Controversial “Blairmont” Project to be Revealed Tonight

Tonight we expect politically connected developer Paul McKee, of McEagle Development, to publicly unveil the controversial development project nicknamed “Blairmont.”

The project got this name after one of the early holding companies used to acquire properties, Blairmont Associates LLC.

Here is a video that explains Blairmont:

Another source of info on Blairmont is a January 2007 RFT article.

Out of the controversy came an August 2007 bus tour of McKee’s properties.  Here is 5th Ward Alderman April Ford Griffin:

The next month the meetings continued.  Here is 19th Ward Alderman Marlene Davis:

I got involved by asking a question of Alderman April Ford Griffin.  Griffin is the chair of the Neighborhood Development committee at the Board of Aldermen.  She has a warped view of zoning.  Rather than have excellent zoning that codifies the community vision, she likes outdated zoning so developers must come to her.  The video starts out rough but gets better:

Congressman Clay talks about a hearing held at city hall with a reference to the 1970s Team Four plan that called for reducing services in parts of the city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsx_Ph8vEj41976

Here is a summary of the infamous Team Four plan:

This document contains the technical memorandum that was submitted to the Plan Commission by Team Four, Inc. in 1975. This memorandum proposed public policy guidelines and strategies for implementing the Draft Comprehensive Plan that was prepared by others. It offered a series of considerations concerning the process of adopting, staging, budgeting and ultimately implementing the Draft Comprehensive Plan. In addition, this document contains a preface dated 1976 that attempts to clean up any inconsistencies and or controversies surrounding the proposed implementation strategies and a bibliography or annotated listing of Technical Memoranda and Appendixes. Part I of this document focused on strategies for three generic area types: conservation, redevelopment, and depletion areas; and Part II of this document discussed major urban issues and their solutions.

Today “shrinking cities” are studied and various techniques are debated.  In the 70s in St. Louis the Team Four plan was seen as a racist plot to deny services to a minority population.  We know more today about how to adjust to shrinking populations.

Tonight we will see another, a huge heavily subsidized redevelopment plan.  Many are opposed simply based on the history of the project to date.  I for one plan to go with an open mind. I have reservations about both the developer and the political leadership.  Griffin’s view on the role of zoning doesn’t give me a lot of hope for what may be presented in pretty artist renderings actually being completed as promised.  A good framework of a zoning code can help ensure the promised vision develops into reality.

Tonight’s meeting starts at  7pm at Central Baptist Church Education Building 2843 Washington Ave (Google Map).  I’ll be there and will report on the presentation next week.

Poll, Where Was Your Car Assembled?

The world auto industry has taken a beating in the last 12 months.  Chrysler just entered bankruptcy.  Auto dealerships, auto suppliers and many others are hurting.  The “Buy American” sentiment can be heard from local dealer ads on the radio to the President. But what defines an American car these days?  Place of assembly?  Not entirely.

Cars.com each year publishes a list to help out car shoppers.  From their most recent 2008 report last July:

Ford and GM continue their reign in this summer’s American-Made Index, but two new automakers — Chrysler and Honda — have joined the list, raising the number of manufacturers on it to five. That’s the most carmakers the AMI has featured in the two years we’ve been compiling it.

How did those two make it? The Alabama-built Odyssey minivan led Honda’s charge thanks to its high domestic-parts content rating, which indicates the percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts, by cost, in a given vehicle. The 2008 Odyssey’s domestic content rating went up to 75 percent, compared to 70 percent for the ’07 model, which comprised a sizeable chunk of last year’s sales.

Chrysler, meanwhile, has had a tough time making the index because a number of its strongest sellers — the Dodge Ram pickup and Grand Caravan minivan, for example — are either assembled mostly in Canada or have comparatively low domestic-parts content ratings. That’s not the case this time: The Chrysler Sebring sedan and convertible, both built in Michigan, pushed a number of others out of the way to make it to ninth place on the list.

In Chrysler’s wake? Among a few models to drop off the list this time around was the Ford Escape, long an AMI staple; it’s domestic-parts content rating fell 25 percentage points (from 90 percent to 65 percent) when it was redesigned for 2008. Last winter, Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood couldn’t give a reason for the domestic content drop, but said Ford is “proud of the domestically produced parts that go into our vehicles … but there are changes from year to year.”

