Ald Young Missed a Billboard in Her Ward

This post is a continuation of a post from yesterday, regarding signs. Seventh ward Alderman Phyllis Young had written the following regarding a painted anti-eminent domain sign/mural on the side of a building:

I have worked diligently throughout my career as an alderman to reduce the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city. As you drive I-44 you’ll see no billboards in my ward from Compton east to the intersection with I-55 other than the one in the commercial area at Jefferson. The wall sign is an affront to the neighborhoods, drivers, and the city. It should be denied and removed.

In yesterday’s post I included countless signs mostly from her ward, few if any had permits. I’m pretty certain, for example, that Dodge does not have a car dealership located within the stadium east parking garage despite large signs for the car company. But among my many pictures I did not have the one shot I should have had and as a result someone had the following comment:

In the alderwoman’s defense, the pictures you show do nothing to refute that paragraph, as none of them are visible from I-44.

To clarify here, Ald Young indicates reducing “the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city” but I was able to illustrate many signs cluttering the city, and the 7th ward. But wait, what it that I see at I-44 & I-55, viewed from the Mississippi St bridge over I-44?

Oh yes, that would be a billboard located in the 7th Ward and seen from east bound I-44. This is in addition to the one seen at Jefferson & I-44 that is in the 7th Ward and a couple at Jefferson located in the 6th Ward.

Above: From the McKinley-Heights neighborhood you can see the highway and the forgotten billboard in full glory.

Here is the same billboard as seen from Gravos near Tucker. Gee, I’m not sure how Ald Young could have forgotten about this billboard. I’m guessing she’s been too busy figuring out how to raze Bohemian Hill to notice? If you look closely under the highway you can see the eminent domain sign that is such an “affront.” Take a look at the above picture again. Someone please tell me how that painted political slogan on the side of a relatively small alley building is the affront and not everything else I am looking at?

 

From the Tucker bridge over the highway(s) the sign is visible but in the big scheme of things is not the most offensive sight.

Directly in front of the sign suggesting we end eminent domain abuse is this area inside the cloverleaf where storage trailers are covered in graffiti. I’m sure Ald Young and all the neighborhood groups have been working hard to clean this up too…

Here are some additional thoughts:

• All the other signs I showed, I did not say I objected to those.  I was simply showing the proliferation of signs and the city’s inability to recognize the fact that vinyl banners are put up ‘temporarily’ for years as a means of skirting their antiquated sign ordinance.  I actually like a good many signs although I prefer higher quality signs over the long-term use of vinyl banners.
• Painted signs have a long history in cities — a good ‘model example’ to use our local historic preservation preference for citing other examples in the city.  Several buildings adjacent to this one but closer to Tucker have evidence of much larger painted signs as one time.
• The city’s sign ordinance is long overdue for a major overhaul/replacement.  In the late 60s and early 70s it was thought that clutter contributed to the loss of population and general decline of the city.  However, many cities that are thriving and full of life and people exhibit what St. Louis officials consider to be clutter to be removed.  They’ve managed to remove the clutter and the people that go with it.
• Roos’ sign is downright ugly, but that doesn’t mean he should not have the legal right to paint the side of his building.  In other words, do we all not have the right to place some art or message on the sides of our own buildings facing an adjacent property rather than a public street?
• As everyone has noticed, the message is wrong — you shouldn’t say ‘end eminent domain abuse’ and have the red circle with cross through it  — that looks like you support eminent domain abuse.
• Words do not make a sign per the ordinance just as images only without words automatically makes something an artistic mural.  I bet someone could paint a wonderful mural without a single word to communicate the same message.  Sounds like a fun contest to me…
• Two web addresses are shown on the mural but are more a ‘signature’ if you will and are not readable by anyone passing by on the highway or other roads like Gravois — you must seek out the sign to notice the web addresses, which are, mo-cpr.org and medac.info.
• The St. Louis political establishment has no problem with signs throughout our city as long as they are for beer, smokes, or cars and those companies donate to campaigns or throw big parties with lots of free booze and food.  Policical positions against the wishes of the establishment are simply not tolerated.

