ULI Competition Finalists Selected, Posted Online

ULI has announced the finalists in their national competition. Here is a look at each of the four final teams:

Columbia

Jury Summary:
Team 2105’s proposal introduces a skywalk system that connects Saint Louis University’s Frost campus with its health sciences center. The skywalk allows pedestrians to move from one end of the university campus to the other without interfering with vehicular and freight traffic, and draws student activities into the project area, where they can be shared by the academic and medical communities. At the landscape level, environmental strategies create open and green spaces, and site edges blend discreetly into the surrounding community.

I had to check my calendar after seeing this project, making sure it was not 1960. I also had recollections of the tragic I.M. Pei plan to “modernize” my hometown of Oklahoma City — razing old buildings, creating large “super blocks” and putting pedestrians in underground tunnels or in tubes over the sidewalks. In short, everything a city is not.

If pedestrians cannot walk along the street then change the conditions of the street. Safety must be a concern and removing people from the watchful eye of others is just foolish. The SLU campus already creates a situation where outsiders are not welcomed, we don’t need to create more of that. The Columbia project serves best as an example of what we should not do to this area. How it got to be a finalist is beyond me.

Harvard #1015

Jury Summary:
“Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing” leverages the east-west intracity connections made possible by Chouteau Greenway by creating a north-south “academic spine” along Grand Boulevard bridge. An urban northern edge and a biotech-oriented southern edge unites the Saint Louis University campus around a mixed-use node where academics, biotechnology, transit, recreation, commercial, and residential activities can concentrate.

Like so many of the proposals, this concept shortens the length of the Grand viaduct and adds buildings up to the sidewalk. Who was it that suggested this a month ago? Oh yeah, that would be me. It is nice to see others came to the same conclusion I did about the importance of urbanizing Grand.

This team left the Del Taco & Union Council Plaza buildings with a note, “streetscape to be improved.” I don’t think enough patterned sidewalk or landscaping will make this area urban enough. I’ve been known to spin through Del Taco’s drive-thru late at night (ok, early morning) but I think it needs to go.

Harvard #4110

Jury Summary:
“Aurora” creates a biotech research, development, and entrepreneurial center that represents Saint Louis University’s interface with the local biotech industry. It accepts the commercial corridors of Grand Boulevard, Chouteau Avenue, and Forest Park Boulevard, fills the interior of the blocks with appropriate uses, and establishes a symbiotic relationship with the Greenway.

This is a very nice proposal, with Grand getting a shorter bridge and urban makeover. This concept includes an intersection at Papin (the block north of Chouteau), as well as a new intersection, called Campus Drive, just south of the highway. A new bridge at Theresa Street will help connect areas on each side of the valley.

On the negative side their building massing is rather blocky. I would have liked to have seen more street grid between Grand and Spring on both the north & south areas. They also seemed to simply delete on & off ramps from I-64, something I wouldn’t mind so much but in realty not very practical.

But, I love that Grand from Chouteau to Forest Park is faced with a variety of buildings.

UC Berkeley

Jury Summary:
“Weave” proposes an urban prototype for St. Louis that rejects the creation of a specific-use redevelopment district and instead introduces explicit north-south connections throughout the site that weaves it into the communities to its north and south. While the Greenway is the major east-west cross-weave, smaller strips of green space weave through the site, eventually connecting with the Greenway. Reinforcing the vision of a community developed around transit and other urban amenities is a magnet school in close proximity to SLU and the Armory, redeveloped as a performing arts center.

The University of California at Berkeley project impresses me on multiple levels. In addition to making Grand a proper urban street they are seeking to “weave” areas together with four additional north-south bridges over Mill Creek Valley! More street grid is a good thing, especially in this case.

Like other finalists, this team created an intersection south of I-64. Unlike other teams, this one provided on & off ramps at Grand. Between the shorter bridge and Chouteau this team has two intersections.

Their proposal includes a large variety of building sizes, including a number of small scale buildings unseen on other proposals. This is especially important along Grand where they are using a number of smaller buildings to create an intimate walking environment.

