Joe Frank says:

On #3: Don’t most of the one-way streets (not talking about Washington Ave here, just the one-ways like Locust, Olive, Pine, Chestnut) allow on-street parking on both sides in most sections? The exceptions I can think of are in places like One AT&T Center where most of the parking gets occupied by commercial vehicles or is drop-off only in front of the building. I think most of the north-south one-way streets have parking on at least one side. In general I think the north-south streets are only three lanes wide, though I could be wrong.

In any event, the removal of parking restrictions where there’s not a real good reason for them, should be pretty easy. I would say reverting streets to two-way would be expensive… unless we go ahead and remove the traffic signals entirely. I would say there are a lot of intersections within the downtown area that don’t really need to be signalized. I think every intersection east of Tucker is signalized, except for those at St. Charles Street, within the area south of Washington and north of Market. But several of those intersections along Chestnut, Pine, and Locust could probably be converted to four-way stops without too much congestion resulting. Olive would need signals every block, and of course Washington and Market.

Then again, that might change if you made them two-way. Then you might be able to justify the signals. At off-peak hours, pedestrians (myself included) regularly ignore the signals. It is just too long to wait when there’s no traffic coming from any direction, and it’s cold, raining, etc.

Jimmy Z says:

With the exception of #4, I mostly agree:

#1 & #2 – as long as they don’t totally block the sidewalks, as some outdoor dining areas already do – the first priority needs to be maintaining pedestrian access – after all, it is the PUBLIC right-of-way!

#3 & #5 – as long as a reasonable balance is maintained between moving cars, parking cars and pedestrian comfort. Personally, I think the Delmar Loop goes too far – I end up avoiding the area more than patronizing it, because it is so congested, but since there are parallel options, it’s not a real challenge or an issue that I’m interested in working to change. Leaving only Tucker, Market, Washington and the freeways dowtown to move suburbanites (the horror!) in and out seems like a great recipe to further decimate downtown’s employment base – the real discussion should be what is the ultimate future of downtown? Primarily its traditional role, as an employment base, and primarily a 9-5 one? Or in a new role, focused more on entertainment venues and a range of residential options? The real answer may be a mix of both with streets like 4th & Broadway being beefed up (with no on-street parking and synchronized signals) so that other streets can be “slowed down”.

And, no, they’re not mutually exclusive, but even in “real” cities, rarely do you find a true mix – there are zones or neighborhoods where office-type business happens and ones where entertainment and housing happen. Both residents and recreators are much more willing to put up with congestion – they derive some positive benefits from it. The last thing a guy or gal getting off work at the end of the day, or trying to get to a meeting, wants to deal with is any added congestion. So, if we want to maintain downtown’s role as a major office-type employemnt center, we’re going to either have to maintain a certain level of access for the daily commuters and their cars OR we’re going to have to attract a LOT more of them to alternative forms of commuting (which WILL take money). And since I neither work nor live downtown, it’s choice that needs to be defined by both area’s residents and our politicians – like many quasi-suburban residents, I’ll continue to vote with my wallet.

Finally, #4 – Minimum parking requirements do serve a purpose. Are the current numbers entirely appropriate? I seriously doubt it, so a comprehensive review, likely with reductions, is probably very much in order. But our view, as a city, is skewed by 50 years of decline. In most parts of town we do have way more parking than we need. But there are pockets, like the CWE, where new residential developments, if they were built without any parking, would significantly impact the existing residents and businesses. We don’t live in an ideal urbanist world, and most people own some sort of vehicle(s). Make it too tough to have one, and most people will move somewhere else. The primary reason for minimum parking requirements is to help people avoid being stupid, something critical in the built environment, since “fixing” stupid mistakes/choices can easily take decades. And the other half of the equation is that most developers will be smart enough to provide “enough” parking, so minimums don’t really matter – the real issue should be establishing maximums. In most parts of the city there’s absolutely no need to require enough retail parking for Black Friday – the issue really isn’t parking lots, it’s all the empty (80%+ of the time) spaces! As long as they’re filled, they’re obviously serving a real purpose and are integral to any urban environment.

Kara says:

I agree with you Steve. These are simple low-cost improvements that could have a big impact. But you can’t easily hang a ribbon and cut it on this stuff, so it won’t be a priority. Additionally, our leaders seem to be more interested in spending money programming our (quasi)public spaces rather than letting performers, vendors, and citizens generate our own street life.

