Developer Curran Tosses Egg on Preservation Board’s Face

Developer Michael Curran just reduced the number of units at the Mississippi Bluffs project from 56 to a measly 34. I say measly because the site is a massive 8.2 acres. Part of the site, as you may recall, had the wonderful but tired Doering Mansion (shown at right). This formerly graceful mansion sat on the far north 1.79 acres. Myself and others argued before the Preservation Board the Doering Mansion should be saved which would still leave 6.4 acres for new construction. The Doering Mansion was razed earlier this year.

From the Suburban Journal last week:

Curran had argued before the St. Louis Preservation Board late last year that he had to have the larger amount to make the project feasible.

At the time, Curran was seeking the Preservation Board’s permission to tear down the Doering Mansion on the north side of the property to make room for more townhouses.

He said at the time with a smaller amount of townhouses – 42 – he couldn’t recover the cost of preparing the property for development, including demolishing the old Good Samaritan Home. To recoup the investment on a smaller area, he would have to build a larger condominium development with about 120 units.

That would overwhelm a prime piece of property, Curran said at the time. Rather than do that, Curran said at the time he would sell the property to another developer.

The Preservation Board wound up voting to approve the project and demolish the mansion.

OK, just so we understand. Before the mansion was razed it was argued by the developer that if he could not tear down the historic structure that would reduce his planned 56 units to 42 units and at that rate he could not make any money and would be forced to abandon the project and sell the property. The only way he could recoup his costs if the mansion stayed was to build a bigger structure on the balance of the site containing 120 units. The classic doom and gloom argument.

Now, he says, due to site costs he cannot build 56 units because it would be too expensive!!! Thus, he is placing only 34 units on the 8.2 acre site. He couldn’t make money with 42 units on 6.4 acres plus a mansion but he can somehow make money with 34 and no mansion? Was the Preservation Board taken for a ride when they approved the demolition of the Doering Mansion? I think so.

This is yet another example of a poorly executed project in this city. The Mansion was razed in February and yet no construction has begun. Had they started razing the old Good Samaritan Home first they might have realized the folly of their plan and been able to go back to the drawing board before the loss of the mansion. This developer has an excellent track record with historic rehab projects but is not doing so well with new construction. He probably would have been better off with the old mansion. This fine example of planning shares the same ward as Loughborough Commons, Matt Villa’s 11th Ward.

“Excuse Me, Where is Soulard Market?”

“Follow me”, I said. This was the conversation today at 7th and Chouteau as an older man pulled up next to me while I was on my scooter at a red light. I was heading home from downtown and was going to pass Soulard Market. As we got to Soulard Market I pointed so he’d know we were there and he waved.

The point of the story? It is not about a need for signs pointing to Soulard Market but that people talk to me all the time while I am on the scooter. Every time I’m out on the scooter I get questions from motorists or pedestrians asking for directions or “what kinda mileage do you get?” Sometimes when I am driving my car I will have similar interactions if I have my windows down but so often people have their cars all closed up. I never understood those people that have a convertible with the top up in perfect weather.

At lunch today a friend said he and his wife are considering a two seater scooter. While I never occurred to me before, but it struck me how intimate that could be for a couple — a level of intimacy that they can’t get in a car (at least not while driving).

This past Monday marked the 1-year anniversary of my scooter and I could not be more pleased. It does not offer the exercise or thrill of a human powered bicycle but it is far better than any car (and I’ve had 3 fast European turbo-charged cars). I’ve done about 2,300 miles in the last year which is not bad considering that right after I got my new car in November I didn’t ride the scooter much in the winter.

Some of the basic questions with answers.

•Is that a Vespa? Nope, Honda Metropolitan.
• What did that run you? New Metropolitan’s are $1,850+ tax. Some Chinese imports are cheaper, Vespas are considerably more.
•What kinda milage you get? 85-90mpg.
• How fast will it go? 35mph.
•Can you go on the highway? See previous answer.
• Do you feel safe? Yes, defensive driving is a good practice regardless of the vehicle you use.
• Do you need a license, registration or insurance? Oh boy, this is a big gray area. Nearly everyone in Missouri will tell you that with a 49cc scooter that you do not need any of these. Part of the Missouri law speaks to the top speed of an unregistered moped being 30mph. I know of nobody in Missouri that has registered or insured their 49cc scooter.

A year ago I was just seeking some fun and to save some money on gas, although not enough to save on the purchase price. Today I see the value is much greater to me than simply the gas savings. I get unexpected conversations with strangers and a very flexible vehicle that is great for running around the city.

Envisioning Smart Growth

A California firm known as Urban Advantage Inc. is doing to some great work helping people envision how their environment could be transformed. I thought showing some of their work might illustrate to all of you how small & incremental changes can, in the end, have a big impact. I contacted Urban Advantage principal Steve Price and obtained his permission to use a few of his images:

Price starts with the “existing conditions,” in this case an older shopping street that has seen better days.

