Copia’s Valet Parking Negating New On-Street Parking

As a follow up to my post from earlier today I ventured down to Washington Avenue to check out the parking situation on a Saturday night. Although parking is now permitted on two additional blocks (10th to Tucker) you wouldn’t know it based on the parked cars.

The block between 10th and 11th is full from end to end, a very good sign. It looks so much better it is a pity we’ve gone this long without it. But the block between 11th and Tucker is another story.

Copia Urban Winery at 1122 Washington Avenue is consuming entirely too much of the 1100 block with their valet parking. How much is too much?

Try 288 feet! (I carry a measuring wheel in my car for such purposes.)

Copia, located about the mid-point of the block, is 75 feet wide (per tax records). So they are taking away 213 feet of parking from adjacent buildings. A little greedy don’t you think?

Now I’m not going to tell any high-end restaurant they can’t have valet parking. That is a necessary function to please their clientele. However a number of their own customers could park on the same street if they didn’t block it off with their orange cones.

I looked through St. Louis’ ordinances online and didn’t turn up any laws regulating valet parking. The City of Clayton, however, has a reasonably defined law (no direct link, search for ‘valet’). They require a license and the city determines the amount of space the valet is allowed to occupy.

St. Louis needs to address the valet parking situation or we risk stagnating the very area we are trying to enliven. You don’t need nearly 300 feet of road to provide adequate valet parking service for a restaurant the size of Copia.

Back to Clayton, I’ve seen restaurant valets occupy at most two parking sapces — roughly 40-45ft. If we were generous and gave Copia 60 feet of space they should be able to provide for their customers without blocking traffic. Although if someone ends up waiting in a lane for a minute or two it won’t be the end of the world. The street is 50 feet wide at that point (yes, I measured that too) so someone could easily go around.

At the most Copia should be restricted to the width of their building. They have no need to take away spaces that could be used by adjacent store fronts or visitors to residential units above. As additional businesses open in the area it will simply be unfair for one business to consume so much of the on-street parking spaces.

Where are Tom Reeves & Jim Cloar on this one? My guess is inside Copia…

– Steve

On-Street Parking on Washington Avenue — Finally!

Yes folks, we finally have on-street parking along a two-block stretch of Washington Avenue — from 10th to Tucker (aka 12th). Thanks to Ecology of Absence for the heads up on the change. Before we get into the new changes I want to give you some background.

Getting on-street parking has been a topic of mine for sometime now, it first came up on December 29, 2004 when I was reviewing the recently completed streetscape improvements in the area. On that post I wrote:

Downtown Now’s Tom Reeves was quoted in a St. Louis Business Journal story about the improvements:

“The idea is to make a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment so we can have tourists, convention goers, residents and business people all walking up and down the street,” he said. “That’s going to lead to a lot of new retail business.”

Sorry Tom, despite the attractive benches, street trees and brick pavers this area will not be as pedestrian-friendly as hoped.

Why you ask?

Lack of on-street parking.

Someone made the foolish decision to not have parking on Washington Avenue East of Tucker. This decision is going to have a negative impact on the friendliness of the street by having four lanes of fast moving traffic going by you.

The street will seem dead – parked cars have an amazing ability to indicate that something is going on. Can you imagine sitting on one of those benches near the curb line knowing cars, SUVs & buses are going to be whizzing by just a few feet away? Not me!

As a result, these blocks will not be as successful as the blocks to the West. Just imagine the Loop without on-street parking and four lanes of traffic. Yes, you could get through during rush hour much easier but that shouldn’t be the goal. Think of Euclid without street parking – it would be boring and lifeless.

Expecting to have a successful urban retail street without on-street parking is simply naive. Sure, Chicago’s Michigan Avenue doesn’t have on-street parking but it is an exception rather than the rule. This is so basic a principle it makes me continue to wonder if anyone at City Hall or Downtown Now get what urban life is all about.

This is likely the fault of city traffic engineers or perhaps Downtown Now. Could just be a lack of thought – these blocks didn’t have on-street parking before the improvements. Maybe it was just assumed the parking & traffic lanes would be the same? However it came to be, it is unfortunate. Traffic moving faster is always contrary to pedestrian-friendly.