I liked part of the text from their presentation on the urban form:

“Create strong north-south connections, explicitly rejecting current redevelopment plans (CORTEX EAST) in order to use bio-tech/university influx as a catalyst for weaving and knitting communities.“

This is one smart team, rejecting the big CORTEX generic redevelopment plan and creating a pedestrian-friendly street grid. For my money this team from Berkeley should get first place.

Seven teams received honorable mentions. A team from Texas included a streetcar line along Grand to connect the theatre district near the Fox to the SLU medical campus — a good idea that can be expanded north and south. I also liked some of the housing they showed on their proposal.

Representatives from each of the four finalists will be in town on the 10th to actually view the site, they will be given a chance to revise their proposals. The winner will be announced on March 31st. I’m rooting for the team from Berkeley.

– Steve

Truman Parkway To Continute to 18th Street

Truman Parkway

Originally uploaded by urbanreviewstl.com.

Major traffic from I-44 & I-55 going to and from downtown used to take 14th & Tucker. But in 2003 work began on the Truman Parkway, where Grattan Street once existed.

Currently the parkway is short — from Lafayette on the south to Chouteau on the North. Phase II, completed last year, was the reconfiguration of the I-55 on and off ramps.

Phase III will see the Parkway continue to 18th street, cutting across existing open lots at a slight angle. For those coming and going to Union Station and other places in west downtown this will be quite helpful by avoiding the 18th & Chouteau intersection a stones throw to the west.

But once completed, everyone will avoid the 18th & Chouteau intersection. Why? It will be eliminated.

Yes, if you are on 18th Street heading south from downtown it will bend and morph into the Truman Parkway in front of AmerenUE’s offices.

When I am bicycling or scootering I often take Mississippi Street through Lafayette Square and then take Chouteau briefly before turning onto 18th to go downtown. Upon completion of this project my easy cut through will be erased.

This will force me onto an arguably higher speed road or to change my route. My choices for crossing Mill Creek Valley are Jefferson to the west (a much worse alternative) or going over to 14th. The 14th Street route is fine unless I’m head to places west such as the Tap Room at 21st & Locust.

Lafayette Square residents have had 18th blocked on the south side of Chouteau for a number of years. Understandably, they didn’t like their neighborhood used as a high-speed access route to the highways. Still, I rather like the arrangement of buildings at 18th — following the curve of the street. The neighborhood has plans for this area which may include some small park space but it will mostly be parking for adjacent businesses.

One more interesting urban setting lost due to the car.

– Steve

Oh Yeah, We Are a River City

River View

Originally uploaded by urbanreviewstl.com.

Sometimes I think it is easy for us to forget that St. Louis is a river city. I seldom see the river except for a few glimpses from I-55.

Today I was returning home from my real estate office on South Broadway and decided to take a few minute break in Bellerive Park. The view, as always, is spectacular.

The river seems very low with lots of sand being exposed on the Illinois side. A very old barge is barely visible in the sand directly across from the park. Upstream I spotted a barge no longer in the water — just sitting on top of the bank.

In this day and age of costly bio-tech office parks it is important to remember our industrial & river roots. The Jefferson Memorial erased all traces downtown and with the bright casino lights at Laclede’s Landing it is hard to picture industry there. But if you follow the river north or south of downtown you get a much better idea of the importance of the river in the past and how much it is still used. The number of barges still amazes me.

Next time you are near the river take a few minutes and check it out.

– Steve

St. Louis Requires Kiddie Flags on Some 49cc Scooters

NOTE: I’ve revised the headline and the last paragraph since first posting a few hours ago.

Last year the City’s Board of Aldermen passed a new ordinance which is raising some red flags. Well, actually, red or orange flags. Before I get to the latest issue I need to give you some background.

During my campaign last year the issue of the annoying micro bikes came up. At a public meeting attended by Aldermen Dorothy Kirner, Schmid and Ortmann the particulars of the 2001 scooter law sponsored by the late Ald. Daniel Kirner as to how they relate to the new breed of miniature motorcycles.