He then subtly adds in some “building facelifts, restoration of ground floor retail, infill development.” The changes are few but you can begin to quickly see how a few tweaks here and there can begin to have an impact.

Then we can see how it might look with new sidewalks and a resurfaced street. Minor change but freshens the whole look.

And finally with urban street trees, new street lamps and pedestrians.

See the Urban Advantage website for roughly 10 more examples in a variety of settings — I think you will be impressed by the changes. Well, most of you anyway. Others will stubbornly cling to what they know and refuse the accept that we can actually design public streets for people on foot, bike, scooter, transit or car. It takes good planning and making improvements with each and every capital improvement or construction project.

Price’s images have been published in many places and recently he did some “Community Transformation Images” for the Sierra Club that are amazing. Please check out all six of those, paying close attention to how gas stations and wide streets are handled.

I’m looking into training in such Photoshop work through Mr. Price or some other architectural specialists doing similar work. My thanks again to Mr. Price for allow me the use of his images and for helping people everywhere see how their ordinary spaces can be transformed into walkable streets.

The New QuikTrip at Gravois & Chippewa Should Be An Urban Prototype

The general consensus is the relocation of an existing QT from the Bevo area up the street to the wedge at Gravois & Chippewa is OK. Assuming that to be these case, let’s discuss the design options for the site.

But it is a gas station you say, implying options to do not exist for the site layout. After all, everyone knows you place the building as far back on the site and put all the pump islands out front. What is to debate?

Well, that very assumption!

Yes, I’m calling for QT to build an urban gas station like those required in other cities around the world. Not only are the design options interesting and more urban, it makes better use of the land which can return higher profits. Here is the basic argument: flip the typical site plan around — put the building next to the street and the pumps in back.

First, let’s see just how wasteful QT is with land development.

At we can see from the existing QT to the east on Gravois they have made little attempt to maximize the site. As a result, a very large land area that was originally many smaller parcels is reduced to only serving one function: the QT. This is not an urban model and is well suited to far suburban areas but not in an urbanized city environment.

But this post is not about what they did wrong at this site and what it could look like if rebuilt. I’m showing the example at right to demonstrate wasteful site planning practices common among such entities as large gas stations.

At left is my crude diagram of the [proposed] site [at Gravois & Chippewa]. The teal color represents the canopy over the gas pumps with the red rectangle representing QT’s standard building design. The blue triangle represents an urban opportunity. Here is what I picture: a 2-3 story building with street-level retail and small living spaces above. These might be rental, perhaps condo? The building might be designed to create some live/work spaces. The building might end up being more than a single building.

What does all this change accomplish? Several things. First, an urban building at the corner reduces the visual impact of the gas station while still providing that service. The urban corner building also begins to place some “community” in the area where, according to Ald. Kirner, none exists. This would be an incremental step toward rebuilding what was once two highly pedestrian friendly urban corridors.

I am not calling for QT to design a special building to house their function —- I’m tolerant of the standard formula. They actually do a decent job of connecting their buildings to public sidewalks which could be easily accomplish in the site plan mockup I’m showing. And the urban building?

I’m guessing folks are going to say two things. One being there is no demand for either retail or living spaces in the area and second that QT is not in the business of building such buildings. True, demand may not exist at the moment or even five years. But if QT builds their facility in the manner I’m suggesting and plants some evergreen trees behind the building it certainly wouldn’t look any worse than coming down Gravois looking at nothing but gas pumps. As demand increases and say MetroLink ends up on Gravois or the tracks nearby then we are ready to do some urban in-fill without having to relocate or rebuild the QT — we’d be that much ahead. And I wouldn’t expect QT to build the building — I’d expect them to sell or lease the land. A non-profit housing group could lease the land from QT on a long term lease so that QT got a good tax write off and then build some smaller living spaces without any off-street parking. This would be great for those who either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. On-street parking could serve the retail spaces.

Think of this as land banking — we are saving this corner that might normally be wasted through typical sprawl planning and holding it until we are ready for something a bit more urban. To move the process along I’d favor some sort of tax incentives to QT so they could offer this land on the cheap to a developer that completed a structure that met some basic urban criteria. This could be a win for the city and QT.

– Steve

Tax the Land, Not the Buildings

My friend Trevor Acorn has a great new blog and today he is quoting a green party candidate from Canada. Here is an excerpt from Frank deJong:

The current structure of our property tax system sends the wrong signals. Generally speaking, municipalities calculate property taxes based on the value of the land and the buildings sitting on them. This means that anyone who builds on a vacant site in an existing urban area or renovates an abandoned building back to health pays more taxes than if they just left the land or building vacant. This is a tax on smart growth. And it’s not smart.

He makes a good case for placing all the tax burden on the land itself, not the structures. Click here for the full read.

– Steve