St. Louis’ Board of Adjustment Votes to Restrict Free Speech on Eminent Domain

You’ve likely seen Jim Roos’ anti-eminent domain statement on the side of a building he owns in an area known as Bohemian Hill. Yesterday attorney John Randall argued before the Board of Adjustment the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of citizens to voice free speech. The Board of Adjustment hears appeals from those who’ve been denied permits by the building department. The member’s names, date appointed, term length, term expiration are not posted online on the city’s website, nor is their agenda published online.

During the meeting a total of three appeals were heard relating to signs — all did not meet the strict letter of the city’s antiquated zoning code regulations (see the “Comprehensive” Sign Control Regulations). All three were larger than allowed by the code, two were approved but one was not. Laclede Gas got approval for a large sign on top of their building in downtown St. Louis so they could hopefully get spotted by TV cameras during Cardinals games. Laclede Gas argued their sign on the top of their building would be a positive “contribution to the St. Louis skyline.” I saw the mock-ups of the sign, it wasn’t something to hail as great nor was anything bad. They indicated that the city’s maximum allowable size for a sign on their building would look like a “postage stamp.” If the city really wants to be business friendly they will take a fresh look at the sign regulations and I don’t know, maybe publish something on the building division site about signs rather than make the public wade through the technicalities of the ordinance.

Roos and his attorney argued this is not a sign, per the city’s regulations. I’m not going to take you through all the various points of the ordinance but in large part, per the code, a sign faces a public street. The building above was originally a rear building — the public street is to the left out of view. The side of the building, clearly visible from the interchange of highways I-44 & I-55, does not face a public street — it faces an adjacent parcel of land owned by someone else. The poorly constructed zoning code relating to signs also addresses the question of what is a sign vs what is not:

If for any reason it cannot be readily determined whether or not an object is a sign, the Community Development Commission shall make such determination.

Again, it was argued this was not a sign but Bob Lordi from the city’s building division determined it is a sign. The ordinance language is unclear as to how this debate of sign or not gets resolved. Some of the best humor was provided by a June 28, 2007 letter from alderwoman Phyllis Young (D-7th Ward):

“If this sign is allowed to remain then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency.”

When this was read during the proceedings I actually laughed out loud. The irony, of course, is that earlier this year Young advocated razing the entire area where the “sign” is located for a new development. She passed legislation blighting the entire area and now wants to protect it from a sign put up in response to the very real threat faced by these home owners. I will have more on the status of this project separately.  Click here to view the entire letter in PDF format.
Another part of the letter gave me reason to chuckle as well:

I have worked diligently throughout my career as an alderman to reduce the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city. As you drive I-44 you’ll see no billboards in my ward from Compton east to the intersection with I-55 other than the one in the commercial area at Jefferson. The wall sign is an affront to the neighborhoods, drivers, and the city. It should be denied and removed.

One of the most telling comments is that being an alderman is a “career” rather than simply a public service. But I think Phyllis needs to get in her Prius, or better yet a good pair of sneakers, and just check out more of her ward, including downtown.

… Continue Reading

Non-Married Couples Must Register as Domestic Partners to Get Gym Discount

Non-married co-habitating couples (straight or gay) joining the St. Louis Fitness Factory, a new gym in St. Louis’ trendy loft district on Washington Ave., must pay $120/year more than legally married couples for the same services — unless they register with the city as domestic partners.

From the St. Louis Business Journal on March 30, 2007:

McGowan Brothers Development has hired Craig Ramage and Jason Barbour to run its new $7.5 million St. Louis Fitness Factory at 1314 Washington Ave., scheduled to open April 15. Ramage, general manager, has 10 years of experience at St. Louis health and fitness clubs. Barbour, director of personal training, has trained NFL players, NCAA All-Americans, and state high school champs. The membership fee is $169, with monthly dues of $39.95.

