SLU + Grand Center; The Intersection of Asphalt & Demolition

Saint Louis University (SLU) President Fr. Biondi, a member of the Board of Directors of Grand Center, thinks a new basketball arena will help Grand Center by bringing thousands of people to midtown. Others apparently agree. However, they are all wrong. Yes, thousands will come to basketball games — all driving cars on the highways and streets. Some will come to the games via mass transit while some students will, it is thought, walk from their nearby dorms. The notion, however, that thousands attending a sporting event in a single indoor facility will have net positive impact on surrounding areas is unproven at best. This is the Reaganomics of urban planning theory.

A few years back Fr. Biondi and SLU VP Kathleen Brady wanted to locate their massive arena on the western end of the emerging Locust Business District, adjacent to Grand Center. SLU bought a number of buildings but could not get the huge quantity of land they needed, some owners thankfully refused to sell to SLU. Unable to get their first location they shifted gears and decided to locate the arena south of Laclede and west of Compton. The Locust Business District, many thought, was safe from SLU’s over worked wrecking ball.

At the ground breaking for the new arena last August I spoke one-on-one with the Alderman for the area, Mike McMillan (since elected License Collector). McMillan had this to say to me at the time:

“If there had been a lot of demolition over in the Locust Business District it would have had a significant negative impact on the long-term success of that area so this project being here is a lot better for the surrounding community.”

A very astute observation the part of former 19th-ward Alderman McMillan, demolition can indeed have a negative impact on areas in the long term. The problem is his hand-picked successor, Marlene Davis, seems to think demolition in the Locust Business District is OK. Unfortunately this area is conveniently excluded from any oversight by the city’s Preservation Board, a group appointed by the Mayor to review demolition permits and other preservation related matters. Yesterday the city issued a demolition permit to Bellon Wrecking to raze one of numerous buildings owned by SLU in the Locust Business District. The plan, as far as we know, is more surface parking for the new arena being constructed four blocks to the south.

This is the part where I get confused, how exactly is this area to rebound when it is the repository of cars for big events blocks away? Can Fr. Biondi, Kathleen Brady, Ald. Davis or former Mayor and currently Grand Center’s President Vince Schoemehl please explain this trickle over theory to me? Can they cite examples where large surface parking lots have helped neighborhoods thrive? I’ve visited many cities and studied many more and I personally am at a loss for a single example. Oh wait, the surface parking for Busch Stadium spurred activity in the form of Al Hrabosky’s Ballpark Saloon, a pre-fab metal building. People drink there before, during and after baseball games.

The building SLU is currently razing in the area is an old 19th century livery stable, a rather unassuming building in its coat of white paint (see map). Cleaned up, renovated and adapted for modern use the building could be a showplace. For more on the history of the building see Michael Allen’s Ecology of Absence. The key to this building is not its long history (although that is important) or its very simple detailing (although that too is interesting). No, the key to this building is location. I believe this building, if it were to remain standing, would play an important part of the Locust Business District which is doing an excellent job of connecting downtown to midtown (aka Grand Center). The area is already parking heavy but some good infill buildings could quickly reverse that. Instead of edging toward infill and reconnection, we are moving toward increased parking and further separation. The city, university, and Grand Center are making this area a no-man’s land.

SLU owns the next two buildings in the block to the east. Are these next?

Across Locust to the south of the livery, SLU owns the above building which fronts onto Olive.

Thankfully SLU does not own the 6-story building on the left, in the same block as the livery currently being razed. Signs indicate the possible conversion to condos, an excellent reuse of the building and an ideal location. However, the the city vacating the alley on half this block this building’s alley will be a dead end — not ideal for trash, fire or general use. By cutting off the alley they are ensuring the fate of this building will not be good. The buff brick building on the right is a new motorcycle museum while the old livery can be seen in the middle of the picture.

… Continue Reading

Who Represents Us?

