Convention Plaza, A 60 Foot Wide Street to Nowhere

Before delving into the street known as Convention Plaza I need to give you some background…

Grand Opening festivities for St. Louis’ new Cervantes Convention Center, named after former mayor Alphonso J. Cervantes, were held in July 1977. The original facility, costing $34 million, was much smaller than the one we have today. Eight and Martin Luther King Drive were closed to create a contiguous four block area bounded by Cole on the north, 7th on the east, 9th on west and Delmar on the south. Delmar between Broadway and 14th Street was renamed Convention Plaza to reflect its new role as the entry to the Cervantes Convention Center.

Six years later the city was ready to consider an expansion of the facility and in July 1989 ground was broken on the expansion to the south. This expansion required the closing of two blocks of Convention Plaza and Lucas Avenue. In May 1993 the south expansion was complete the complex was renamed America’s Center. The expanded facility now fronted on Washington Avenue as we see it today. Combined with the Edward Jones Dome (formerly TWA dome) the entire complex now occupies 12 city blocks.

For nearly 17 years now Convention Plaza, the once busy street in front of the convention center, has been a road to nowhere. For all these years the street heads east toward the blank side of America’s Center.

The photo at right shows Convention Plaza between 9th & 11th Streets. The vertical street in the center is 10th Street while the big object on the far right is the convention center.

Convention Plaza is wide —- 60 feet from curb to curb. It includes four driving lanes plus a center turn lane. No parking is permitted on the street. This is a lot of potential volume for a street that doesn’t do much or go anywhere to speak of.

10th Street is one-way heading south and 11th is one-way heading north. 9th is one-way northbound from Convention Plaza north and two-way south of Convention Plaza. Here is a Google Map of the area.

None of the buildings adjacent to the street have entrances facing Convention Plaza. To the west the old Globe-Democrat building has loading docks and parking garage entrances. All in all this three block section looks pretty dismal.

By contrast 10th Street (one-way southbound) is a mere 30 feet wide curb to curb between the two big surface parking lots. Here the street has one row of on-street parking and two travel lanes. 10th Street’s two travel lane receive traffic from I-70 into downtown while Convention Plaza gets the occasional car by comparison.

Oddly this area, part of the 7th Ward,
wasn’t included in the recent Downtown Access, Circulation and Traffic Study. An area left behind.

Ideally I’d like to see new construction on the blocks where we now have all the unsightly surface parking. This could create new uses for Convention Plaza.

In the meantime the city should be allowing parking on this unnecessarily wide street. We are losing money by not having parking meters in this area. We are not getting all the revenue we should plus it makes an area two short blocks from our emerging Washington Avenue look desolate.

And while we are at it we should the name of these five blocks (9th to 14th) back to Delmar.

– Steve

Copia’s Valet Parking Negating New On-Street Parking

As a follow up to my post from earlier today I ventured down to Washington Avenue to check out the parking situation on a Saturday night. Although parking is now permitted on two additional blocks (10th to Tucker) you wouldn’t know it based on the parked cars.

The block between 10th and 11th is full from end to end, a very good sign. It looks so much better it is a pity we’ve gone this long without it. But the block between 11th and Tucker is another story.

Copia Urban Winery at 1122 Washington Avenue is consuming entirely too much of the 1100 block with their valet parking. How much is too much?

Try 288 feet! (I carry a measuring wheel in my car for such purposes.)

Copia, located about the mid-point of the block, is 75 feet wide (per tax records). So they are taking away 213 feet of parking from adjacent buildings. A little greedy don’t you think?

Now I’m not going to tell any high-end restaurant they can’t have valet parking. That is a necessary function to please their clientele. However a number of their own customers could park on the same street if they didn’t block it off with their orange cones.

I looked through St. Louis’ ordinances online and didn’t turn up any laws regulating valet parking. The City of Clayton, however, has a reasonably defined law (no direct link, search for ‘valet’). They require a license and the city determines the amount of space the valet is allowed to occupy.

St. Louis needs to address the valet parking situation or we risk stagnating the very area we are trying to enliven. You don’t need nearly 300 feet of road to provide adequate valet parking service for a restaurant the size of Copia.

Back to Clayton, I’ve seen restaurant valets occupy at most two parking sapces — roughly 40-45ft. If we were generous and gave Copia 60 feet of space they should be able to provide for their customers without blocking traffic. Although if someone ends up waiting in a lane for a minute or two it won’t be the end of the world. The street is 50 feet wide at that point (yes, I measured that too) so someone could easily go around.