The gym opened late but just in time as the Gold’s Gym downtown and the Chase in the Central West End, both closed or relocated. With monthly dues of $39.95, the $10/month discount given to legally married spouses means non-married couples pay a whopping 25% more per month than others for the second person to join.

While Missouri and the U.S. Government does not recognize gay marriages, individual businesses such as the St. Louis Fitness Factory are free to extend such spousal discounts to non-married couples as a matter of business policy. Unfortunately, this gym, has decided non-married couples don’t rank.

Shawn McGowan returned a call to me last week after I inquired about their policy, letting me know they expected couples to be registered with the city if they expected a discount. I mentioned other proof such as driver’s licenses or mail with the same address. I’ve since heard from a good source that they are considering other proof of co-habitation besides the city’s domestic partnership registry.
Related Links;

• St. Louis Fitness Factory
• McGowan Brothers Development
• St. Louis’ Domestic Partnership Registration

It appears the registration is primarily aimed at city employees, allowing their partner to have access to health plans (a good idea). It does not appear the city pays for health insurance for employee’s spouses anyway so this simply gives the right for a partner to buy a health plan (also good). The legislation creating the registry, Ordinance 64401, was passed by the Board of Aldermen in June 1998. At the time this was pretty progressive, as I recall. However, in the last nine years quite a bit has changed.

Getting back to the gym membership for a moment, what about couples that happen to live outside the City of St. Louis but that work or visit downtown and want to join this gym? By living outside the city, perhaps across the river, they are not able to register as domestic partners. Of coruse, we are probably only talking about a handful of people anyway so I am not sure why the gym is making such a big deal — many gyms extend their family discounts with some simple proof of co-habitation.
I found one sentence in the ordinance interesting and somewhat telling of the time when the legislation was passed:

“Domestic partnerships registered in any city or county other than the Citiy of St. Louis shall be valid within the City of St. Louis upon the filing of a certified copy of the registration with the city register.”

In the years since a number of countries and now even states recognize marriage between two persons of the same gender, starting with The Netherlands in 2001. But reading the above language I am not sure that if a gay St. Louis couple got married in the state of Massachusetts that the city would recognize this fact simply based on the semantics of “registration.” Other than the obvious gym discount, the other reason to be registered with the city is the right not to be refused access to your partner in jail or in a hospital located within the City of St. Louis:

1. All health care facilities operating within the City of St. Louis shall allow the registered domestic partner of a patient to visit such patient unless no visitors are allowed or the patient expresses a desire that visitation by the domestic partner be restricted.

2. All jail facilities owned or operated by the City of St. Louis shall allow the registered domestic partner of an inmate to visit such inmate unless the authority in charge of said facility reasonable believes that such a visit is a threat to the security of the inmate or the inmate expresses a desire that visitation by the domestic partner be restricted.

So again, would a couple that has had a legal marriage in another state or country be able to simply file a copy of their marriage certificate with the city or would the city only accept a “domestic partnership” registration from a city or county?  I think it is time to update Ordinance 64401.

SLU + Grand Center; The Intersection of Asphalt & Demolition

Saint Louis University (SLU) President Fr. Biondi, a member of the Board of Directors of Grand Center, thinks a new basketball arena will help Grand Center by bringing thousands of people to midtown. Others apparently agree. However, they are all wrong. Yes, thousands will come to basketball games — all driving cars on the highways and streets. Some will come to the games via mass transit while some students will, it is thought, walk from their nearby dorms. The notion, however, that thousands attending a sporting event in a single indoor facility will have net positive impact on surrounding areas is unproven at best. This is the Reaganomics of urban planning theory.

A few years back Fr. Biondi and SLU VP Kathleen Brady wanted to locate their massive arena on the western end of the emerging Locust Business District, adjacent to Grand Center. SLU bought a number of buildings but could not get the huge quantity of land they needed, some owners thankfully refused to sell to SLU. Unable to get their first location they shifted gears and decided to locate the arena south of Laclede and west of Compton. The Locust Business District, many thought, was safe from SLU’s over worked wrecking ball.

