St. Louis’ International Award-Winning “Strategy for Renewal”

Two weeks ago this Wednesday St. Louis won a “World Leadership Award” in the category of Urban Renewal for its submission entitled “Strategy for Renewal.” The mayor’s website was full of excitement and the RCGA sent out a glowing press release. I was sceptical as nobody knew what we submitted. On Friday I received a paper copy after submitting a request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Here are a few tidbits.

Mayor Francis G. Slay sent a letter accepting the invitation to submit an entry on April 1, 2006. In that letter he writes,

“I am writing to let you know that we do plan on submitting an entry, and we would welcome the favorable publicity that we would receive if we won or even if we were a finalist.”

Our entry was submitted to the organizers on July 10th, 2006. Here is a quote from the opening page:

After losing 500,000 people in 45 years, the City of St. Louis has reversed the trend and become a model for “rebuilding” cities around the world. New residents are returning; businesses are starting to meet the growing market; and we have initiated education reform to make our public schools again, schools of choice.

Education reform? Since when is criticizing the school board education reform?

We have turned the corner. After decades of record population loss, growth is occurring. The U.S. Census Bureau ranked St. Louis 43rd in percentage population growth over the past year. I believe our strategy has become a model for other cities to follow.

While I will agree the massive droves of people fleeing the city has stopped I don’t know that we can say the city is growing. I’d say more like stabilized. Furthermore, I don’t know this is due to any policies enacted by Mayor Slay or simply the fact we hit bottom. And I find it rather amusing this strategy that is supposed to be a model for other cities had to be obtained via Missouri’s Sunshine Law regarding open documents.

The document talks about a number of objectives and strategies, some which have been done, some of which are in process and others that I am not aware of any effort to complete. One area that seems a bit of a stretch is around the city’s Strategic Land Use Plan. From the Strategy for Renewal:

A critical stage in our Great City renewal strategy was to provide a concise roadmap to direct public and private resources to where we needed them most. Until 2005, St. Louis operated under a Master Plan conceived in 1947.

That plan called for wholesale demolition of 35% of the City, coinciding with demographic changes. Conceived before the loss of 500,000 people, the Plan offered no strategy for addressing wholesale urban disinvestment. The Strategic Land Use Plan adopted in 2005 has changed how we think and do business. We have identified those parts of the City where public investment is most needed, to help stimulate private investment that builds on our strengths.

All levels of City government act in a coordinated manner to create nodes of growth. Subsequent efforts then connect “these nodes”, creating corridors of positive change. From a new housing project; a loan to a small business owner to repair a building; grants to remove lead paint from the schools and homes to enhance the welfare of the children; a combination of small incentives helps to stabilize declining neighborhoods.

Gee, last time I checked we still operate under that 1947 plan. Yes, the land use designations have been updated but our archaic zoning is still in place. Earlier this year, when arguing before the city’s “board of adjustment” regarding the McDonald’s drive-thru issue, I suggested the South Grand the area was to have certain character, as described in the land use plan. They told me, in a public hearing, the land use plan does not trump zoning. The mayor can tell people in London all he wants about this land use plan but in reality until we have new zoning it is worthless. The implimentation page for the land use plan admits as much:

Zoning designations are continually problematic in the City, and more often than not new development requires a variance from the existing zoning code. It is anticipated that once this plan is adopted zoning designations will be modified to conform to the plan and “overlay districts” may be developed and adopted that are specific to the character of specific neighborhoods and development areas.

While the mayor and his staffers are flying off to London to accept awards we are still waiting for meaningful action. Why we’d go to all this trouble to enter a competition and then not share the winning entry is beyond me, unless the mayor and his staff didn’t want to be held accountable for their strategy?

But you don’t need to take my word for it, I’ve uploaded the original submitted for judging and the presentation for your review.

• Strategy For Renewal (34-page PDF, 1.4mb)
• Presentation from 12/6/06 (49-page PDF, 2.9mb — I believe the actual PowerPoint would have had some video clips and such, I will likely request the actual PowerPoint as this PDF file seems incomplete. Plus you will need to rotate it to view)

Check them out and share your thoughts below. Even better, ask your alderman what he/she thinks about the objectives, strategies and current progress!

Ald. Roddy on the Euclid Streetscape Plan

Last Monday I attended a long public meeting on the Euclid Streetscape and wrote up my thoughts. Although I had a number of positive things to say it was mostly a critical take, offering criticism others may not know to suggest or be too afraid of offending someone. I, inevitably, offend people with my direct views. One such person was simply known as “CWE1”. This person suggested I was spreading misinformation.