A Guest Editorial by Jim Zavist, AIA

With the recent changes at the School Board, I wanted to raise the following fundamental question – who do (or should) our politicians represent? Do they represent the people who nominated or appointed them, the people who funded their campaign, the people who voted for them and/or everyone in their district, ward, area or city? It seems like a simple question, but many times actions speak louder than words. And, having done time as both an appointed and an elected politician, I can vouch that it’s not an easy answer.

The “old”, elected School Board had one or more members with close ties to the teacher’s union. The old Board also had an appointed member who obviously split ways from the mayor (who appointed her). The “new”, appointed Board is being portrayed, negatively, as somehow more removed from the issues facing our schools. Is it better or worse? I don’t know, yet.

My own experience is that my actions and reactions changed as my constituency broadened and the role of the various organizations changed. In Denver, in the late ’80’s, I became active in a neighborhood organization, rising quickly to president. One issue facing us was a new light rail line. My personal, libertarian bent was that it would be highly subsidized and shouldn’t be built. The voters disagreed and it was built.

In the late ’90’s, a vacancy occurred on the transit district’s elected board. Denver’s mayor appointed me to fill the balance of the term. I changed my focus from a very-local, neighborhood perspective to a regional perspective. I made the commitment that my role was to make the system the best it could be and not to try and “destroy it from within” as some previous board members had attempted. I also tried to be responsive to constituent comments and concerns, especially individually-generated ones, and not so responsive to petitions and multiple, identical post cards and emails.

Which gets me back to both the St. Louis School Board and the Board of Aldermen. Who do they actually represent? Who “has their ear” and exerts the greatest influence in their decisions? Is it the Democratic “machine” and the ward committee people? The various unions and their political-action committees? The Mayor, Governor and President of the Board of Aldermen? Those parts of town that voted heavily for them (and not those parts that didn’t)? The major corporations and donors that funded their campaign? Every citizen who personally contacts them? Only those citizens that actually reside in “their” ward or live in the city? The politician’s own vision, education and close circle of friends?

I know, I know, everyone is different. That’s the beauty of “representative” government. But when the representative sample becomes too small and/or too closed, more and more people become disenfranchised and excluded from what should be a very public and inclusive process. And, yes, we can always get worked up and “throw the rascals out”, but that rarely happens, and even when it does, you still need to overcome institutional inertia. So two final questions – do the systems (and the people) we have now, work (well enough)? And if not, what should change and how should we get that change started?

Local architect Jim Zavist was born in upstate New York, raised in Louisville KY, spent 30 years in Denver Colorado and relocated to St. Louis in 2005.

St. Louis Should Abandon Linear Gateway Mall Concept

A week ago St. Louis’ Director of Planning and Urban Design, Rollin Stanley, unveiled the latest in a long series of plans for the linear park known as Gateway Mall. From a city press release:

Thomas Balsley and Associates and Urban Strategies, Inc. have been selected as the team to develop a plan to rejuvenate the 18-block Gateway Mall. The Gateway Mall extends from the Old Courthouse to 22nd Street and was a part of the grand “Civic Plaza” plan originally conceived by the City’s Civic Plaza Commission, chaired by noted landscape architect Harland Bartholomew in the early 1920s.

Last week I went into a too-long post about the history of the mall in the last few decades, including many of the players and politics. In short, everyone thought the mall was done when two “final” blocks were landscaped in the early 1990s. The only problem? People stayed away from the mall despite a resurgence in downtown activity and thousands of new residents in nearby lofts. The Gateway Mall is one of the biggest and most expensive (unofficial) dog parks ever created.

The team selected for this task appears to be quite talented, but restricted by local politics and process. In this post I plan to explain the latest concept for the mall, illustrate the reasons why I don’t think it will work and finally argue for the abandonment of the linear concept but not all of the open space.

First I should explain that I’ve seen nearly every plan produced since the 1920s as well as having read a good bit about the mall and the repetition of failed assumptions over the decades. I also participated in the organization of the local design charette held in the Fall of 2005 as well as serving on a team during the charette. I’ve also walked every block in question as well as surrounding blocks numerous times. Therefore, I believe I have a good grasp on the area and the issues facing it.

