No Single-Family Home For Me

In February I’ll turn 42 years old. My first 21 years were in a single-family detached home — the house my parents had built while my mom was pregnant with me. That was in suburban Oklahoma City. Pretty basic, 3 bedrooms, 1-3/4 baths. All the houses in the subdivision were single family detached with garages out front. My dad wanted a 3-car garage but all the houses were required to have a 2-car garage — neither less or more, just two. My dad wanted the 3rd bay for use as a shop with his woodworking tools. We did have a driveway that would hold 9 cars (3 wide x 3 deep).

During the following 20 years I have lived in eight different dwelling units. All have been in multi-family or mixed-use structures. There were two in college and six since moving to St Louis in August of 1990. Since leaving my family home at age 21 I have not lived in a single-family home.

This is my second time living in an elevator building, the first time was on Lindell on the 8th floor. I’ve lived in four different four-unit buildings. One two-family building. One corner storefront. But no single-family detached house.

We all make housing choices for ourselves. Since I’ve been out on my own that deliberate choice has been a rejection of my parent’s generation ideal of the single family detached dwelling. Not that their is anything wrong with that. It is just not my cup of tea. If I were to but a single family detached home it would likely be on a street also containing two & four-family buildings and perhaps down the street from a 12 unit building and near some storefront spaces.

My Dad & Mom were born in 1929 & 1931, respectively. I’ve seen prior houses they lived in after they got married in 1949. All single family detached. I think my Dad lived in a small apartment for a year before my Mom graduated high school and they got married. Other than that they both lived their entire lives (78 & 75 years, respectively) in single family detached.

All my relatives live in single family homes.  I’m sure some think I’ll do well enough to someday move to a detached house in the burbs.

No one housing form is better than the other — I make no judgment. It is just interesting what we choose when we have a choice.

Only Failed Spaces Require ‘Programming.’

“Programming” is one of those catch words used by many to indicate events like festivals, concerts, bazaars and such. These are often suggested for spaces that otherwise have little to no natural active users.

At the riverfront design charrette this  phrase was used often.  I’ll get to the exact presentations in a separate post later this week once they’ve all been uploaded.

Having a concert in an urban space doesn’t mean it has failed as a space.  But having to bring events to otherwise seldom used space is a good sign it is a failed environment.

The Gateway Mall is a good example of such a failure.  The space itself doesn’t attract people.  We hold big events on a few blocks a few times per year.  Otherwise the space remains a big void. Good urban space will have visitors on a normal Tuesday morning.

One factor the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) considers important to look for is how comfortable couples feel sharing intimate moments – holdings hands, a kiss, etc.

We need to not rely on “programming” spaces and simply design better space.  Of course, “bold” “world-class” “statements” are often among the worse spaces.

Downtown St Louis has an enormous amount of acreage tied up in space that needs programming to attract anyone.  But programming is expensive and it takes a lot of work.  One of the best un-programmed spaces
in our city is Soulard Market.  Whenever they are open you will see people.  It is a great place for people watching.

Most farmers’ markets are great.  They are not programming — they are commerce.  Bring food to the city from the country is an old tradition.  People may go to Soulard Market and buy very little but still leave enriched.

The former 14th Street Pedestrian Mall in Old North St Louis is another example of a poorly designed space.  The once active street was deliberately killed off in the name of saving it.  It failed big time.  Work is nearing completion to reopen the street.

Whenever you hear anyone suggest “programming” for a space be wary.  It is a red flag the space needs more than three concerts in the summer.

McDonald’s On Lindell Opens With Improved Pedestrian Access

Yesterday a newly constructed McDonald’s opened for business at 4000 Lindell. For nearly one acre site has had a McDonald’s for as long as I’ve lived in St Louis (since 8/1990).

Like the McDonald’s on South Kingshighway, the old McDonald’s was recently razed. Given the type of construction and lack of basement, this takes hours not weeks & months like it does for fine buildings like the Ambassador Theater or the Century Building.

The tiny old location sat in the center of the 0.95 acre site, surrounded by excessive parking. Street parking often remained empty.

As you can see from the above image, pedestrians wishing to enter the McDonald’s had to take their chances and walk in the auto driveways. Not at all pedestrian friendly. This site is a block from the Western edge of Saint Louis University.

From the Street View we can see the numerous barriers to the pedestrian attempting to get a Big Mac. Again, with such a large site paved with more than enough parking, the on-street parking remains empty

So the access from the West is pretty decent. Thankfully they’ve omitted the drive between the sidewalk and building.

I think over time we will see a pathway worn in the grass. From this point on the public sidewalk the front door is closer than the other pathway. The ADA requires one accessible route which they have. They could have put a sidewalk with a step or two on this side. It would not have been accessible to a wheelchair user but they already had that covered. A sidewalk in the above would have also served as a good edge dividing the planter from the grassy area.