GM has always been a strong player, but that’s true for different reasons this time. The Kansas-built Chevy Malibu moved from an unremarkable 33rd ranking in year-to-date sales in December to 15th overall today, and its 85 percent domestic-parts content rating is as high as any vehicle we surveyed. It jumped to third place in the AMI, up from ninth. Making the opposite trip was the Silverado, whose sagging sales and increased production in Mexico and Canada knocked it down to eighth.

Other GMs, from the Chevrolet Cobalt to the Pontiac G6, generally held steady. So did Toyota’s two entrants, the Sienna minivan and Tundra pickup. Stagnant sales, meanwhile, pushed the aging Chevy TrailBlazer off the list.

For this particular index, Cars.com surveyed the country’s 58 best-selling models through May 31 of this year. Of the 30 trucks, vans and SUVs in that group, 23 are assembled in the U.S. (though not always exclusively; some models are assembled both in plants here and in other countries), but just half of the cars on the list — 14 of 28 — are built here.

“I’m not sure this is likely to change much, although with the general downsizing of more cars and trucks here, that may lead to globalization of more production. Ultimately the objective of any manufacturer is to maximize utilization of all production assets — that is, operate at 100 percent of capacity or more.”

Globalized production, of course, also means that a number of popular models already aren’t as homegrown as you might think. Take cars like the Ford Mustang, Chevy ImpalaChrysler 300: The Michigan-built Mustang has a disappointing 65 percent domestic-parts content rating, while the 300 and Impala are built in Canada. What’s more, America’s beloved retro hatchbacks, the Chevy HHR and soon-to-be-discontinued Chrysler PT Cruiser, are built in Mexico. The pint-sized Chevy Aveo is built in South Korea. and

Not that import automakers fare any better: Hyundai’s Alabama-built 2009 Sonata has just 43 percent domestic content, while the Ohio-built Honda CR-V comes in at just 10 percent. That portrait of urban frugality, the Toyota Prius? It’s imported from Japan — and so are suburbanite favorites like the Nissan Murano and Toyota RAV4.

Editor’s note: In today’s global economy, there’s no easy way to determine just how American a car is. Many cars built in the U.S., for example, are assembled using parts that come from somewhere else. Some cars assembled in the U.S. from strictly American-made parts don’t sell very well, meaning that fewer Americans are building those models. Cars.com’s American-Made Index highlights the cars that are built here, have the highest percentage of domestic parts, and are bought in the largest numbers by Americans.

There are a few options for determining a car’s domestic-parts content. We went with the figure that appears alongside the window sticker of new cars as a result of the American Automobile Labeling Act, enacted in 1994. The AALA mandates that virtually every new car display the percentage, by cost, of its parts that originated in the U.S. and Canada. We deemed cars with a domestic-parts content rating of 75 percent or higher eligible for the index.

So depending upon the model the foreign car might just be more American than the American car!  I looked at the window sticker on my 2004 Toyota Corolla but I didn’t see anything about the percentage of American or North American content.  It was assembled at a joint GM-Toyota assembly plant known as New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc or NUMMI for short  (official site, Wikipedia), located in Freemont California (map). My oldest brother’s office is less than a mile and a half from the plant.

Besides the Toyota Corolla, the plant makes the Toyota Tacoma pick-up and the Pontiac Vibe.  Is the Pontiac Vibe more American than the Toyota Corolla from the same plant?  Maybe, but that comes back to percentage of U.S. parts.  The Corolla is also made in Canada alongside Vibe’s twin, the Toyota Matrix.

So the poll this week about your car.  While it is hard to know the parts content it is easy to know in what country your car was assembled.  I want to know about your nameplate (American vs. foreign) and if your car was assembled in the U.S.  You may need to do some research.

For example, did you know the Pontiac G8 was assembled at a GM plant in Australia?  The Saturn Aura sedan is built in Kansas City while the Saturn Astra hatchback is built outside the U.S. and imported.  That American Buick LaCrosse was assembled in Canada.  That Ford Taurus is made in the Chicago area but the Crown Vic in Canada.  Dodge Challenger pony car?  Canada.  Chevy Camaro?  Canada.  Mitsubishi Eclipse?  Normal, Illinois.  Go figure.  M-class Mercedes-Benz SUV?  Germany?  Wrong,  Tuscaloosa, Alabama! The new Volvo XC60?  The Swedish company Volvo Cars is owned by American company Ford, but the XC60 is produced in Ghent Belgium.  Confused yet?