Jimmy Z says:

I agree, in theory, IF our density were anywhere near as great as “Chicago, or New York, or San Francisco, or Paris, or…” . . . but we’re NOT! One, we have a very strong suburban office market, plus we have Clayton for those highbrow firms (like lawyers) who want a quasi-urban environment. Two, we have invested in building multiple city-owned and -financed parking structures in both the CBD and the CWE – we have a vested interest in their ongoing “success”. Three, we can’t seem to figure out a way to fund Metro at anything approaching appropriate levels. And four, in-town housing is affordable, so worker bees aren’t forced to accept hour-plus commutes for the privilege of working in downtown St. Louis!

Unlike “Chicago, or New York, or San Francisco, or Paris”, our downtown really is no longer the business core of a larger region – it was 50 years ago; now you can’t find any new Class A office space! In contrast, there are multiple options that do provide convenient and abundant parking across the region. 95%+ of the workers and their bosses vote with their butts – they want their single-occupant vehicles and they’ll accept few compromises.

I used to think the same thing about Denver, but multiple initiatives have coincided over the last 25 years to create and support density – good planning, both coolness and safety for living, playing and working downtown, a transit system that’s embraced by people who do have other options, higher and increasing real estate values and a lot more sunny days than we have (and a lot less humidity). Like any other city seing growth in their urban core, it comes down to a combination of perceived desirability and some significant financial disincentives for having a car downtown – until we get past those two hurdles, we will continue to fight the battle of the parking spaces, since the pain of driving downtown now really isn’t all that great . . .

Randy V. says:

Another no-brainer would be to encourage landlords who own buildings with vacant streetfront retail to offer their spaces for free (for a limited time) to groups, businesses, artists or others who would spruce them up and add some life to the streetscape. The bootleg business would be responsible for all rehab and utilities if applicable. If they are successful, start charging them a modest rent after 6-8 months. If they aren’t, either offer the space to another group or let the existing tenant stay until a financially viable one can be found. I think this would be great for the vitality of the city, especially if the alternative is just another vacant storefront.

GMichaud says:

Steve, a great list! There is so much that can be done without money. One solution that is my personal favorite is to use a free form zoning in the whole city. Meaning buildings can be converted to commercial use anywhere. The city was born an economic machine. Other than defense in the walled cities of early history, economics has been and will be the major factor in the ability of the city to survive and prosper.

The concentration of power has focused on control of the economic (including retail) environment. Thus malls and their zoning conform to the centralization the physical world to benefit the same moneyed interests that brought us the current wall street and banking fiasco.

Of course not every use in every location should be included, nor are all locations appropriate, but opening zoning to create an economic democracy that reaches the many, instead of only the few could do much to revitalize the city. Sort of vendors on a large scale.

(Is it true that if you have a garage sale, you can’t put your items in the front yard? How ridiculous is that? It is only free markets for the very wealthy I guess. Let’s see there’s a law against having too many garage sales too isn’t there? The very vitality of the economic city is choked at every turn, that is not to say there should be tons of garage sales, yet big cities like London turn their very streets into flea markets, with vendors tucked away in many places.)

I think this is a great debate to open up. The fact it costs little or nothing to implement these changes makes me wonder what excuse the mainstream media and the corporate governed political class will make up for not considering neutral cost changes to the city and its environment. The reason of course is that it is all about control, especially economic control and has nothing to do with capitalism, democracy, the constitution or meeting the needs of the people.

Jimmy Z says:

cold one – as you can figure out, I no longer live in Denver, I choose to live here. You’re right, the west has a lot of issues they need to address, the biggest being a sustainable water supply, coupled with their explosive population growth. My point was that the dynamics of downtown Denver in the 1970’s and and the dynamics of downtown St. Louis today aren’t that much different – businesses moving to the suburbs, a marginally-effective transit system, and an assumption that most people want to drive their SOV’s to work. Denver did more than a few things right to change that mindset – there’s no reason why we can’t learn from them. I stand by my original point – we’re on the cusp of a big decision – will we continue to try and compete with the suburbs for 9-to-5 office workers, by providing easy access and building more parking garages, i.e., continuing to make downtown more “suburban”? Or, will we shift to more of a Vancouver model, where downtown becomes much more residential, with funky local shops, major entertainment venues and an economy that’s much less focused on the daily commuter?