Last weeks presentation is available in PDF format here. The following were listed as objectives, that the mall should:

• “Play an active role in the life of the city and the region”
  
• “Attract and amaze”
  
• “Bring the region together to celebrate and remember”
  
• “Be innovative and interactive for its entire length”

At this point in the presentation I was all excited to find out just how 18 blocks can accomplish all this. To start off with they are describing the linear fashion as having a “Structuring Framework” of “6 Rooms, 1 Hall.” That is planning talk for this thing is so long we have six different spaces connected by one sidewalk. Sidewalks, trees, lighting and even millions in art can only do so much for a space.

The shotgun style mall is neatly divided by the team into the six rooms, starting from the west: terminus, neighborhood, civic, urban garden, Kiener Plaza and finally the Arch grounds. The hall, they say, will bring people together and create a strong connection between the various districts. The hall is a sidewalk with a double row of trees. Oh sure, it will be a nice sidewalk and the trees will be quite nice and well lit but I’m not convinced that we will all of a sudden begin to walk from the Old Courthouse at Broadway down to Union station along this particular sidewalk. Tourists might be convinced to walk part of it, but doubtful about the full length.

One of the objectives was to “play an active role in the life of the city and the region.” Sorry guys but the park space that has the region’s attention is the massive Forest Park only a few miles West. It gets, and fully deserves, this regional view. Remember too, we just leased a small section of Forest Park to BJC to help fund maintenance of Forest Park to free up limited park funds to help keep up all our other parks. We are a city of 353K, not 850K+ as we were in the 1950s — we must live within our means which translates to not having more park space than we can maintain or use. Neighborhood parks serve their areas, we need an appropriate amount of park space for downtown.

The Arch grounds are more than enough total area for city residents, tourists and the region. Unfortunately, it is also hard to access and frankly pretty boring after the first visit. The US National Park Service keeping a military style Hummer at one of the entrances isn’t exactly welcoming either. A “lid” over I-70 to better connect the ground to downtown have been discussed for decades but nothing has happened. Connecting this massive green space with downtown, in my view, is more critical to the city than a tricked out riverfront, a new Mississippi River bridge or a $20 million gift for an urban sculpture park.

But even once we properly connect downtown to the Arch grounds we still have all these open blocks it fill up. Like previous plans, the latest calls for a series of things to attract and retain people. It may look good on paper and sound well in a presentation but I believe in reality it will be simply things to fill up the space. Will people really play volleyball across from the post office? Will “world-class” sculpture across from the AT&T tower make those blocks come alive 24/7? Maybe for the first couple of years until everyone has had a chance to see it and the newness has worn off.

The team did an “analysis” of the area and concluded the park space is 22.3 acres and the roadway was 28.7 acres. Many of the roads are too wide but to count the area of the adjacent streets outside the park area is misleading. The omit the acreage of the Arch grounds is highly misleading. Besides, a tree-lined street can be wonderful public space.

This latest plan is more of the same, toss in the latest things of interest and cross your fingers that this time it will work. One of the most absurd notions put forth by the team is that cars parked on the cross streets like 15th and 9th are part of the reason people don’t use the mall. Similarly, they think we should eliminate on-street parking from market street because that will block the view of the park space presumably from those driving down Market. This thinking is that with the vista open a motorist driving down Market will pull over and park in one of the many parking garages facing the Mall and take a gander on foot. Yeah, right.

Another half-baked idea was a 10ft wide lane along the North side of Market to serve as a 2-way bike system like “they have in Paris.” Uh, sure but this ain’t France. I can just picture head-on bike collisions along Market, never mind how to cyclists get into this system from the opposite side of the street. The assumption is that with cars banned from Market and side streets and a 10ft bike lane people will rush to the area on foot and bike. The main assumption continues to be that people will want to traverse downtown in an east-west direction along Market. This ignores the fact that so many other things are happening both north and south of Market St.

The plan presented last week basically ignores the properties outside the mall boundaries. With only a few exceptions, the buildings forming the urban edge to the mall are horrible urban renewal era structures which are inwardly focused. The presentation showed urban parks in other cities that actually had real architecture around the edges. As long as we have mistakes like blank walled parking garages and lifeless mirrored buildings the urban space is doomed, no matter how much bling you toss inside. What is around a successful urban park is as important, if not more important, than the space inside.

