Loughborough Commons, Eminent Domain and Fairness

Today I was have a “conversation” about Loughborough Commons with another REALTOR® that lives and works in my area. Quick background, the Schnuck’s grocery store wanted to build a new building and create a big shopping center and in the process 12+ homes were bought out and razed. A single family held out — not wanting to move.

This is where our conversation turned to disagreement. We were discussing value — fair market value. He felt it was “unfair” of the family to hold out for a higher price on their family home than what was the “market” value prior to redevelopment and rezoning of the land. I countered that it was unfair they were being forced to sell something they didn’t wish to sell. Furthermore, I stated I thought it was immoral that Desco, Ald. Villa and the City of St. Louis forced this situation upon these families for an outparcel.

When a client comes to me and wants to sell their property my job is to help determine the best price for them relative to their debt, how quickly they wish to sell and what the market will bear. Some property is in more demand than others and prices generally reflect that. If you buy all the homes around me and then want mine I am going to be wise and recognize the value just went up. Developers know the “value” of that land is considerably higher than if located in an area not being targeted for redevelopment.

Developers often will offer 25% more or so above the normal residential assessed value but often this just approaches the true market value. They’ll use scare tactic arguments to suggest all development will stop if we try to curtail these practices but little evidence if offered to back up these claims.

Taking someone’s occupied personal home is unjustifiable. Sure, if it is falling in and they’ve been dragged through every housing court in town I’ll grant you an exception. But in terms of fairness I think preference should be given to home owners, not developers. I always wonder about the people that advocate for developer’s rights in such terms — how they’d feel if it were actually their home being threatened.

Fair is relative but what is fair to me is allow people to not fear their homes being taken away from them at the whim of a developer or sales tax starved municipality.

– Steve

A Renaissance in the Streets

To a midwesterner like myself I think of NYC as a great pedestrian experience with millions literally getting around by foot, bike and mass transit on a daily basis. The experience is far different from our own. Yet, to New Yorkers, it can always be better.

A group known as The New York City Streets Renaissance is doing a great job explaining problems and offering solutions. Like St. Louis, NYC’s transportation planners focus on the car while other planners simply don’t have the time to get into the details of neighborhood level pedestrian crossings. These active citizens are helping improve their community by being engaged and pushing the bureaucracy to change old habits.

New York City’s streets are the soul of its neighborhoods and the pathways to some of the world’s most in-demand destinations. For generations, New Yorkers and visitors have strolled, shopped and socialized on sidewalks and street corners. Pedestrian friendly streets are the city’s most fundamental assets.

Unfortunately, we aren’t making the most of these assets. Instead, our streets are being managed almost entirely for traffic flow, with neighborhoods and business districts buckling under increasing amounts of dangerous car and truck traffic. If we continue planning our streets for cars and traffic, we will get more cars and traffic; conversely, if we start planning our cities for people and places, we will get more people and places.

Their beautifully designed website is a model for clarity on improving streetscapes for pedestrians. The focus is on making places habitable for people and illustrating how sometimes simple changes to crossings can make a huge difference to the area. They have been very effective in communicating this message with a series of short documentary films ranging from 30 seconds to 14 minutes in length. You can see these Quicktime movies in their video gallery. The videos are all excellent and for different reasons. The short ones make some great points in only a couple of minutes whereas some of the long pieces (Lessons from…) are able to take an in-depth look at history, problems and solutions. Check them out and share in the comments below which you liked best and perhaps what you’d like to see get attention via video in the St. Louis region.

As I transition into the masters program in urban planning at Saint Louis University look for me to show you more of what citizens in other cities are doing to reclaim their streets from the auto. I also am investigating doing some St. Louis-related videos along the lines of these from NYC.

I truly believe we can transform our city. We can once again become a major, thriving urban center. It will take change, but we can do it:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
— Margaret Mead

– Steve

You Either Love It Or Hate It

Personally, I hate it. What you see at right is the Sharp Centre for Design at the Ontario College and Art & Design in Toronto (OCAD). This building is not some relict of some 1960s failed urban experiment but a new structure built in 2004, designed by British Architect Will Alsop.

I didn’t know the building even existed until I spotted this oddity from the CN Tower. From the air I was not impressed but I wanted to see it in person. The next day and a short streetcar ride I was face to face with this architectural statement. Will Alsop is one of those acclaimed architects with very few actual buildings constructed, quite possibly a very good thing.

The bright painted victorian-era building is the oldest structure on campus which now serves as an art supply store. Of note is the pedestrian crossing signs which alert motorists of a pedestrian crossing zone. These were present on numerous streets that had long distances between major signalized intersections.

As a pedestrian it is hard to have a normal relationship with this building — likely the point entirely. The architect wants us to contemplate and question the design. He is begging us to debate his work.

I wasn’t sure if it was better to walk next to this building so that I could look across the street to a more pleasing (conventional) urban scale or walk next to the urban from and try to avoid looking at the building screaming for attention. It is like a car wreck, you can’t help but look despite the carnage and nightmares you’ll have later.