At the most Copia should be restricted to the width of their building. They have no need to take away spaces that could be used by adjacent store fronts or visitors to residential units above. As additional businesses open in the area it will simply be unfair for one business to consume so much of the on-street parking spaces.

Where are Tom Reeves & Jim Cloar on this one? My guess is inside Copia…

– Steve

On-Street Parking on Washington Avenue — Finally!

Yes folks, we finally have on-street parking along a two-block stretch of Washington Avenue — from 10th to Tucker (aka 12th). Thanks to Ecology of Absence for the heads up on the change. Before we get into the new changes I want to give you some background.

Getting on-street parking has been a topic of mine for sometime now, it first came up on December 29, 2004 when I was reviewing the recently completed streetscape improvements in the area. On that post I wrote:

Downtown Now’s Tom Reeves was quoted in a St. Louis Business Journal story about the improvements:

“The idea is to make a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment so we can have tourists, convention goers, residents and business people all walking up and down the street,” he said. “That’s going to lead to a lot of new retail business.”

Sorry Tom, despite the attractive benches, street trees and brick pavers this area will not be as pedestrian-friendly as hoped.

Why you ask?

Lack of on-street parking.

Someone made the foolish decision to not have parking on Washington Avenue East of Tucker. This decision is going to have a negative impact on the friendliness of the street by having four lanes of fast moving traffic going by you.

The street will seem dead – parked cars have an amazing ability to indicate that something is going on. Can you imagine sitting on one of those benches near the curb line knowing cars, SUVs & buses are going to be whizzing by just a few feet away? Not me!

As a result, these blocks will not be as successful as the blocks to the West. Just imagine the Loop without on-street parking and four lanes of traffic. Yes, you could get through during rush hour much easier but that shouldn’t be the goal. Think of Euclid without street parking – it would be boring and lifeless.

Expecting to have a successful urban retail street without on-street parking is simply naive. Sure, Chicago’s Michigan Avenue doesn’t have on-street parking but it is an exception rather than the rule. This is so basic a principle it makes me continue to wonder if anyone at City Hall or Downtown Now get what urban life is all about.

This is likely the fault of city traffic engineers or perhaps Downtown Now. Could just be a lack of thought – these blocks didn’t have on-street parking before the improvements. Maybe it was just assumed the parking & traffic lanes would be the same? However it came to be, it is unfortunate. Traffic moving faster is always contrary to pedestrian-friendly.

The good news is this is reversible. Re-stripe the street and install some parking meters and the life of the street will improve dramatically. Plus, this reduces the need for ugly parking lots and garages. But, I’m not optimistic the city will wake up and realize the folly of this mistake.
I revisited the issue again on July 1, 2005 in a post called ‘East Washington Avenue: To Park or Not To Park?’

This evening on the way to the First Friday Gallery and Design Walk downtown I couldn’t help but notice cars parked on Washington Avenue East of Tucker. This is special because the street has neither parking meters or no-parking signs. So is it allowed or not? I was excited to see people parking along this stretch of Washington Avenue. It looked and felt so much better. But later what did I spot attached to the lamp posts with string? No-parking signs. At some point after 6:30pm the city came by and attached temporary “no-parking tow away zone signs.” They weren’t ticketing or towing. They were simply trying to keep the area lifeless and sterile.

Five months had passed without any indication of parking being allowed or not allowed. So people started parking on the street when visiting restaurants or galleries. Realizing the error of not blocking parking the city put up paper signs until they could get permanent signs in place to prohibit parking. This was all very deliberate and poorly executed. Two days after this post the Mayor’s blog announced a downtown traffic & parking study.

On July 15, 2005 the issue came up again:

Today Downtown St. Louis Partnership President Jim Cloar included the following in his weekly notes to members:Curb-side parking is prohibited along Washington Avenue east of Tucker. Some “entrepreneurial” motorists realized that “No Parking” signs had not been installed and have been camping out all day, playing havoc with buses, delivery trucks and traffic in general. That has been corrected and tickets will be issued going forward.

The stupidity of his statement is so infuriating. Where does one begin?

I concluded the post stating, “We must rescue our streets from the very organization that is charged with promoting downtown!”

I quickly did a couple more posts on the subject in the following days. On July 17, 2005 I posted an online poll and on July 18, 2005 I posted findings from an informal traffic count.