We generally don’t use cities in strict linear fashion unless that is the direction we are headed. Downtown has transit stops, sports venues, lofts, retail, employment and entertainment on both side of Market St — we don’t want people sticking to this strick linear hallway as we might damage what we have going in other areas. I don’t think any risk exists of this hallway hurting the other areas though, people go where they have activities. Going against the emerging areas throughout downtown would be a big waste of money and energy.

As indicated in the headline, I think St. Louis needs to abandon the entire Gateway Mall concept. We should just accept that perhaps a few generations ago the idea of this linear park was a good solution for the time it is not what we need in 21st century St. Louis. I’m not suggesting we build on every open parcel, not by any stretch. Let me explain my thoughts and then I will show you some of the ideas mapped out:

• Market Street from Jefferson to Broadway should become a grand boulevard, an elegant street that is a joy to walk along on both sides for however long someone is doing so. This would also continue in the current role as a parade route. It is currently, however, way too wide and should be narrowed. On-street parking should be retained while the various pedestrian crossings need to be shortened. All streets downtown should be a joy to walk along — active edges and tree lined and spotted with controversial public art.
• The 22nd Street Interchange, part of an abandoned highway concept from a few decades ago, needs to be ripped out with the land returned to active tax-paying use. The Missouri Dept of Transportation (MoDOT) should rework the interchange at Jefferson Ave to allow for on/off ramps in both directions and therefore eliminating the need for the current ramps at 22nd. MoDot could sell the land to fund the revisions to the highway ramps.
• A friend had the idea of attracting Centene Corp from the non-blighted Clayton area to the arguably blighted Gateway Mall area. Centene could take a couple of the blocks created by the space used for the 22nd interchange. The fact the area is already dug out would help make underground parking all the more feasible. We have other blocks to offer them as well if they don’t like that location.
• Park areas would be left in front of Union Station, around the Soilders Memorial, one block in front of AT&T and the one block west of the Old Courthouse. Five blocks along this linear path would be sold to developers along with form-based codes about how new structures should be built — basically no blank walls. I should note here that in 2005 I spoke one-on-one with St. Louis’ Mayor Slay about selling some of the land for development — he didn’t think that would go over well. A few months later he supported leasing park land to BJC for development. Given a recently passed law, city voters would have to approve the idea of developing some of the parcels.
• With considerably less park space downtown and more development area I think the balance would be more successful.
• I have many more ideas about this space, many of which are not original to me I should add. I simply do not have the time to fully elaborate here unless some foundation wants to pay me to assemble a local team to flesh out the concept. I think we could do it for a fraction of the $400K the current team is getting from the Gateway Foundation.

Click here to view a Google map with some of my thoughts mapped out. The blue/purple areas are blocks that should be developed which includes land owned by the city, state, and private interests. As you will see, I’ve done my best to restore the street grid and I’ve created a few streets where they did not exist before (back of Union Station). I didn’t mark all the parking lots and other areas that also need developing but you will get the idea.

Chevy Tahoe Driver Crosses the Line, In More Ways Than One

Today while taking pictures of the accident involving a police car and a private vehicle (see prior post) I ended up crossing Chippewa twice, both times using the pedestrian crosswalk at Hampton. When crossing from the NE corner back to the SE corner I waited through the Hampton left turn arrows for the signal to cross. However, a big black Chevy Tahoe in the left turn lane (to southbound Hampton) was over the stop line as well as being into the cross walk area.

As I walked in front of the 5,200 lb+ vehicle I sorta gave the driver, who was talking on her cell phone, a disapproving look. Once safely across the street and on the sidewalk I yelled back something like, “The stop line is five feet back.” Before I explain the rest I want to talk about the above image. The white pickup in the far right lane waited back behind the stop line as I crossed the crosswalk. It was only once I was through that the white truck pulled forward to see about making a right turn on red. That driver had to pull forward more than usual to be able to see past the black Tahoe.