The base of the building is a rather clean modernist box with some nice window & door detailing and a good use of color. The entrance, however, is set below the sidewalk level for no reason that was readily apparent. This further decreases the pedestrian-building connection that I seek in urban settings.

Architects dig this kinda design. One of my favorite architects, the late Bruce Goff, did nothing but unusual anti-urban buildings. In his defense these were primarily residential structures on remote sites where the context was trees, not people. In architecture school I did my fair share of zany concepts.

We certainly need architecture as art but some art ages better than others. In 30 years time I think this building will be viewed as an eyesore, for those that don’t already think so. Often it is the specialty project that presents maintenance challenges as the buildings age, making them obsolete far faster than you’d think based on their initial price tags. Will this school muster the funds to rehab this building when it is falling apart or will they quietly let it fall into ruin or raze it for the latest craze of the day.

Art, as they say, doesn’t have to match your sofa. Do buildings as art have to match the street? No. If they did they’d cease to be art. For me I prefer my leading-edge art to be the exception, not the rule. These one-off buildings are OK as long as we maintain some sense of normal urban streetscape. The last thing we need is for a Blockbuster video to recreate this look on nearly every street corner in America. Cheap knock offs of a painting isn’t so bad, but cheap knock offs of high-design buildings is something we can do without.

– Steve

Urban McDonald’s in Toronto a Good Model for St. Louis

While I was in Toronto last month I happened upon a very urban McDonald’s in an older part of town, not unlike South Grand — one and two story commercial street with a grid of residential units behind. In valuing the pedestrian experience, Toronto has greater restrictions on drive-thru establishments than St. Louis. Wait, what I am saying — they actually have restrictions whereas we don’t. Click here to see Toronto’s guidelines.

For those just tuning in, we are getting a new McDonald’s on South Grand. The old location, which has an admittedly funky drive-thru set up, is going to move across Grand to the former site of an old Sears store that was razed in the late 1990s. You can read through the “McDonald’s on Grand” category if you want all the detail but basically what we are getting is a highly suburban McDonald’s design — a smallish building surrounded by parking — but due to pressure pushed up to Grand. I can already hear people saying it is better than the old McDonald’s because it is new and clean. I guess I’d just like us to have some actual urban standards, not just be content with replacing one suburban design for a newer suburban design when the old one gets tired and dirty.

So, back to Toronto.

Very urban city with a great transit system, relative to St. Louis. With so many transit riders auto use appears to be considerably less than in St. Louis — at least in the city center where I spent most of my time. They have simply retained so many more of the original storefronts that we razed decades ago when we decided every business needs to have their own dedicated parking.

Architecturally speaking this McDonald’s at the corner of Dundas St. & Bathurst St. is nothing special (view map). It is how the ordinary building is placed on the site that is unique. The building occupies nearly all the width of the site along the North edge of the site (facing Dundas, shown above) with only a small sliver facing the other direction.

The public entrance faces both public streets, not the parking area behind. Neighbors and those in the area are encouraged to approach by foot rather than get in their car. Those people that are driving cars will most likely use the drive-thru window anyway so why not accommodate pedestrians with the building entrance?

Again, architecturally this is nothing spectacular. But, the location of the entrance is very important in an urban/pedestrian setting. Arranging buildings in such a manner lends credibility to the pedestrian and transit user.

The drive-thru ordering and service windows are kept to the back of the building out of view of the main intersection. The radii are a bit on the tight side by our standards but they drive the same cars we do so it should not be an issue. The ‘no parking’ area in the foreground is for when they need to bring out your order to you so as not to hold up the line. All in all a very compact and workable solution that balances the needs of auto drivers, the restaurant operator and urban/pedestrian interests along the public right-of-way.

The parking lot is actually paid parking for the entire area. This is a good use of space and enables people to get out of the idea of every business having their own free lot. Park once, conduct your business in the area on foot and then return to your car when done. Having a private parking area shared with the drive-thru traffic makes sense but the urban planning is the same if this were free parking for McDonald’s customers. This McDonald’s has a single curb cut whereas our new McDonald’s will have three.

Additional photos of this McDonald’s can be seen on Flickr.

It may well be too late to salvage the South Grand location and get an appropriate urban design for the street. However, we need to look ahead and begin working on standards to return our city to streetscapes dominated by actual storefronts rather than parking lots. Auto parking is a necessary evil but it need now be on display 24/7 — it can be minimized, shared and placed out of sight.

– Steve

Election Recap on KDHX Tonight

I will be a guest on KDHX’s Collateral Damage program tonight from 7pm to 7:30pm. DJ Wilson, Thomas Crone and myself to review the results from the primary election as well as other timely topics. Have some ideas? Use the comments below for topics you’d like to see discussed on the air.

KDHX can be found at 88.1FM or at kdhx.org. You can stream online if you don’t have a radio (like myself) or you can subscribe to the podcast (iPod not required).

– Steve