Locating Rec Centers
The City of St. Louis is building two new large ($20 million + each) recreation centers, one just completed in Carondelet Park (map), on the south side, and one just getting started in O’Fallon Park (map), on the north side. As is typical of rec centers of this type, it turns out that access for people who won’t be driving seems to be both an afterthought and a real challenge. Bigger picture, this really shouldn’t be a surprise. There are three primary reasons. One, the majority of the users, especially the adult ones, WILL drive. Two, siting rec centers is a function of both budget and protecting departmental turf. And three, large rec centers, rightfully, generate the same NIMBY responses from many residential neighborhoods as many big-box retail developments – they operate long hours in large structures that generate a lot of traffic.
When it comes to building new, modern, larger rec centers, rarely are there “enough†funds to do everything one would want to include, so the first decision is usually to locate the rec center in a park; after all, the land is/would be “freeâ€, there is no specific line item for land acquisition. In reality, it’s never free. One, parkland is a finite resource, with multiple demands from multiple user groups to accommodate their programs. Land dedicated to a rec center and its parking lots can’t be used for, for example, soccer fields or Frisbee golf. And two, like any other greenfield development, utilities need to be extended from the park boundary into the site. Since these are large, multi-million dollar public investments, there’s also a tendency to want to make them monuments, and what better place to put one, where it will remain visible, for decades.
Both of these centers are/will be prominently located, visible from neighboring interstate highways (I-70 on the north, I-55 on the south). While this may be good for the civic and political egos, as well as for marketing their programs, it means that both utilities and pedestrians will need to travel a lot further from any park boundary to reach them, to say nothing of the physical barrier the highway creates. There’s also an assumption that there is a need to connect rec center activities with other park uses and facilities. In reality, there’s rarely little, if any, interaction among uses, although a few staff members may end up multi-tasking. For example, the locker rooms used for the gym and the pool don’t get used by softball players or picnickers, and home runs hit over the outfield fence don’t interact well with either the outdoor pool deck or a parking lot full of parked cars. Still there’s an inherent desire in any department to protect turf – if they give up a program, that can mean a reduction in both staffing and budget.
In the case of the new Carondelet Rec Center, the nearest bus stop is on South Grand, at Holly Hills Avenue, approximately 3 blocks from the rec center’s front door. Getting there, as a pedestrian, is possible – there is a sidewalk, but one that follows a circuitous route, first south on Grand to Holly Hills Drive, then east across an ancient (and non-ADA-compliant) bridge over the railroad tracks, then south along the east side of the new parking lot. It looks good, and somewhat “easyâ€, but if you’re riding the bus, because you’re young or disabled or just don’t want to drive, 3 blocks is still 3 blocks, especially when compared to all the free, at-the-door, parking offered to those who drive.
With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, I would’ve preferred to have seen both rec centers sited much closer to a major public street, and potentially located closer to the population centers of both sides of town. I also would have had no problem locating them outside a park, on land already under the control of the St. Louis Development Corporation. When I was researching both sites, I made the mistaken assumption that the north center was being located on the southwest corner of Taylor and Broadway, behind Metro’s North Broadway Metro Bus Center; there was dirt being moved on what appeared to be an ideal, and very-accessible, site. It turns out that, much like on the south side, that the north side rec center will be located near the center of O’Fallon Park:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUtG-9eo2JQ
And no, this isn’t unique to St. Louis. Whether it’s Richmond Heights or Des Peres, St. Peters or Fenton, Kirkwood or Chesterfield, most new rec centers end up being located in recreation complexes, ideally suited for the proverbial soccer moms (and dads) and their mini-vans, but not so much for even local kids on their bikes. To move away from an auto-centric urban environment, we need to be doing more of what Clayton has done, either consciously or by coincidence, and less of what St. Louis and too many other suburban cities have done and continue to do.
The just opened rec center on the South side is operated by the YMCA as the Carondelet YMCA.
– Jim Zavist
Richmond heights simply replicated what Clayton did, built large parking lots around the Center. The pedestrian routes that are there now in Clayton (through Shaw Park) were there before the Center was constructed. The rec center and library in Richmond Heights, less than 1500 feet away for many residents, requires a drive of 2 miles because of the way the New 64 was designed and managed by Hassinger & Hoffarth. Be also aware JZ that no sidewalk has ever been built along Hanley Rd between the New 64 and Clayton Rd. and therefore pedestrian friendliness is nonexistent.
I get the gripe about the parking & pedestrian access, but is three blocks really too far to walk? Aren't we trying to encourage more walking?