My most recent post on the subject was this past December in reviewing the draft traffic/parking study:

While they say that on-street parking has not been ruled out I’m suspicious. They hinted at allowing parking except during peak hours. I pointed out after the meeting to Doug Shatto [study consultant] how KitchenK will not use their sidewalk cafe license until they have a row of parked cars to make sidewalk dining more hospitable to their patrons. I also pointed out that Copia is allowed to take a traffic lane for valet parking. If we can take a lane for a valet we can certainly take the balance of the lane for parking as the flow is already restricted. I still want to see on-street parking all the way from Tucker to at least Broadway.

While I was rightfully suspicious in December it also seemed pretty clear that many folks living and working in the area that on-street parking was going to be necessary to continue the vibrant street life we see west of Tucker to the blocks east of Tucker. In between posts I talked up the issue to as many people as possible, including those that might be able to have some influence such as developers Kevin McGowan, Matt O’Leary and Craig Heller. I already knew the city’s Planning & Urban Design director, Rollin Stanley, would be supportive of on-street parking. I just wasn’t sure if he’d be able to charm his political colleagues enough to get them to concede on this issue.

Not sure what finally tipped the scales but this week signs permitting on-street parking were installed.
… Continue Reading

Ethanol & Hybrid Taxis for St. Louis?

My post from a few days ago on the London Taxi sparked some excellent debate about taxi service in the St. Louis area. Via GreenCarCongress comes a report about the greater availability of ethanol derived fuel (aka E85) in some popular Ford vehicles:

At the Chicago Auto Show, Ford Motor Company said that it will launch the beginnings of a “Midwest Ethanol Corridor”—expanding E85 ethanol fuel availability in Illinois and Missouri this year by about one-third via its ongoing partnership with VeraSun Energy. The company is planning actions to increase the availability of ethanol in neighboring states as well.

With the introduction of four new 2006 models that have the E85 option—including the Ford F-150 pickup, Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car—the company will produce up to 250,000 ethanol-capable vehicles in 2006. Ford has produced flexible fuel vehicles in the US for more than a decade, with more than 1.6 million on the road.

The Ford Crown Vic has to be the most popular vehicle for taxi service in the region. With the taxi commission regulations on the age of vehicles it would be nice for taxi companies to consider switching to flexible fuel versions as they replace their fleet.

The same article mentions the Ford Escape Hybrid for taxi use in New York, San Francisco and soon in Chicago. NYC is also using Toyota’s Prius hybrid for taxi service.

Maybe the time is right for a more progressive cab company with a fleet of hybrids, flex-fuel and London taxis? Let unique vehicles and availability at the conclusion of major events such as the symphony be their competitive edge.

– Steve

London Taxis In St. Louis?

I’ve seen a few in St. Louis, you may have too. The London Taxi doesn’t exactly blend in with the cars and SUVs on our streets. The distinctive look adds a European flair anywhere they go.

I want to see more in St. Louis, in particular around downtown.

I’ve only taken a taxi a few times and mostly in more urban cities such as NYC or Philly. I recall once taking a Town Car from Union Station to the Convention Center (I was with a group and we were short on time). But most of the taxis were a full size Ford Crown Victoria.

The Crown Vic is a big car with a big V-8 engine while the London Taxi is 32″ shorter! Yet, the London Taxi, being specifically designed for such purpose, has far more interior room for passengers (overall height is 14″ greater than the Ford).

The London Taxi are also a more efficient vehicle than the typical cab by utilizing a Ford-built turbo-diesel four cylinder engine. This enables the Taxi to get nearly 50% better city fuel economy than the Crown Vic!

But the real benefit is in passenger amenities. Besides generous space and head room the Taxi includes a wheelchair ramp, interior grab bars, a swing-out seat, an integrated child safety seat and communications technology for the hearing impaired. This is a real world taxi!


As we get more and more residents living in and around downtown St. Louis it would be great to walk out of say a Lafayette Square restaurant and hail a cab to drive you back to your loft. Having cabs available would allow more people to live in St. Louis without owning a car. But they must be convenient, no having to call for a cab and then wait. This is no different than the debate about which comes first, residents or grocery store. Obviously we must have residents first for the commercial enterprises to begin and survive.

Besides London Taxis I’d like to see more pedal powered cabs. This is a great way to get say from one end Washington Avenue to another. Or from your hotel to a dinner destination.

– Steve