have 3 feet of landscaping at one point out front but barely. No landscaping is indicated on the drawings other than to indicate a few areas as landscaped. Lots of asphalt though!

The building occupies only 10% of the total site. 10%!!! Sorry, you can’t get any more suburban than that!

Ald. Florida said the project was “pedestrian-friendly” yet I see no evidence of such. At no point is a sidewalk provided for pedestrians to walk from the public sidewalk to the entrance of the establishment. If you are coming from the neighborhood to the east your only means of entering the site is through the 30-foot wide in/out drive and then walking through the drive area to the front corner of the building. If you are on Grand and wish to enter the restaurant you have the same situation, you must enter the site through the automobile entrance & exit areas. And if you are in a wheelchair you must wheel about 85 feet as if you are heading toward the drive-thru lane before you get to the one ADA ramp. Yeah right, pedestrian friendly my…

No bicycle parking is indicated either. From the looks of things this does not appear to be any different than a McDonald’s they’d build along a suburban highway exit ramp.

Once I get the document in PDF format I’ll do another post so everyone can see for themselves.