Jim, your post confuses me. If what you're saying is true, then Carondelet Park and O'Fallon Park are not accessible to people on foot or bicycle. I see tons of people accessing city parks on foot and bike.
Having a rec center in an existing park makes perfect sense. It reduces the cost substantially by not having to acquire land for the development, not to mention the possible business and residential displacements that might result from trying to build a rec center into an existing neighborhood.
Is three blocks “too far” to walk? No, probably not, especially if you're going to rec center to work out. But the same argument can be made about the “need” to have a large parking lot immediately outside the front door. It's more akin to the arguents over shopping downtown versus in a suburban shopping center. But is is about priorities – we're obviously saying, with the large parking lot, that a parking lot is an important, even an essential, park use, more important than, say, another soccer field. By placing the rec centers away from the park's perimeter, you're essentially precluding the use of existing on-street parking resources. (Yes, the users “could” walk, but 99% will park as close to the front door as they can.) We're also saying that users who drive ARE more important than those who don't, since the vast majority of the site investents have gone into the parking lot, and not into things like providing an equally short walk from the nearest bus stop or the adjacent residential neighborhood!
The other issue is that park land really isn't free. Once you build a large structure and a large parking lot, you can't have a picnic there or play soccer or rugby. The same thing happens if you build a golf course or a baseball field, an art museum or a zoo – land gets set aside for a single use, either reducing the available inventory of non-designated ground or adding to the demand for other, unsatisfied uses. St. Louis is in a bit of a unique situation – since our population has dropped by nearly two thirds over the past fifty years, we have a relative excess of both park land and vacant retail and industrial sites. I guess I'm an optomist, I expect that our poulation will rebound and that demand for both parks and recreation resources will increase. Buying and developing land for park use is expensive – just look at any suburban area. I just don't want to see us squander scarce resources, especially when we already own many other, not-currently-parks parcels, that could work equally as well.
JZ, you're making lots of fair points, but they ring sort of hollow. If you're familiar with Carondelet Park, the site of the Rec Center is off in a remote corner. Carondelet Park is huge. This project had community support.
Just like the new Rec Center going into O'Fallon Park, these projects came at the end of a long community based planning effort.
Carondelet Park was chosen over many other possible sites, and O'Fallon Park was chosen as a strategic north side location.
Existing city rec centers are old and out of date. These new centers are state of the art, and largely funded through federal appropriation.
The internet sure generates a lot of second guessing, arm chair quarterbacking, and complaining. In this case, it sounds like we're complaining about something that is a large gift to the city.
As far as membership fees, they are standard in all the county based rec centers also. It costs a lot of money to run a place like this, and the Y is a known commodity.
I don't doubt that the project had local community support, and I have few issues with the building or its programming. I do disagree that just because the site in Carondolet Park is “remote” diminishes its value or that it makes it more suitable for the center (or the adjacent maintenance yard). I guess I come from the perspective that parks are meant to be left natural, and that as they become more developed, they become less parklike.
And, yes, the “The internet sure generates a lot of second guessing, arm chair quarterbacking, and complaining.” In the world of design, that's called a critique, it's how we all learn about what works and what doesn't, so we can hopefully avoid repeating past mistakes. Plus, no one is advocating that the centers be closed or moved, at least not now, this far into the process.
Personally, I wouldn't classify the federal funding as “a large gift to the city.” We all pay taxes, so this is more of something approaching our fair share, not a huge gift. I also feel like I'm entitled, as a city resident, to question the location of both centers, since neither one is very convenient for me, nor is any other city-subsidized rec center. Am I going to make a federal case out of it? No, I realize that with only two sites, at least half the city's residents won't be living very close to either one. But what does intrigue me is how these two locations were chosen. The city's website lists 10 existing centers (http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks/recre…). The majority are east of Grand, and only one is west of Kingshighway. I would've expected that those of us who live “out west” would've been given some consideration, as well . . .
I love how my tax dollars built the new rec center, yet they want to charge my family $1000 a year to use it. I could get a family membership at the Heights as a NON-resident for $500. It sure feels like the YMCA got a brand new $25 million facility built on my dime. I'm sure when this was first in the planning stage, the Y didn't have any lobbiers downtown lining the pockets of our respected aldermen. The greed and bureorocracy in this city is appalling and it won't be long before I'm back in the county.