Ok, back to the driver in the Tahoe. So I yelled to her that the stop line was back about five feet. Well, she starts screaming at me and everything was f-this and f-that. I was on foot and walking back along Chippewa to my scooter up near the entrance of the Hampton Village shopping center. As you can see, she was in the left turn lane. By the time I reached my scooter she had pulled into the back of the McDonald’s and began cursing at me again — finally exiting her vehicle and cursing up a storm while calling me fat (ok, technically true). I was a bit concerned for my personal safety at this point but I was unable to get the attention of the police across the street, all the while she tells me she is the wife of a police officer. I indicated she had technically run a red light by being over the stop line (also technically true). Timing was on my side as the KSDK camerawoman in the area for the police car accident got most of this woman’s tyraid on camera.

This woman had no reason to be this far forward into the crosswalk. Many times I’ve seen drivers realize they are too far forward and blocking pedestrians, get embarrased and back up a bit. They’d apologetically wave and smile and that would be the end of it. In this case the woman has plenty of room behind her to back up a bit but instead of accepting her mistake when pointed out she resorts to intimidating a pedestrian. Staying back behind the stop line makes intersections safer for pedestrians as well as other drivers who may find her forward position challenging when trying to turn left from southbound Hampton onto eastbound Chippewa.

Interestingly this intersection has newer signals with video enforcement, I’ll be curious to see what these cameras caught if anything. When I left the area I zig zagged through the residential neighborhoods just in case she tried to track me down on Chippewa.

UPDATE 6/17/2007 @ 3:45pm:

I got a few seconds of video as the driver was screaming at me from the McDonald’s parking lot (can’t tell a word she is saying), then she gets out to come towards me. Unfortunately, I turned off the camera (KSDK got her words after this point). Well, here is the bit that I got:

St. Louis Police Car T-Bones Pontiac on Chippewa (Update w/Police Summary)

Earlier this afternoon a St. Louis police car t-boned a silver Pontiac Bonneville on Chippewa just east of Hampton. The Pontiac ended up in the parking lot of the corner Walgreen’s store after running through a planter area. I do not know any details of the accident at this time. I have contacted the Director of Public Relations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept but at this time he has not responded (it is a lovely Sunday afternoon). When I hear back from the police I will post an update at the end of this post.

In the image above you can see the damage to the Pontiac and where it ended up, both front airbags went off.

Above is the view seen from across the street — at first I could not tell what the police car had hit.

Both cars are loaded on flat-bed wreckers while the fire department hoses off the fuels fluids and debris from the accident. A local TV station has a camerwoman filming while spectators look on. On a positive note I was glad to see that street trees finally got planted in front of the Dobbs location on Chippewa.

I hope everyone in both vehicles are OK. I don’t know enough about accidents to determine if this was a low-speed or high-speed accident. I’m very curious to know if the officer(s) in the patrol car was wearing a seat belt — I seldom see St. Louis Police doing so. In the county it is a mixed bag — some do and some do not. I know officers tend to get in and out of their car a lot but I would like to see them wearing their seatbelts for their own safety.

UPDATE 6/18/2007 @ Noon:

This just in…

INCIDENT:   DEPARTMENT ACCIDENT
LOCATION:  5845 Chippewa
DATE/TIMES:  06/17/2007  11:46
NEIGHBORHOOD: South Hampton
Department Vehicle PPO Phillip Cornell
W/F, 6/1/1918

SYNOPSIS:  Officer Cornell was driving west on Chippewa approaching Hampton when Vehicle #2, traveling east on Chippewa, attempted to make a left turn onto the Walgreens’ parking lot, turning into the path of the officer.  He was unable to stop and struck the vehicle.  Both drivers were conveyed to Barnes Hospital for treatment.  Officer Cornell was treated for injuries to his right arm, legs and chest.  He was listed in stable condition.  Driver #2 was admitted with multiple abrasions to her face and a pelvic fracture.  She was listed in stable condition.  The Department Vehicle sustained major front end damage; Vehicle #2 sustained major side damage.