St. Louis Crosswalk Ignores ADA Ramps

This weekend, following PrideFest in Tower Grove park, I managed to get some work done by showing a property to a client in the adjacent Shaw neighborhood. Returning home I spotted a problem crosswalk that I had never noticed before, although it looks like this has been the case for some time now. The crossing in question is at the intersection of Magnolia with Grand (view on map).

As you can see in the above image, the stop line for motorists is dead center on the ADA ramps. The crosswalk markings, where turning motorists might expect to see pedestrians, ends in curbs and lawn areas. The motorist at the left stopped well short of the intersection, keeping the area clear for pedestrians.

From the opposite side of the street we can see the crosswalk signal on but vehicles blocking the ADA ramps, rendering them useless. This image also illustrates the poor design of the corners.

Unlike the car in the left lane, not everyone stops at even the stop line. We are so used to making right turns on read we pull up as far as we can. My observation was that drivers do obey the no right turn on red but they still end up blocking the ADA ramps and sometimes the crosswalk as well. Above the driver is talking on the cell phone while blocking the crossing — note the pedestrian signal indicates walk.

Here you can see the line of cars on eastbound Magnolia at they intersect with Grand. Due to the jog in the street grid traffic is forced to turn left or right, although you can go straight to enter the grocery store seen in the background. But notice the yellow sign on the lamp post — “Blind Persons Crossing.” The visually impaired do use this intersection which is also equipped with older chirp alerts to help those who are not able to see the traffic/pedestrian signals. The little raised squares at the base of ADA ramps are called truncated domes — these are to guide the visually impaired as they can be detected under foot and with a cane — the idea is to help align a person so they are in the right spot to cross the street.

In my view, the city of St. Louis should be held partially liable in the event a pedestrian is struck at this intersection. This is a poor design that, with a little effort, could be greatly improved.

What needs to happen here is the stop line needs to get pushed back and the crosswalk needs to actually get placed where it can functionally be used. To discourage cell phone talking drivers from stopping in the crosswalk, a sign should be added indicating to stop at the stop line. Painting a big “STOP” on the pavement might also help. Placing signage at the eye level of most drivers might also be helpful. These efforts will not prevent the hopelessly oblivious driver from stopping in the crosswalk but clearly the current design encourages drivers to block the ADA ramps. We can, and should, do better for our citizens.
Even though my site is well read at city hall, I will email various decision makers to let them know of this problem so it can get corrected. I will email 8th Ward Alderman Stephen Conway, Dr. Dee from the Office on the Disabled, and Director of Streets Todd Waelterman.

Understanding the Various Types of Historic/Preservation Districts in St. Louis

The City of St. Louis over the years has created different legal districts to help maintain and sustain the older building stock in the city, arguably the best asset of the city is the building stock. A close second is what is left of our gridded street pattern.

These districts fall into several types; the National Register District, the Local Historic district, and the Preservation Review area. Anything not in one or more of these districts is basically a demolition buffet, otherwise known as the 18th Ward. To be fair, other wards are also demolition buffets but unfortunately it is not easy to find where that is the case which is part of my point I will hope to make in this post.

These districts are not to be confused with individual buildings which may be a National Register site or a city landmark. Districts include multiple buildings that often individually are not a ‘landmark’ but collectively make up a nice collection of buildings.

National Register Districts

These districts are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Listing on the national register does not, I repeat does not, protect the buildings from demolition nor does it mandate any specific standards for rehab. A building within a national register historic district, however, can be eligible for state and federal tax credits if rehabbed as required by some very strict historic standards. You can buy, rehab and sell buildings in a national register district all the time without dealing with standards — it is only if you want to get tax credits must you obey the guidelines.

This is a good place to note that many buildings are located within both a national district and a local district, which I will explain in a bit. Thus, just because you are in a national district does not mean you are not also in a local district. Click here to see a listing of the national districts in St. Louis.

Local Historic Districts

The local districts, unlike national districts, come with rehab standards and some protections from demolition. If I am not mistaken, the state of Missouri also recognizes local districts and qualifying projects within these local districts can receive state historic tax credits. NOTE: If you are undertaking a major rehab project and seek to obtain tax credits it is highly advisable to obtain a qualified consultant experienced in preparing and submitting tax credit applications. A good source of help is the Rehabber’s Club at rehabbersclub.org.