At the ground breaking for the new arena last August I spoke one-on-one with the Alderman for the area, Mike McMillan (since elected License Collector). McMillan had this to say to me at the time:

“If there had been a lot of demolition over in the Locust Business District it would have had a significant negative impact on the long-term success of that area so this project being here is a lot better for the surrounding community.”

A very astute observation the part of former 19th-ward Alderman McMillan, demolition can indeed have a negative impact on areas in the long term. The problem is his hand-picked successor, Marlene Davis, seems to think demolition in the Locust Business District is OK. Unfortunately this area is conveniently excluded from any oversight by the city’s Preservation Board, a group appointed by the Mayor to review demolition permits and other preservation related matters. Yesterday the city issued a demolition permit to Bellon Wrecking to raze one of numerous buildings owned by SLU in the Locust Business District. The plan, as far as we know, is more surface parking for the new arena being constructed four blocks to the south.

This is the part where I get confused, how exactly is this area to rebound when it is the repository of cars for big events blocks away? Can Fr. Biondi, Kathleen Brady, Ald. Davis or former Mayor and currently Grand Center’s President Vince Schoemehl please explain this trickle over theory to me? Can they cite examples where large surface parking lots have helped neighborhoods thrive? I’ve visited many cities and studied many more and I personally am at a loss for a single example. Oh wait, the surface parking for Busch Stadium spurred activity in the form of Al Hrabosky’s Ballpark Saloon, a pre-fab metal building. People drink there before, during and after baseball games.

The building SLU is currently razing in the area is an old 19th century livery stable, a rather unassuming building in its coat of white paint (see map). Cleaned up, renovated and adapted for modern use the building could be a showplace. For more on the history of the building see Michael Allen’s Ecology of Absence. The key to this building is not its long history (although that is important) or its very simple detailing (although that too is interesting). No, the key to this building is location. I believe this building, if it were to remain standing, would play an important part of the Locust Business District which is doing an excellent job of connecting downtown to midtown (aka Grand Center). The area is already parking heavy but some good infill buildings could quickly reverse that. Instead of edging toward infill and reconnection, we are moving toward increased parking and further separation. The city, university, and Grand Center are making this area a no-man’s land.

SLU owns the next two buildings in the block to the east. Are these next?

Across Locust to the south of the livery, SLU owns the above building which fronts onto Olive.

Thankfully SLU does not own the 6-story building on the left, in the same block as the livery currently being razed. Signs indicate the possible conversion to condos, an excellent reuse of the building and an ideal location. However, the the city vacating the alley on half this block this building’s alley will be a dead end — not ideal for trash, fire or general use. By cutting off the alley they are ensuring the fate of this building will not be good. The buff brick building on the right is a new motorcycle museum while the old livery can be seen in the middle of the picture.

… Continue Reading

St. Louis Should Abandon Linear Gateway Mall Concept

A week ago St. Louis’ Director of Planning and Urban Design, Rollin Stanley, unveiled the latest in a long series of plans for the linear park known as Gateway Mall. From a city press release:

Thomas Balsley and Associates and Urban Strategies, Inc. have been selected as the team to develop a plan to rejuvenate the 18-block Gateway Mall. The Gateway Mall extends from the Old Courthouse to 22nd Street and was a part of the grand “Civic Plaza” plan originally conceived by the City’s Civic Plaza Commission, chaired by noted landscape architect Harland Bartholomew in the early 1920s.

Last week I went into a too-long post about the history of the mall in the last few decades, including many of the players and politics. In short, everyone thought the mall was done when two “final” blocks were landscaped in the early 1990s. The only problem? People stayed away from the mall despite a resurgence in downtown activity and thousands of new residents in nearby lofts. The Gateway Mall is one of the biggest and most expensive (unofficial) dog parks ever created.