Sorry man the truth is it had nothing to do with greed or bribes or whatever conspiracy theory we a running with today. The fact is, they passed legislation to build the centers without bothering to legislate how they would be run other than that they did not want to add 40-50 new city employees. So even after they were near completetion, they still hadn't decided who was going to run it. So the had to go with the YMCA because they have the only track record managing these types of facilities. Then they just gave them the friggin keys and let them write their name all over it. The YMCA is not allowed to take any funds from this facility. Every dime made at the Southside Recplex pays for salaries and stays in house. They will never take money from it to fix the roof on a YMCA across town. On the same note the board can never raid it to fix the roof on city hall. I say this but we shall see what the future holds. As it stands now you have the same access as any other taxpayer in the city. I say that and they haven't started their scholarships yet. That will be interesting, when they start letting some people for free and charging others $1000 year. I personally think the fees are ridiculous. And the $3 dollars off for being a City resident is a slap in the face. However I think the market will dictate a change in fees. Come February when they have to start thinking about letting staff go because no one is buying memberships they are going to have to do something. I don’t think moving it closer to the curb is going to be an option.
BPS and the Parks Department are working on a solution to provide for ped access from the north to the Carondelet Rec Center. I'd say it'll happen sometime in the spring (or, knowing the City, sometime in 2012) as it is now too cold to place concrete/asphalt.
The thing that bothers me the most about the Carondolet Rec Plex is how unsuited the pool is to actual exercise. I know it's a family oriented complex, but the lack of deep water and dedicated lap lanes is a real detriment to adults who actually want to exercise, rather than sit in a whirpool area while their kids splash. The only water deeper than 3 1/2 feet is at the end of the three lap lanes, which I believe are also used for scheduled exercise classes. The only deep water in the outdoor pool is at the end of the diving board.
What about the fact that the high fees make these private clubs extremely difficult to afford?
Do you think they're trying to keep out undesireables and maintain higher standards by charging an admission fee? Or do you think the fee is necessary to cover the cost of running the place?
After hearing a presentation last week, the fee covers operating expenses. The sales tax was used only for construction and capital improvements. Do you some of you expect something for nothing?
Only on this blog would people gripe about a community asset.
My gripe is that I simply cannot afford it. It would be cheaper for me to use a rec plex out in the suburbs, even as a non resident, then it would be to use the Carondelet Y, which is significantly closer to me.
So I will continue to drive to Richmond Heights, where I will save almost 20 dollars per month in membership fees than if I chose to become a member at the Carondelet Y. It stinks because I would love to be able to use the rec plex in Carondelet, but as a recent college grad who is up to her ears in student loan payoffs…I need to save every penny I can.
If you can't afford it then you shouldn't join. So congrats on not being a mooch and getting the financial aid. It appears some of your fellow residents don't have that same moral restriction on stealing. I pay the full price and I have a deep suspicion that my fee is going to pay for the rotund black woman on the next treadmill and the hip-hop gang-banger styling on the basketball court.
I'm not sure a new YMCA is what we voted on when we voters approved this project. We apporved this project because there is a need more affordable public recreation facilities and swimming pools in the city, not because we needed a new YMCA. As near as I can tell there isn't a huge demand for a new Y, and if there were the YMCA could have found their own financing to purchase private land to build it. Giving up park land and using public funds to build a new Y wasn't the deal, if it had been presented this way on the ballot there is no way it would have been apporved by the voters. It's not hard to see how people feel that there was a bait and switch that happened here.
Also if it is true that the fees charged do only cover actual opperating expenses, why are other municipalities in the region able to opperate similar rec centers at a lower cost–even for non-residents without outsorcing the management of those facilities to the YMCA? How were the opperating expenses calculated?
One more thing, we don't expect “something for nothing.” We expect a good value for our taxes and public land. This project cost the public plenty before any fee for use.
The Y's stated policy is that they turn no one away because of an inability to pay. Has anyone actually put this to the test?
http://www.ymcastlouis.org/node/5140
Yes, my brother applied for and received a significantly reduced membership price. I believe all he had to do was prove his income.
MC, That's good to hear. I was afraid it was just fluff on the part of the Y. I have a friend who is a single parent and his family membership is much cheaper than mine.
Elliot Davis, where are you on this one? Much poverty of thought has gone into operating a facility that the even average middle class taxpaying resident cannot afford to join. Fees have been set higher than other facilities in Richmond Heights and Clayton, where residents enjoy higher median incomes. Yes, financial aid is available, but probably not likely for many middle class families. A summer pool pass is extra???!!! I thought about taking a hit and joining this Winter so that my kids can have access to the Aquatic Center, but alas, they've even screwed up the weekday open swim times! More convenient, much closer, much less expensive to take my money to The Heights. So disappointed after waiting so long for a more affordable alternative to the YMCA! The City really needs to go back to the drawing board on this one.