As indicated above, a property might be in both a local district and a national district. It might also be located only in a local district. Buyers must be aware of these differences when property shopping — I will show you how to check later in this post. Click here to see a list of local historic districts.

But what about those properties in neither a local or national district?
Preservation Review Areas

It is probably safe to say the bulk of residential, multi-family and small commercial buildings within the City of St. Louis are located not in local or national districts but simply in a review district. The intent here is to avert the demolition of what are known in the lingo as “contributing” buildings — those which contribute to the historic character of the city.

When a person seeks a demolition permit down at city hall the staff checks to see where the building is located, if it is a main structure (say a house rather than a shed) the application is forwarded to the Cultural Resources staff to determine if the building is one of those that is “contributing” or not. If the building is not of merit and therefore not contributing, they may administratively approve the demo request and you can let the wrecking ball begin. However, if the building is contributing they will usually deny the application. This “staff denial” can then be appealed so that your appeal is heard by the members of the Preservtion Board.

I’m becoming increasingly libertarian but this process does have value. Many people who chose to buy homes in the city do so because they love the old buildings. The collection of buildings on private land adds collectively to the community. As such, we don’t necessarily want people tearing down that which makes up the character of a street or neighborhood — such action might have a negative impact on our own private property. Sometimes demolition makes sense, sometimes it does not — that is the idea behind having the Preservation Board hear appeals.

No District at all

Properties that are not located in a district are easily razed, a shame really. Many fine buildings are routinely destroyed forever because the owner is not sure they have other options. We have an excessive amount of vacant land in this city as a result of disinvestment and demolition.

Due Diligence, Buyer Beware, yadda yadda yadda

When purchasing real estate is it important for the buyer to ensure they are allowed to do what they intend with the property before finalizing the sale. Say you want to buy a place to live — that is pretty much a no brainer. You do need to check on occupancy requirements which can vary wildly from municipality to municipality. Now lets say you want to buy a place to live with your extended family of 12 people. If that is your intention, do not assume you will be able to do so just anywhere. Same if you live alone with your 25 cats and dogs — do not assume that will be allowed as it most likely will not be.

Similarly, if you are buying a place and wish to open a brothel you need to check local laws to see if that is permitted. OK, that is an extreme example but say a place was a bar at one time does not mean you can open a new bar in that building. I’m not making judgments here about what is allowed and not, I’m just saying you must know that what you want to do with property is allowed — too many people make very costly assumptions.

Your real estate agent may or may not be aware of the differences in districts or in some cases not even know they exist at all. Many REALTORS®, including myself, have daily working knowledge of the various types of districts and differences in requirements. But say you hire me to help you find a property to rehab and get historic tax credits, it is still your responsibility to doubt your professionals and verify for yourself that you can do what you want to do. When doing into the business of development, you must double and triple check the facts. You must be fully aware of what you are buying before the deal is finalized.

In the case of the little house on Tennessee, the buyer closed on the property earlier this year. The listing agent suggested new houses be built and in remarks in the listing to agents only indicated the house was a tear down. The agent representing the buyer (and current owner) was not aware the house could not be razed, despite professing to working extensively in the 63111 zip code and living in Benton Park West. This group did not exercise proper due diligence.

How do I know?

Determining if a property is within one of these districts is actually quite easy. The first thing you want to do is go to GEO St. Louis. This is a “guide to geospacial data about the City of St. Louis.” That is really a fancy way of saying it is a database that can be mapped. Here is a screen shot of the main page:

Above is the main page. This is a very powerful site with access to considerable information about each and every property in the city of St. Louis. You can’t break it so I suggest you spend some time looking around. For now, we are going to look up a specific property. In the left hand side is a heading labeled “Common Items” with the first being parcel data by address.

From there we can type in the address of interest. I also use this for bills by the Board of Aldermen that reference property in a certain city block but not the street address.

Again, this is a very powerful site but above is some of the most helpful basics which you will find on the first page your search brings up. I looked up 4722 Tennessee — the property the owner purchased earlier this year thinking they could raze the exisitng 19th century house. Had they, or their real estate agent, checked this free public website they would have seen it is not in a historic district but it is in a “Preservation Review Area.” To repeat, this is public information and it has been made very accessible to the public as long as you have an internet connection. If you are buying or selling real estate in the city of St. Louis check this site to learn more about the property!

As an example, I listed and sold a house last year where the recorder had mistakenly mixed up the ownership of my clients house with the one next door — something I spotted by checking these records so that by the time we had the house sold the mistake had been corrected.