On February 19, 2005 I pointed out, on my campaign site, that the city’s law regarding these toys had become obsolete (see report). Basically the 2001 law outlawed the motorized skateboard type scooters on city streets but did not address any sort of sit down type micro bike (see ordinance).

At that meeting a year ago Ald. Ortmann was one of the people that thought the 2001 covered these micro bikes. Apparently he set to work to correct the situation by introducing Board Bill #24 for a first reading on April 29, 2005.

Here is some text from the final ordinance which took affect on June 6, 2005:

17.02.315 Motorized bicycle.

“Motorized bicycle” shall mean any two- or three-wheeled device having an automatic transmission and a motor with a cylinder capacity of not more than fifty cubic centimeters, which produces less than three gross brake horsepower, and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than thirty miles per hour on level ground, except those devices used by persons with disabilities for the purpose of mobility.

17.18.060 Equipment for motorcycle or motorized bicycle riders.

B. No person shall operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle unless such motorized bicycle is equipped with a red or orange flag measuring not less than twelve inches by twelve inches. Such flag shall extend not less than forty-eight inches in height above that portion of the seat occupied by the operator.

Yes, the law says I need to have a 12×12 flag at least 48 inches above the seat of my 49cc scooter (aka motorized bicycle). Like I’m going to do that.

In reviewing the history of the legislation it appears the flag language was not in the original bill, nor was it in a committee substitute. The flag language arrived in the form of a ‘floor substitute” which most likely means a last minute amendment on the floor of the Board of Aldermen.

So we now have the 2001 ordinance defining “motorized scooters” as the stand-up stake board type and an ordinance which defines motorized bicycles (a revision of an earlier ordinance which is too old to be online) that requires tall red flags. As someone that often gets on and off the scooter by throwing my leg over the week I’d find the flag a nuisance and a potential safety hazard. Like my bicycle, the riding position is quite upright and is highly visible.

I bought my 49cc Honda Metropolitan scooter on September 4th, 2005. It is generally believed among scooterists in Missouri that a 49cc scooter like mine or a Vespa does not require registration (plates), a motorcycle license or liability insurance. This is a bit of a gray area as various laws talk about engine displacement, transmission types, attainable speed, and total horsepower. Very similar scooters can vary on these criteria.

My scooter is not registered and I do not carry any liability insurance for it. I do, however, have a motorcycle permit and intent to take a motorcycle safety course which will get me my motorcycle license. I will not be installing a square foot flag above the seat height.

One thing I will do, help organize the local scooter groups that are understandably upset about this issue. I will also contact the local dealers and national manufacturers.

UPDATE 3/2/06 @ 8:30pm:

When writing this post earlier today I looked up the specs for my Honda Metropolitan scooter online. Honda’s website does not list the HP for my model. When I got home I found the information listed on the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin: 4.3HP. So, per the ordinance definition my scooter is not a motorized bicycle as the HP is greater than 3.

So now I am wondering if the City of St. Louis considers my scooter a motorcycle and all that goes with it — motorcycle license, license plates, insurance, etc.. I’m also curious if St. Louis’ definitions are similar to those in neighboring municipalities, St. Louis County and the state of Missouri.

I also feel like I’m going to need to carry a copy of the ordinance and my proof of HP with me as I scoot. I tell you, getting 85+ MPG is getting complicated.

– Steve

Base of Park East Tower Leaves Much to be Desired

Parkeast Tower

Originally uploaded by urbanreviewstl.com.

Opus Development is well along on the construction of a new residential tower at the NW corner of Euclid & Laclede. The tower portion looks great. The base, however, leaves much to be desired.

Too much parking above grade to create much interest fo the pedestrian. Yes, they’ll have sidewalk retail but the space above the retail overpowers the sidewalk.

I’m not fond of reflective glass, which will cover the corner and other areas where they are attempting to bring some relief to the facade. Decorative metal will cover additional areas.

All in all I’m not impressed with the base. I’d like to see these developments look at putting a couple of levels of their parking below grade rather than all being above the retail.

Something different needs to be done as this is just not friendly.

– Steve