The good news is this is reversible. Re-stripe the street and install some parking meters and the life of the street will improve dramatically. Plus, this reduces the need for ugly parking lots and garages. But, I’m not optimistic the city will wake up and realize the folly of this mistake.
I revisited the issue again on July 1, 2005 in a post called ‘East Washington Avenue: To Park or Not To Park?’

This evening on the way to the First Friday Gallery and Design Walk downtown I couldn’t help but notice cars parked on Washington Avenue East of Tucker. This is special because the street has neither parking meters or no-parking signs. So is it allowed or not? I was excited to see people parking along this stretch of Washington Avenue. It looked and felt so much better. But later what did I spot attached to the lamp posts with string? No-parking signs. At some point after 6:30pm the city came by and attached temporary “no-parking tow away zone signs.” They weren’t ticketing or towing. They were simply trying to keep the area lifeless and sterile.

Five months had passed without any indication of parking being allowed or not allowed. So people started parking on the street when visiting restaurants or galleries. Realizing the error of not blocking parking the city put up paper signs until they could get permanent signs in place to prohibit parking. This was all very deliberate and poorly executed. Two days after this post the Mayor’s blog announced a downtown traffic & parking study.

On July 15, 2005 the issue came up again:

Today Downtown St. Louis Partnership President Jim Cloar included the following in his weekly notes to members:Curb-side parking is prohibited along Washington Avenue east of Tucker. Some “entrepreneurial” motorists realized that “No Parking” signs had not been installed and have been camping out all day, playing havoc with buses, delivery trucks and traffic in general. That has been corrected and tickets will be issued going forward.

The stupidity of his statement is so infuriating. Where does one begin?

I concluded the post stating, “We must rescue our streets from the very organization that is charged with promoting downtown!”

I quickly did a couple more posts on the subject in the following days. On July 17, 2005 I posted an online poll and on July 18, 2005 I posted findings from an informal traffic count.

My most recent post on the subject was this past December in reviewing the draft traffic/parking study:

While they say that on-street parking has not been ruled out I’m suspicious. They hinted at allowing parking except during peak hours. I pointed out after the meeting to Doug Shatto [study consultant] how KitchenK will not use their sidewalk cafe license until they have a row of parked cars to make sidewalk dining more hospitable to their patrons. I also pointed out that Copia is allowed to take a traffic lane for valet parking. If we can take a lane for a valet we can certainly take the balance of the lane for parking as the flow is already restricted. I still want to see on-street parking all the way from Tucker to at least Broadway.

While I was rightfully suspicious in December it also seemed pretty clear that many folks living and working in the area that on-street parking was going to be necessary to continue the vibrant street life we see west of Tucker to the blocks east of Tucker. In between posts I talked up the issue to as many people as possible, including those that might be able to have some influence such as developers Kevin McGowan, Matt O’Leary and Craig Heller. I already knew the city’s Planning & Urban Design director, Rollin Stanley, would be supportive of on-street parking. I just wasn’t sure if he’d be able to charm his political colleagues enough to get them to concede on this issue.

Not sure what finally tipped the scales but this week signs permitting on-street parking were installed.
… Continue Reading

Downtown [Organizations] By The Numbers

Don’t look for any population figures here. This post is about the financial numbers for the two organizations using public funds to ‘improve’ downtown, Downtown Now! and the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. Since our money is used to fund these organizations they are fair game for analysis and criticism.

The figures shown were extracted from 2004 tax returns (source www.guidestar.com). Downtown Now! uses the calendar year as their fiscal year while the Partnership has a July-June fiscal year. Executive Director compensation below is the total of base salary, benefits and expense account.

Here is a quick summary of the basics:

Downtown Now! is much bigger than I thought. But it also has taken on some debts. Its report showed a $10,000,000 loan at the beginning of 2004 but that it was paid off by the end of the year. However, they show other outstanding notes of $1,821,577 at the end of 2004. The maturity date for these notes was 12/31/05. The lenders for these loans were the Danforth Foundation and Bank of America.