Numerous foreign nameplates operate manufacturing plants in the U.S., employing 55,000 workers (source)

If you are unsure about where your car was assembled look it up on Wikipedia.  The poll is located on the upper right corner of the main page.  Of course I’ve included an answer for those of you lucky enough to not own a car.

Five Easy Solutions to Help the City of St. Louis, Downtown – No Stimulus Funds Required

We here all the time about the need to assist multi-million dollar projects such as Ballpark Village.  St. Louis and cities nationwide have been helping fund big ticket projects for decades.  Some deliver on the initial promises while others do not.  But this post is not about the massive project costing hundreds of millions.  It is about little things.  Things not dependent upon federal stimulus money.

The following is my list, you may have others:

#5 – Reduce most six lane roads to four by striping outside lane for bikes and/or parked cars.

Yes stripes do take some money but not that much.  Jefferson, Market, and Natural Bridge quickly come to mind.  We have a fraction of the population we had in 1950 yet we have the lane capacity for a much larger population.  These streets all need expensive diets but paint on pavement can do wonders.

#4 – eliminate all minimum parking requirements throughout the city.

Our entire zoning code is 60+ years old.  Much has changed and the code needs to as well, but that takes time & money.  In the short term we should just 86 those sections in the zoning code that require parking.  Just delete them entirely.

#3 – allow on-street parking on all streets in CBD, reducing 4 lane one-way streets to just two travel lanes.

Downtown St. Louis is blessed by short city blocks that are both walkable and easily biked.  Unfortunately in many places what would be a pleasant two travel lane street has four travel lanes in a single direction.  These should all be reverted to 2-way traffic and reduced to two travel lanes.  But changing signals to go back to two-way streets takes money.  .

#2 – street performers

St. Louis has many talented residents that could help animate our staid streets while earning a buck or two.  Changing the ordinances to make it easier for performers to do their thing on St. Louis’ public sidewalks would do wonders for residents & visitors’ perceptions.  Again, no massive debt-laden project is necessary.

#1 – street vendors

Related to street performers, street vending is as old as cities.  For decades we’ve gone the wrong direction with respect to street vending, being too busy trying to emulate suburbia.  Time to lighten it up Francis.  The vendors are there and they are well aware of the obstacles.  It is sort of the chicken-egg debate.  The first step is to loosen the regulatory grip and in time the vendors and customers will find each other.

—

Follow UrbanReviewSTL on Twitter

Pyramid Construction, A Year Later

Last years collapse of Pyramid Construction is a tragic story on numerous levels, fortunes lost, promises broken, etc.  Last month came the worst news out of this continuing story.

A former employee, who was suddenly out of work when Pyramid folded, committed suicide.  He and his widow had both worked at Pyramid and had not found new employment as the economy worsened.  My heart goes out to her, their family and friends.

It was one year ago today that I broke the news that Pyramid was ceasing operations (see post).  I was still in the hospital at the time, about four hours from St. Louis.  My post indicated the news of the collapse was a “rumor.”  I knew, based on my source, that it was true.

The fallout continues.  Lenders have taken back preoperties. A few projects, like the senior housing center on South Grand, have been completed.  Most remain no further than they were a year ago.

St. Louisans Want More Street Vending!

This past week I asked a simple question in my weekly poll (see post):

Many cities have active sidewalks with: numerous street vendors selling hot dogs and such. What are your thoughts on allowing more street vendors downtown?

I’m never sure what the sentiment among the readership will be.  I just put it our there and see how people vote.  Here are the final results for the above question:

This poll was not scientific.

Out of 161 responses only two indicated either to retain the status quo or eliminate the little bit of vending that is permitted.  Overwhelmingly you the readers want more street vending.

So now what?

Legal permits are severly limited in number.  I’d never advocate just setting up shop on the sidewalk illegally.  I also don’t want to see all barriers brought down so we have chaos on the sidewalks.

Like valet parking, I think we need to review best practices from other coties so as to allow, but not stifle, the activity while not infringing on neighboring brick & mortar businesses.

My guess is that several decades ago well meaning men thought it best to restrict street vending to protect restaurants hurting from downtowns dwindling role in the region.  Your elected officials at city hall need to understand you want the current politically imposed limitations eased.  We, as consumers, need to support street vending if we hope to see more street vendors on the sidewalks.