I still want urban buildings along the new Grand bridge

In January 2006 I posted the idea of urban buildings with retail next to a new Grand bridge (Grand Bridge Should Follow Columbus Ohio Example):

“St. Louis is planning to rebuild the existing Grand bridge by adding a landscaped median as well as wider sidewalks and bike lanes. The intent is to make it more pedestrian friendly so that St. Louis University to the north and their medical center campus to the south are better connected. You can dress up a bridge all you like but it is still hundreds of feet of dead space. No amount of median planting will make it pedestrian friendly.”

To prove my point I give you Exhibit A:

The new bridge/viaduct for Jefferson Ave (above) is what is proposed for Grand Ave, without question a huge improvement over the old crumbling bridge it replaced.  It is new and pretty but to the pedestrian on the wider sidewalk it is still a long dull stretch. The planted median is there to make the drive less boring for motorists. Buildings next to a bridge?  We’ve had this for decades along Tucker (formerly 12th):

Granted the Tucker bridge/tunnel is falling apart — it is roughly twice the age of the Grand bridge. The point is the Post-Dispatch, St. Patrick’s Center and Globe-Democrat buildings are all built on lower ground up against a bridge structure.  From the sidewalk you don’t realize that is the case.  Along with the Columbus Ohio recent example I cited in 2006 the idea is not far fetched at all.  But in 2006 some felt the idea wasn’t feasible.

Some, incorrectly, thought it was too impossible because of the amount of rail lines.

But as you can see above the width for the rail lines isn’t that wide, perhaps 20% of the total span.  See map.

Two city streets serve the properties on both sides of the bridge  — one north and one south of the tracks.

In the left of the above image you can see a single story structure next to the current bridge.  This structure actually continues under the bridge.

The plan is to redevelop both sides of grand for research facilities.  The #70 Grand bus in the busiest bus line in the region and the MetroLink light rail station is currently roughly in the middle of the pack for station traffic.  When this desolate area is remade transit will be key.

So here is my bridge concept:

• forget the planted center median
• plan railings that can be removed as buildings with storefront floors are built up to the sidewalks.
• Allow on-street parking along the bridge except at the transit station, which would be reserved for buses.
• The area at the station/over the tracks would be slightly wider and have room for a newsstand, food kiosks, seating, etc
• Each side would have a self-cleaning pay public restroom.
• the structures next to the two streets below could have elevators to get get pedestrians to/from the bridge level to the street level.
• the buildings could contain research offices on the lower levels, retail on the bridge level and residential above.
• with transit (bus and light rail) and a few car=sharing vehicles available for use by workers and residents the total parking count could be significantly reduced.
• The retail on the bridge would be the commercial center for all the offices and residential I envision along the bridge and in the surrounding blocks.

Unfortunately my idea won’t happen, the engineering for the new bridge is well under way.  Maybe in 20-30 years the bridge can be retrofitted and it can still happen?

– Steve Patterson

Midtown needs bike parking

Bike parking throughout our region is severely lacking. You can somewhat excuse the auto-centric edges for not having bike parking but in the urban core biking is more common and places to secure bikes are necessary.

As midtown (aka Grand Center) becomes a more popular place to dine and shop seeing bikes locked to lamp posts, street signs and parking meters will become increasingly common.  Locking to a lamp post requires a long cable rather than a more common u-lock.  Bike racks need to be planned.

– Steve Patterson

Is this a pedestrian crossing on Grand?

This weekend I noticed a couple of planters decorated with reflectors in the center of N. Grand Blvd in front of the Fox Theater.

It appears the intent is to create a pedestrian refuge for those crossing the busy street to get to the Fox.

From the above we can see Grand Blvd before the planters were added in the center. So I ask again, is this intended as a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street?  If so much more work needs to be done to make it a proper crossing – curb ramps and stripes.

– Steve Patterson

Public needed to replace 1+ mile of highway with boulevard

Based on past posts I know that many readers here support the efforts of City to River to replace I-70 from the PSB (Poplar Street Bridge) to Cass Ave with a pedestrian-friendly boulevard.  It can’t be done until the new Mississippi River bridge opens in 2014.  In terms of infrastructure planning that is just around the corner.

Last week City to River posted What City to River is Doing and What YOU Can Do to Help on their blog. The post outlines the steps the public can do to push this idea forward.

• Contact Mayor Francis Slay, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Superintendent Tom Bradley, and our downtown Aldermen to express your support for the removal of I-70 (contact info below).
• Spread the word to family, friends, colleagues. Ask them to follow @CitytoRiver on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/CityToRiver. Send an e-mail to your contact list with a link to www.citytoriver.org, ask them to send the link to others.
• If you have contact with downtown developers, businesses, or property owners, tell them about City to River and the boulevard idea. If they would like to learn more, connect us with them and we will provide them with information about the effort and how they can help.

The post includes the contact info for various persons you can contact.  I can’t think of anything more positive that St. Louis could do than to replace the highway barrier with a boulevard. Please tell everyone you know.  Post it on Facebook, Tweet about it, talk to anyone that will listen.

– Steve Patterson

Readers support removing the homeless to replace failing tunnel

In a pretty decisive vote in the poll last week readers made it clear the homeless living in the old Tucker tunnel had to be displaced so the failing structure could be replaced:

Q: St. Louis displaced the homeless living under the Tucker bridge, your thoughts? Pick only one:

1. The homeless had to go so Tucker can be replaced. 96 [45.71%]
2. Larry Rice used the issue just to raise a stink. 68 [32.38%]
3. The homeless had to go, but the city could have been more sensitive to their needs. 25 [11.9%]
4. Other answer… 8 [3.81%]
5. Unsure/no opinion 6 [2.86%]
6. Larry Rice was the only person to stand up for the rights of the homeless. 5 [2.38%]
7. The city shouldn’t replace Tucker so the homeless can stay in place. 2 0.95%

More thought Larry Rice was just using the issue than genuine concern for the homeless.  Two people actually voted to not replace the bridge so the homeless can keep living under the roadway as it collapses!

Here are the “other” answers:

1. Move them if need be, then allow them to move back when construction is complete
2. Larry Rice put these tunnel dwellers in the tunnel to gain publicity/donations.
3. Rice takes advantage of the homeless. They had no rights to the property.
4. The city should find a place for these people to live.
5. Bill Siedoff is doing a great job. He is very caring
6. tunnel is unique, should save for future reuse
7. get a job
8. Homeless had to go. Period.

b

– Steve Patterson