Still, it is a vast improvement. The year-old McDonald’s on South Kingshighway (near Christy) is not so good. There the building is closer to the street (good) but the have a drive between the sidewalk & building (bad). Pedestrians there must use the auto drives to enter/exit. This, however, could easily be rectified by removing the drive in front of the building. From the Lindell example, it really isn’t necessary.

Transit For The St Louis Region

Continuing the dialog about the future of mass transit given the recent failure of Prop M in St Louis County (see post), I want to first focus on the continued idea of a regional approach to transit. When light rail proponents first started their efforts in the 1980s the region wasn’t the size it is today — we’ve sprawled out considerably since then.

For census purposes, the St Louis region contains 12 counties — 8 in Missouri (remember the city is a county too) and four in Illinois. We are not going to have a true regional system without trillions of dollars for infrastructure & operations. Serving the entire region with bus &/or rail service just isn’t practical. The phrase “regional system” needs to stop being used because that misrepresents what we do have and what we might expect in the future.

Bi-State Development Agency (aka Metro) was formed in 1949. Sixty years ago the system in place did serve much of the then smaller region. It still covers the same three counties – St Louis City, St Louis County and St Clair County in Illinois. By some counts it serves a couple more parts of Illinois. But while the region has ballooned the coverage area of Metro has remained basically the same. This makes sense though as the additional counties now considered part of our region just are too sprawling to make mass transit (bus or rail) cost prohibitive. We don’t have a regional transit system.

Even efficiently serving all of St Louis County isn’t realistic. Eureka Missouri in the Southwest part of the county is 30 miles from downtown. Thirty! If I were a voter in Eureka I probably would have voted against the sales tax hike because I would realize that transit would never reach me. I dare say that many in places like Eureka don’t want transit anyway. This is not to pick on Eureka, it is just so far removed from the urban core of the region. Why pay for that from which you will never benefit?

As the graphic of St Louis County (above) shows, it is quite large and parts are a considerable distance from the city (the Eureka example). The County has an area of 524 square miles vs 66.2 square miles for the city. You could fit the city into the county nearly 8 times. The city is just 11% of the combined area of the city & county but we have 20% of the population for the two areas. Looking at the 12-county region the picture is the same, we have a greater percent of the population relative to the land consumed.

Older inner-ring municipalities in the County are similar in that their density is higher than that of the outer edges of our region. Many of these older inner-ring munys were started back when the region was served by electric streetcars. The are reasonably dense, compact and for the most part, walkable. Examples include University City, Maplewood and Ferguson.

Last week I said “F the county” after they refused to approve Prop M. Tom Shrout of CMT (Citizens for Modern Transit) suggested here that we create a transit district inside I-270. This approach makes great sense. Had the city’s municipal boundaries not been fixed in place in 1876 we could reasonably have expected the city to grow & annex itself outward to roughly where I-270 is today.

But I still desire a more compact system. Perhaps to something roughly equal to inside I-170. What this is about is figuring out how we define the “core” of the region. Certainly the city is in the core but the core is bigger than just the city.  Lindbergh Blvd might make a better Western & Southern border for such a transit district, with I-270 to the North.

This is not to say that transit vehicles must be limited to being inside the boundary. Madison County Illinois funds a nice bus system that leaves their county as it connects to East St Louis (St Clair County) and downtown St Louis. A core system funded inside Lindbergh, for example, might still make trips to say Westport.

The thing to do is figure out where it makes sense to provide transit service (bus/rail) and then seek funding from people in that limited area only, disregarding the many municipal borders. I personally envision a great system as far out as I-170 with very little beyond that. Places like Westport and West County Center, however, do create a legit need for mass transit. A modified approach would be a two-level system. The center part to I-170 would pay a higher rate for a higher level of service compared to the area between I-170 & I-270.

Given our mobility I would not necessarily use sales taxes as the basis for funding the infrastructure & operations. Property tax might be a better mechanism as that is tied to the geography of those that would benefit from the transit service.

The other part of the equation is the type of service — bus or rail. I’ve made it clear numerous times I’m an advocate of the humble streetcar. Not light rail in the street — just basic streetcar rail service. I also don’t mind the bus. Each has its place and good systems use bus, streetcar & light rail to meet various needs. Our core cannot effectively be served by only one or two of these choices.

As Jim Zavist has pointed out numerous times, our region has the perception of the bus that it is only for the poor. That is likely due to the fact that the system we have is so infrequent that those with greater means use other choices such as a personal car, leaving only the poor as the main users. Perceptions are hard to overcome. Straightening out the bus routes (hard to do given some of our roads) and increasing the frequency of the bus would certainly improve the perception & reality. A 45-minute transit ride for something that takes 10-15 minutes by car is not realistic. I can accept up to twice as long as a private car but not much longer. Waiting an hour for the next bus isn’t going to cut it for anyone with the means to drive to their destination. This applies to any form of transit — bus or rail.