If you run across a property that is not in either a historic district or a review area you are likely looking at a property in one of the wards that is not protected from wholesale destruction, such as Terry Kennedy’s 18th ward. The city has a disclaimer on the GEO site which is supposed to read the information is not guaranteed (it appears to be poorly phrased). I suggest you verify this information if you have thoughts of demolition, plans for major rehab or simply a ‘keep your laws off my property’ attitude.

In the above grahic from the GEO site you will also see a section for Housing Conservation District — this is basically the areas in which a very simple form of occupancy is required (although the city says they do not have any occupancy requirements). Click here for more information on Housing Conservation Districts.

If you buy property expecting to do something with it don’t look for sympathy if you find out you cannot, but that you could have easily checked before finalizing the deal. Buying a property to redevelop without making sure you can raze the structure or making the contract contingent upon necessary government approvals is just downright foolish. If you expect to be a developer you’ve gotta know what you are doing and have the right professionals helping you along the way. If necessary, have professionals checking the professionals.

Preservation Board to Hear Appeal to Raze 19th Century House (Updated)

A first glance, it doesn’t look like much. Perhaps even the second and third glance you may not see the appeal. The home at 4716/4722 Tennessee in the 25th Ward should not be razed.

The above home is on today’s agenda at the Preservation Board, a developer seeks to raze the home. In its current state, it looks pretty rough. For years this home was covered in a newer “low maintenance” siding which is now half removed. With the lower windows boarded and the dormer windows removed the home looks much worse than it really is.

As I had long suspected, the original clapboard siding was hiding under the newer siding and remains in amazingly good condition. The porch is original.

Even though the front door is now boarded you can see the original transom peaking out above the red partical board. The original porch detailing is a rare find these days. A portion of the rear foundation is damaged but certainly repairable.

A later back stoop is falling down, as it has been doing for years. You see, I know this particular building better than most as I lived next door for 10 years.

Above is the 2-family I purchased in August 1994 and sold in January 2006 after having moved into my current place a few blocks away in the fall of 2004. Having lived next door, I knew the owners of the property during this period and through many conversations, much of the history of the structure. I have attempted to reach the prior owners but I could not track down them down.
Before I explain some of the interesting history, however, I want to talk about the demolition review process and where things have gone wrong. Ald. Kirner, whom I challenged in the March 2005 election, is under the impression it is her responsibility to broker deals and if she can’t make a deal for a purchaser then it is OK to allow a building to be razed. Aldermen should not be brokering real estate deals. Demolitions should not hinge on their ability to make a deal or not.

The Preservation Review ordinance has a number of criteria which must be met in order to permit a building within Preservation Review Districts to be razed. We will see if the appliant provides sufficient information to meet the criteria. I believe if the house were sold by itself, without the extra building lots between it and my old place, that someone would be interested in buying and rehabbing it. I attempted to explain this concept to Ald. Kirner a couple of weeks ago but I don’t think she got it — she kept talking about trying to see if a previous guy was interested in buying it. Remember, I am the licensed real estate salesperson, not her.

Back to the history.

When I purchased my 2-family in 1994 I bought it from John Held, of Held Florist next door. His grandfather had purchased the old frame house along with quite a bit of land on both sides in 1904. The only thing on the land, besides the frame house, were some greenhouses — the house and greenhouses dated to the 19th century. The Held’s continued the tradition of raising & selling the plants on this land. Over time the business passed to John’s father who built my 2-family in 1924. I was the first person, outside the Held family, to own this 2-family. At the time, in 1994, the frame house, extra lots, greenhouses with storefront and florist business were all for sale. John Held was ready to retire and his kids didn’t want to continue the business. For a brief time I considered buying the whole mess and going into the nursery business — but as a group it was way too much for me to take on. It was too much for anyone really as it had not been as cared for as it should have.

The entire collection sold in 1998 — about five years after he started selling it. The new owner, Michael Dunham, bought the property and business and did a good job starting to clean the place up until he became ill. He was in recovery in the country for a few years and the future of the property was uncertain. He was not able to return to the business and once again the entire collection of real estate was put on the market. Last year it sold but this time a new step was taken – the commercial storefront with greenhouse was legally separated from the frame house and adjacent vacant lots. An excellent move in my view, allowing the new owner of the storefront and greenhouse to renovate that structure (which she has done) without the burden of the rest.