Some serious money is spent each year. Lots of salaries, office rent, and travel expenses with too little to show. Yes, each year downtown gets better and better but I think that is a function of more and more residents and the businesses to serve them.

Downtown Now! was supposed to be a temporary organization but I don’t think the powers that be are willing to let it go.

What do you think?

– Steve

Nice Work If You Can Get It

Last week gossip columnist Deb Peterson reported:

DOWNTOWN COMMITMENT: Downtown Now topper Tom Reeves and his bride of nearly a year, Kathy Brown Reeves, former head of St. Louis’ Community Development Agency, have recently bought a new house on the manicured grounds of the Bellerive Country Club in tony Town & Country. Reported purchase price: $1.23 million.

Wow, cha-ching.

It is my understanding Reeves did quite well in the banking business before taking the head job at Downtown Now! on a pro bono basis. His defenders also say they have a downtown loft in addition to the new suburban Town & Country place.

Somehow I’m supposed to feel better about this because he has a second place downtown and works for free. Hmmm, not working.

This affirms my opinion of organizations like Downtown Now! and the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. Namely, they are tools of the rich. “Look at us, we are helping the city.”

A quick glance of the boards of both organizations and you’ll see it is elected officials and the people that paid to get the officials elected. The two organizations stay busy giving each other awards.

I can imagine it is hard for the board to complain about the fact the organization’s website still has a “what’s happening in 2004” logo on their main page when the executive director works for free. What are they going to do, fire him?

But pro bono doesn’t mean the job doesn’t have any perks.

As an example, Apple Computer’s Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs takes a salary of only $1 per year. Yet a few years ago he got a new gulfstream jet valued at something like $80 million. He has also received massive amounts of stock. The point? Steve Jobs is considered one of the highest paid executives in silicon valley despite his $1 annual compensation.

I have no idea what kind of perks Mr. Reeves may or may not be getting either directly or indirectly. I just know that in the real world of politics and big business they have ways of making things look noble on the surface and well compensated otherwise.

What is painfully clear is that someone that can afford to work for free, have a downtown loft and a million dollar McMansion in the ‘burbs probably can’t relate to the the needs of downtown residents and start-up business owners. Reeves certainly can’t manage to keep a website updated…

Read my prior post on Downtown Now! here.

[UPDATE 2/7/06 @ 10:30am. On the next post I report that Tom Reeves is not working pro-bono at Downtown Now. His base salary is $187K. – SLP]

– Steve

St. Louis Centre Was A Design Failure From Day One

At dinner tonight I was reading the latest issue of the Arch City Chronicle and their cover story on St. Louis Centre. Like every other publication I’ve read on this subject the ACC is making the latest owner, Barry Cohen, out to be dragging his feet on plans to redevelop the dying mall:

“Neither Downtown Now nor Downtown St. Louis Partnership have been informed of any plans for the Centre. Tom Reeves, Executive Director of Downtown Now, seems to have lost confidence in Cohen.”

The last two groups that should be talking about someone else’s lack of action is Downtown Now and the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. They are both more heavy on salaries than accomplishments. That is, unless you could giving each other and their members awards…

Back to St. Louis Centre.

Cohen bought the once thriving mall at a foreclosure sale in August 2004 for $5.4 million. It was built in 1985 for $95 million. Of all the articles I’ve read in the last year I don’t think I’ve seen anyone stop and look at those numbers. I haven’t taken the time to go to the library and look through the micro-fiche to find articles on the financing and opening of the mall but no doubt a fair amount of that original number came in the form of some sort of public subsidy.

This alone is reason enough to be suspect about justifying a single massive project. The experts give glowing reports to get the public support behind the developer welfare program. Our convention hotel was supposed to save downtown is nearing bankruptcy after only a few years in operation and the Old Post Office project is claiming to provide something like 2,500 new jobs yet most of the tenants are simply relocating from other downtown spaces (Webster University, District Courts, St. Louis Business Journal, etc…). At what point do we stop believing the BS we are being fed?

Back to St. Louis Centre, again.

… Continue Reading