An advantage of bus over fixed rail is the flexibility to deviate from a set route. This is also a major drawback as bus lines have a tendency to get altered and re-routed to the point a new user has not clue where the bus goes. If you approach a streetcar line in a strange city you see the track & wires. You know it doesn’t turn right at the next corner, it will follow the track.

Toronto is one of a handful of North American cities that didn’t ditch its streetcar system. When I was there in July 2006 it served me well for seeing much of the city. It also served the local population well and the blocks along the various lines were highly active.  The way people use space along streetcar lines is very different than how they use space adjacent to a bus or even a light rail line.   Blocks immediately adjacent to streetcar lines are more active, more animated.  We are long past the days of 100% of our transit system being in the form of the streetcar. But we do have corridors where I believe the streetcar would serve as a catalyst for new development, creating a linear string of density.  An example, that I’ve articulated before, would be Olive heading West from downtown, jumping North to Delmar at Vandeventer or Sarah and then continuing West on Delmar to the loop.

Another is a Chouteau/Manchester line.  Start at the 14th street transit connection, go South to Chouteau & turn West.  Stay Westbound on Chouteau until it becomes Manchester at Vandeventer.  Take Manchester West through this part of the city, Maplewood, Brentwood, and Kirkwood.  End at Lindbergh or even West County Center.  Mandate high density future development along the route to justify the infrastructure investment.  Someone may still choose to drive end to end as that would still be faster but we’ll see many more users taking the line for trips 2-5 miles in either direction from where they live along the line. In Maplewood the line would intersect with an existing MetroLink light rail station.

Some may say just do that with a bus instead as they are cheaper. True, they are.   But the bus is not going to spur high-density development along its route the way a fixed route streetcar + zoning is going to.  This transit line would go deep into West County and connect to nearby residential areas along an existing corridor that is ripe for more urbanity & density.  Voters in these areas would get something real & tangible for their contribution to the total system.

Similarly, in the city, I’d run a line out MLK to the city limits and beyond on St Charles Rock Road.  This might loop back around at Northwest Plaza Mall.  Like Manchester, St Charles Rock Road is wide, has adjacent land suitable for higher density mixed-use development as well as lots of housing a short walk from the street.  This streetcar would also intersect with and connect to the existing light rail line.  It would not necessarily represent the fastest route to downtown but it would permit someone in St Ann to go a few miles from their home easily.

More importantly streetcars along such major routes in both the city and nearby county municipalities would  help to tie them together, erasing dividing borders along the route.  This would then begin to approach a core system for the core of our region, something the city and inner county could finance.

Habitat Helping To Build Up Housing Stock in North City

Recently I passed through MLK & Grand (map). Near there I spotted Habitat for Humanity crews busy finishing up several new homes:

These homes are being built just North of the old Blumeyer Housing projects. Blumeyer is now gone, being remade under HUD’s HOPE VI program by McCormack Barron Salazar.

This was smart site selection on the part of Habitat. By building their homes adjacent to other new housing it will strengthen both. This corner of the city is getting a good mix of housing types.

Unfortunately the commercial development is all geared toward the car. The above houses are less than a 1/4 mile from a Save-A-Lot grocery store just across Grand but getting there on foot is not an easy task.

Strong urban neighborhoods need strong urban retail to make them fully walkable. This is not about forbidding cars or forcing people to walk rather than drive. It is about making the commercial districts abutting our residential areas such that someone, on a nice day especially, would want to walk rather than drive. For those that prioritize their income such that they use public transportation rather than being a slave to their car, walkable commercial districts will help reinforce that decision.

Addendum 11/7/08 @ 8am:

I need to indicate how I think this more urban/walkable district would have been developed.  First it would have been to target an area more than the size of any single project.  Both sides of Grand as well as a few blocks of MLK & Page in each direction.  Create an urban zoning overlay for this area that would require new buildings to be built up to the property/sidewalk line.  Identify where parking could be located and then build several public lots so that those building retail in this district don’t need large quantities of land for their own private parking lots.  Build new sidewalks with street trees, benches, bike racks and such.  This leaves only the new buildings to be built or the renovation of the few that remain.  Place on-street parking in as many areas as possible.  Include “bulbs” at the ends of the on-street parking to help reduce the distance to cross Grand, MLK & Page.  Streetscape & parking are handled by the city as their contribution to the district.  The smaller parcels that exist don’t need to be assembled by the city or private developers because they don’t need massive parking lots – the zoning overlay would remove all mandates for parking.  Over time this would develop into an interesting walkable commercial district adjacent to the new walkable housing being built East of Grand.