The team selected for this task appears to be quite talented, but restricted by local politics and process. In this post I plan to explain the latest concept for the mall, illustrate the reasons why I don’t think it will work and finally argue for the abandonment of the linear concept but not all of the open space.

First I should explain that I’ve seen nearly every plan produced since the 1920s as well as having read a good bit about the mall and the repetition of failed assumptions over the decades. I also participated in the organization of the local design charette held in the Fall of 2005 as well as serving on a team during the charette. I’ve also walked every block in question as well as surrounding blocks numerous times. Therefore, I believe I have a good grasp on the area and the issues facing it.

Last weeks presentation is available in PDF format here. The following were listed as objectives, that the mall should:

• “Play an active role in the life of the city and the region”
  
• “Attract and amaze”
  
• “Bring the region together to celebrate and remember”
  
• “Be innovative and interactive for its entire length”

At this point in the presentation I was all excited to find out just how 18 blocks can accomplish all this. To start off with they are describing the linear fashion as having a “Structuring Framework” of “6 Rooms, 1 Hall.” That is planning talk for this thing is so long we have six different spaces connected by one sidewalk. Sidewalks, trees, lighting and even millions in art can only do so much for a space.

The shotgun style mall is neatly divided by the team into the six rooms, starting from the west: terminus, neighborhood, civic, urban garden, Kiener Plaza and finally the Arch grounds. The hall, they say, will bring people together and create a strong connection between the various districts. The hall is a sidewalk with a double row of trees. Oh sure, it will be a nice sidewalk and the trees will be quite nice and well lit but I’m not convinced that we will all of a sudden begin to walk from the Old Courthouse at Broadway down to Union station along this particular sidewalk. Tourists might be convinced to walk part of it, but doubtful about the full length.

One of the objectives was to “play an active role in the life of the city and the region.” Sorry guys but the park space that has the region’s attention is the massive Forest Park only a few miles West. It gets, and fully deserves, this regional view. Remember too, we just leased a small section of Forest Park to BJC to help fund maintenance of Forest Park to free up limited park funds to help keep up all our other parks. We are a city of 353K, not 850K+ as we were in the 1950s — we must live within our means which translates to not having more park space than we can maintain or use. Neighborhood parks serve their areas, we need an appropriate amount of park space for downtown.

The Arch grounds are more than enough total area for city residents, tourists and the region. Unfortunately, it is also hard to access and frankly pretty boring after the first visit. The US National Park Service keeping a military style Hummer at one of the entrances isn’t exactly welcoming either. A “lid” over I-70 to better connect the ground to downtown have been discussed for decades but nothing has happened. Connecting this massive green space with downtown, in my view, is more critical to the city than a tricked out riverfront, a new Mississippi River bridge or a $20 million gift for an urban sculpture park.

But even once we properly connect downtown to the Arch grounds we still have all these open blocks it fill up. Like previous plans, the latest calls for a series of things to attract and retain people. It may look good on paper and sound well in a presentation but I believe in reality it will be simply things to fill up the space. Will people really play volleyball across from the post office? Will “world-class” sculpture across from the AT&T tower make those blocks come alive 24/7? Maybe for the first couple of years until everyone has had a chance to see it and the newness has worn off.

The team did an “analysis” of the area and concluded the park space is 22.3 acres and the roadway was 28.7 acres. Many of the roads are too wide but to count the area of the adjacent streets outside the park area is misleading. The omit the acreage of the Arch grounds is highly misleading. Besides, a tree-lined street can be wonderful public space.

This latest plan is more of the same, toss in the latest things of interest and cross your fingers that this time it will work. One of the most absurd notions put forth by the team is that cars parked on the cross streets like 15th and 9th are part of the reason people don’t use the mall. Similarly, they think we should eliminate on-street parking from market street because that will block the view of the park space presumably from those driving down Market. This thinking is that with the vista open a motorist driving down Market will pull over and park in one of the many parking garages facing the Mall and take a gander on foot. Yeah, right.