We’re not Chicago or NYC – our corporate headquarters are moving out, not expanding. Demand for both office space and parking makes the cost of doing business significantly higher in those cities, not so much here – rates for office space in downtown Clayton are typically 50% higher than for comparable space in downtown St. Louis, so being the low-cost option doesn’t seem to be working as a sales tool. And while downtown stagnates, the far suburbs continue to grow. Of the local companies still in the Fortune 500 (Emerson, Express Scripts, Monsanto, Ameren, Peabody Energy, Smurfit-Stone Container, Charter Communications, Graybar Electric), only Peabody remains downtown. Add in the other biggies that are no longer headquartered here, but still employ a lot of workers (AG Edwards, A-B, Mastercard, Maritz, GM and Boeing, to name just a few), and the pattern is pretty obvious, the suburbs are attracting those high-paying jobs that, if they were concentrated in the CBD, would go a long way to energizing downtown. Given that dynamic, especially for the forseeable future, Steve’s idea of trading commuter access for pedestrian comfort (by removing lanes and increasing on-street parking) starts to make a lot more sense, but it needs to be an educated decision.

We need to stop building city-funded parking garages. We need to figure out a way to both fund Metro and to convince a lot more people to use it. We need to make biking and scootering something that isn’t viewed as weird or unique, especially when it comes to commuting. It’s really pretty simple – the starting point for the vast majority of this region’s residents, when it comes to local travel, is “I’ll get in my car and drive there.” The cost of owning and operating our cars and trucks is something we just accept, and it drives, pardon the pun, the need for parking on both ends, and by extension, highways, urban planning and development patterns.

The only way to get past this mindset is to make driving more onerous (more expensive, through tolls or higher parking costs, takes longer than the alternatives, through intentional congestion or greater distances, or is simply too great a hassle, through heinous rush hours). Steve’s ideas would help do this; my big concern is that we don’t seem to have a handle on the next steps, the old Law of Unintended Consequences. We don’t seem to have the demand for more entertainment venues downtown (see the lack of success with BPV or Union Station) that would backfill the ongoing erosion of 9-to-5 jobs, and we’d likely accelerate the erosion if we make commuting downtown more expensive and/or more of a hassle – we walk a fine line, as we have for many years, of trying to make St. Louis more attractive to both our current residents and employers and to “outsiders”, looking for a place to move to. I agree, “St. Louis has many wonderful qualities that keep us here. St. Louis is an authentic, hip, wonderful place in its own right.” We just can’t let complacency or local pride get in the way of making some hard decisions – the same things have been said about a lot of other Rust Belt cities.

BuildingPlace says:

Re-striping many of the major arterials like Natural Bridge Rd. to include bike lanes would have an immediate positive impact on community life in St. Louis County, especially the older inner-ring communities. It would have the added traffic safety benefit of increasing lane width in some cases.

Jimmy Z says:

Diatribe, to you; passion, to me . . . and I didn’t say no demand, I said more demand. The Tap Room and the City Museum have been around for years. New Busch simply replaced old Busch and has fewer seats. Lumiere replaced the President and stole patrons from the Queen. If and when BPV happens, I expect that it will be the death knell for Union Station, at least in its present incarnation. And I do agree with all you say about the smaller venues and opportunities – if that’s downtown’s future, great! My point was simply that a/the shift to an entertainment and residential focus will likely drive more than a few current office users to suburban locations that are easier to access, primarily because Metro’s current challenges are reducing the options for those commuters who may want to use it.

I want downtown to be “successful” in whatever form it takes; I’m just extremely leery of “simple” or “easy” solutions to complex problems. Things have evolved to where they are today for many reasons. Unwinding them will NOT be easy or simple. Reducing net traffic capacity by 30%-40% (six lanes to four, four lanes to two) would have SIGNIFICANT impacts, especially if Metro’s capacity is dropping by 20% or 30% at the same time. For downtown residents, I’m pretty sure the impacts would be viewed as positives – slower traffic and a more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. But for “suburban” users, including city residents like me who don’t live downtown, the same impacts could very easily be viewed as negatives, either minor or major. The question then becomes who really should be the “deciders”, the downtown residents or all residents of the city? Yes, downtown is evolving, and no, I don’t have “the answer”.

Jimmy Z says:

Or you can actually spend your stimulus money on alternative forms of transportation: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12302508