And now a developer wants to raze the frame house and construct three new houses on the site. Although I was sitting in Ald. Kirner’s office at city hall, I was not shown any drawings of the proposed houses. The agenda for tonight’s meeting is not yet posted so I do not know what is planned for the site — other than three new houses. I just cannot support razing a viable 19th century house for some as yet unseen project from unknown developers with an unknown track record — neither should the Preservation Board. As many of you will recall, it has been 18 months since the Preservation Board approved razing the Doering Mansion on Broadway and yet construction has not begun on the replacement project — and that was with a well-known developer with an excellent track record.

I believe the current owners need to plan for two new homes on the vacant land while marketing the existing home with a narrow yard. With alley access new owners of the old frame house could construct a garage out back. If more living space is required, a new addition to the rear could easily be blended in with this frame structure. Again, I’m just saying before we toss the building aside see if anyone is interested — the house has never once been for sale by itself — it has always been part of a bigger ensemble.

The home is a classic center stair house — very 19th century. The kitchen, located in the south end, was remodeled in the 1950s I would guess. The north end is a living room. Upstairs are two rooms. The basement is the best part — it contains a brick barrel vaulted meat locker which would make an excellent wine cellar. The home has a nice presence on the street which is a hodge podge of various styles and periods although most date to the early 20th century. Three new homes were constructed in the late 1990s on the south end of the street at Delor.

Once again we are going about this all wrong. The proposed development is a secret, the elected legislator is playing real estate deal maker and lack of any real design standards could mean a proposal for front-garage houses despite an alley serving the land. I doubt we will have much more information at 4pm when the Preservation Board takes up this and other matters. The meeting is held on the 12th floor of 1015 Locust.
CORRECTION: Today’s meeting will be held at 4pm in Room 208 (Kennedy Hearing Room) in city hall.
Ald Kirner can be contacted here. The Preservation Board can be reached via the Cultural Resources staff here.

UPDATE 6/25/07 @ 10:15pm

This evening the Preservation upheld the staff denial of the demolition request — the house is safe for now. I will use this as a case study in a separate post to talk about some of the issues this brings up as they relate to the Preservation Review ordinance. In short, the appliant failed to meet the various requirements in the ordinance necessary to justify the demolition. The big question is what next? Hopefully the house can get rehabbed (by current or future owner) and a couple of new houses can get constructed on the balance of the site.
In preparing for today’s meeting I ran across a picture I took in March 1994 when I was looking to buy the place next door:

Paul McKee, Board Member of St. Charles-Based Pro-Sprawl “Urban Choice Coalition”

Paul McKee, the St. Charles developer and land baron behind the “Blairmont” project has continued to remain in the news of late. I ran across his name while researching the board members of a pro-sprawl, anti-city group based in St. Charles County. Mr. McKee is a board member of a group that interestingly is anti government intervention out in the virgin farmlands but is all in favor of intervention in the city.

The following is the mission statement for the Urban Choice Coalition in its entirety:

WE BELIEVE in the right of individuals to live wherever they choose and can afford. We reject the blanket condemnation of growth in suburban counties as being a root cause of urban decay and further reject the pejorative term “urban sprawl” to describe the healthy expansion of new communities.

WE BELIEVE that it is the right of individuals to select the state, city, county, neighborhood or development of their choice to call home and not be denied governmental services, grants or benefits, otherwise available on a national or statewide basis, because of their choice of residence.

It should not be the role of government to deny services to anyone based on their choices of where to live.

It should not be the role of government to set up artificial growth boundaries, outside of which citizens or communities receive any less governmental benefits.

It should not be the role of state or regional government planning agencies to erect growth boundaries and attempt to dictate or dissuade anyone from living where they choose.

WE FURTHER BELIEVE certain public policy issues should be resolved on a statewide or regional basis, but that those decisions concerning who and where to extend local utilities and roads, or to build new schools and local government facilities are, for the most part, best left to local decision makers elected by the people they represent and that these local decisions should not be turned over to or subject to, further review by statewide or regional planning commissions not elected by the people.

WE FAVOR enhancing the quality of life in the urban core and positive inducements to promote “city living” as the best means of attracting new residents and stabilizing older neighborhoods.

But presumably it should be the role of the state governent to enact massive tax breaks for one person, say Paul McKee, so that he may assemble large areas of land within a single municipality within the state. Of couse the legislation passed by the Missouri legislature isn’t limited to McKee’s well-known but unannounced housing project but the various requirements pretty much make it tailor made just for him.