Another half-baked idea was a 10ft wide lane along the North side of Market to serve as a 2-way bike system like “they have in Paris.” Uh, sure but this ain’t France. I can just picture head-on bike collisions along Market, never mind how to cyclists get into this system from the opposite side of the street. The assumption is that with cars banned from Market and side streets and a 10ft bike lane people will rush to the area on foot and bike. The main assumption continues to be that people will want to traverse downtown in an east-west direction along Market. This ignores the fact that so many other things are happening both north and south of Market St.

The plan presented last week basically ignores the properties outside the mall boundaries. With only a few exceptions, the buildings forming the urban edge to the mall are horrible urban renewal era structures which are inwardly focused. The presentation showed urban parks in other cities that actually had real architecture around the edges. As long as we have mistakes like blank walled parking garages and lifeless mirrored buildings the urban space is doomed, no matter how much bling you toss inside. What is around a successful urban park is as important, if not more important, than the space inside.

We generally don’t use cities in strict linear fashion unless that is the direction we are headed. Downtown has transit stops, sports venues, lofts, retail, employment and entertainment on both side of Market St — we don’t want people sticking to this strick linear hallway as we might damage what we have going in other areas. I don’t think any risk exists of this hallway hurting the other areas though, people go where they have activities. Going against the emerging areas throughout downtown would be a big waste of money and energy.

As indicated in the headline, I think St. Louis needs to abandon the entire Gateway Mall concept. We should just accept that perhaps a few generations ago the idea of this linear park was a good solution for the time it is not what we need in 21st century St. Louis. I’m not suggesting we build on every open parcel, not by any stretch. Let me explain my thoughts and then I will show you some of the ideas mapped out:

• Market Street from Jefferson to Broadway should become a grand boulevard, an elegant street that is a joy to walk along on both sides for however long someone is doing so. This would also continue in the current role as a parade route. It is currently, however, way too wide and should be narrowed. On-street parking should be retained while the various pedestrian crossings need to be shortened. All streets downtown should be a joy to walk along — active edges and tree lined and spotted with controversial public art.
• The 22nd Street Interchange, part of an abandoned highway concept from a few decades ago, needs to be ripped out with the land returned to active tax-paying use. The Missouri Dept of Transportation (MoDOT) should rework the interchange at Jefferson Ave to allow for on/off ramps in both directions and therefore eliminating the need for the current ramps at 22nd. MoDot could sell the land to fund the revisions to the highway ramps.
• A friend had the idea of attracting Centene Corp from the non-blighted Clayton area to the arguably blighted Gateway Mall area. Centene could take a couple of the blocks created by the space used for the 22nd interchange. The fact the area is already dug out would help make underground parking all the more feasible. We have other blocks to offer them as well if they don’t like that location.
• Park areas would be left in front of Union Station, around the Soilders Memorial, one block in front of AT&T and the one block west of the Old Courthouse. Five blocks along this linear path would be sold to developers along with form-based codes about how new structures should be built — basically no blank walls. I should note here that in 2005 I spoke one-on-one with St. Louis’ Mayor Slay about selling some of the land for development — he didn’t think that would go over well. A few months later he supported leasing park land to BJC for development. Given a recently passed law, city voters would have to approve the idea of developing some of the parcels.
• With considerably less park space downtown and more development area I think the balance would be more successful.
• I have many more ideas about this space, many of which are not original to me I should add. I simply do not have the time to fully elaborate here unless some foundation wants to pay me to assemble a local team to flesh out the concept. I think we could do it for a fraction of the $400K the current team is getting from the Gateway Foundation.

Click here to view a Google map with some of my thoughts mapped out. The blue/purple areas are blocks that should be developed which includes land owned by the city, state, and private interests. As you will see, I’ve done my best to restore the street grid and I’ve created a few streets where they did not exist before (back of Union Station). I didn’t mark all the parking lots and other areas that also need developing but you will get the idea.