It would seem to be that an individual property rights type person, one who opposes big government intervention in land planning matters, would also oppose such intervention everywhere. But to McKee and his co-sprawlers they want it all — the ability to rape open farmland with single-use projects which are auto dependent as well as receive huge tax breaks for assembling land (which happens to contain people & buildings) on the scale of urban renewal projects like Pruitt-Igoe.

Oh yes, I see, they believe we need to have “positive inducements” in order to attract people to this idea of “city living.” Why the quotes on city living McKee & Co? I know why, you don’t really understand city living. Or maybe you do? You are likely afraid of the whole idea of people enjoying dense and walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. Sure, you talk a nice game about the “rights of indiviuals” to live where they like but you are all afraid they will stop picking the auto-centric housing subdivisions you call “communities.” And face it boys, the sprawl neighorhoods you’ve littered on the landscape for years has absolutely nothing to do with free choice — government planning has created the zoning codes that mandate everything from the lot size to the street width.

Pro-sprawl zoning in the suburbs has limited choices  — you can’t just build a corner storefront with your living space above anywhere you think their might be demand.  Oh no, in their world we must divide everything up — no mixing of residential, retail and office.  They  don’t really support individualism or free thinking about land use, they like what exists and simply want nobody to stop them until they’ve managed to merge St. Louis with Columbia MO.

The only way New Town at St. Charles got built in the urban manner that it did (urban relative to lot sizes, setbacks, street widths, etc…) is that the City of St. Charles agreed to adopt DPZ’s smart code for New Town.  Without this new zoning, what we see in New Town would not have been legally allowed as the area was zoned for industrial uses.  So where are McKee & Co when it comes to the sprawl-mandated zoning that predominates St. Charles County?  Right behind it 100%!

Another section above is how they like decisions left to local decision makers.  I’m just guessing because that is cheaper for them than having to contribute to a bunch of regional and state officials.  This weekend’s Post-Dispatch story on McKee pointed out his contributions to Aldermanic President Lewis Reed and Mayor Francis Slay.  Of course, to get that new tax bill passed he had to drop some money around the state as well.

To see the list of directors for the Urban Choice Coalition don’t look for it on their website.  You might even get the impression from their anonymous site that they are ashamed of their views — not wanting to be associated with it.  I can’t say that I blame them really, I would not want to put my name on that BS either.  So for the board list I had to go to the Secretary of State’s records, click here for their last report.  Basically it is all the people that financially benefit from the planned sprawl of the countryside in St. Charles County, including engineers, road builders, and the Executive Director of the Home Builders Association of Greater St. Louis.

Everyone agrees that North St. Louis needs major new investment and infill construction.  I just don’t think McKee and his anti-city, pro-sprawl buddies are the right people for the job.

Planning Commissioners Journal in the St. Louis Region

The publisher & editor of the Planning Commissioners Journal, Wayne Senville, recently passed through the St. Louis region on his cross country road trip along US Route 50.

Arriving in the St. Louis region from the east coast Wayne’s first stop is suburban O’Fallon IL where they are experiencing rapid growth and conflicting values about development types.  Wayne did three posts on O’Fallon starting here (use the site navigation to see the following posts).
Is This America? looks at some of the dispair in East St. Louis.  I intentionally gave Wayne directions from his O’Fallon hotel through East St. Louis on his way to ‘meet me in St. Louis.’  If anything, I knew St. Louis would look better to his eyes after having driven through East St. Louis.

In ‘Blog On, St. Louis‘ Wayne talks about our walk/drive around St. Louis.  In the next post Wayne looks at Crown Candy and the 14th Street Mall.
The final part of Wayne’s stay in our region was in suburban Creve Coeur.  Like so much of the region’s suburban areas, Creve Coeur is seeking a downtown where none currently exists.  In the first of three posts on Creve Coeur Wayne talks about his host, Creve Coeur City Councilperson and eminent domain opponent Laura Bryant.  Next up Wayne discusses a common problem in more affluent suburban areas, the older Ranch vs the McMansion.  Finally Wayne looks at Creve Coeur’s quest for a downtown with links to their planning documents on the subject in Wanted: One Downtown, Custom Built.

I enjoyed meeting and conversing with Wayne Senville  — and getting a fresh outside perspective on our success and problems.  From the St. Louis region Wayne continued westbound along Route 50 with his next stop in Jefferson City.  Use any of the links above to follow the journey across the US.