My personal preference is not to rely on my notes for project details, opting instead to link to a website or perhaps a PDF document containing all the facts relevant to a project. That frees me up to talk about the design theory, the thought process (or often lack of), missing details and finally offering suggestings for improvement. Unfortunately, in the case of the proposed Euclid Streetscape no such basis exists — the public was not given any sort of fact sheet on the project nor is anything provided on the web for me to link to so that you, as the reader, can verify details for yourself. One such area where CWE1 says I am incorrect is how the study is funded, I wrote in my original piece:

These funds, as I understand it, came from an increase in the taxes on the property where we have the new Park East Tower high-rise. A diverse group of stakeholders were involved at the start of the project on November 9th.

To which CWE1 replied:

The funds being used for the Euclid project do not come from an increase in taxes on the Park East Tower property.

I then responded with:

You misunderstood the taxes comment relative to the Park East. The money for the design fees and some other projects, roughly $500K, are from an incremental increase in the taxes in the area due to the Park East. The land was vacant and city-owned before so the taxes are all new — an increment higher than before. As I mentioned, the actual work would be done via a grant from East-West Gateway using Federal funds.

CWE1 once again insisted he/she was correct with:

I repeat that the money for the design fees and other projects does not come from an incremental increase in the taxes. The Park East Tower has set up a CID and is receiving tax abatement. The $500K was a lump-sum contribution based on a percentage of the subsidy. If you have questions about the financing, I suggest a call to the development agency.

Again, I try to be very accurate with details such as the source of funding. If I am uncertain, I either don’t bring it up or try to verify. After sitting through a long meeting and taking extensive notes I thought I had the various nuances down. CWE1 disagrees, the source of the funds being just one example. So where did I get my information and can I back it up? Well, from Ald. Joe Roddy and yes I can.

Here is a short video (less than 5 minutes) of Ald. Joe Roddy starting off the meeting on the Euclid Streetscape, he discusses the “increment” at 2:50:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7pKsGcjT8c[/youtube]

So, CWE1, if any misinformation is being spread about this project it is either from Ald. Roddy or from you. I’m not sure which.  I regret that I did not record the full meeting to be able to good definitive answers to other areas of contention.

If the CWE-Midtown Development Corporation, or their communications consultant Vector Communications, wants to send me a fact sheet to set the record straight on this project I will be more than happy to publish anything and everything they send me. Given neither the development corp nor Ald. Roddy have a website of their own, it is the least I can do to help them communicate with the tax paying public.

Power Shift on Cherokee Street

Earlier today control of the Cherokee Station Business Association shifted to a new and diverse group (see prior post):

In front from L to R is: Minerva Lopez (VP), Karen Abounader (board member), Patavee Vanadilok (board member). In back from L to R is: Jason Deem (Pres), Will Liebermann (Treasurer). Not pictured, Andrew Liebermann (board member).

The meeting was long and not without conflict. The new group provided roughly 20 proxie votes from business owners that could not attend the mid-afternoon meeting. SLDC staffer Harry Bennett and Ald. Ken Ortmann saying they’d need an opinion from the City Counselor’s office before they could accept the proxies. After long debate the new group, thinking they had enough votes anyway, dropped the issue.

And boy were they right. I watched as Ald. Ken Ortman and Ald. Craig Schmid unfolded and counted the ballots. Basically the old guard ran a full slate of candidates (same officers I believe) and the new group did the same. Based on what I could see it was a good 4-1 margin of victory in favor of a change of leadership.

Part of their victory, I believe, was the fact they ran a diverse group of people for the positions and you could tell from the packed room their base of support was as diverse as the street itself.

One of the issues that I think sent them over the edge was the recent paving of three vacant lots owned by the association. All three were paved over at a cost of $9,687.18 per the Treasurer’s report handed out at the meeting. The report shows another $2,471.06 in wrought iron expenses.

The new board felt these lots should have remained as grass and that for this type of cost they could have been maintained. They also mentioned to me their concerns about water runoff with the impervious paving. Though not designed as parking, you can already see a car parked on this lot. Perhaps that is where the wrought iron fencing will come into play? Still, that is a lot of their improvement fund to be used — roughly 40% of their total.

Aldermanic candidate Galen Gondolfi was present at the meeting although he could not vote as his property is just a block or two beyond the boundaries of the CID (Community Improvement District). Interestingly, new board member Patavee Vanadilok was also not able to vote. As an attorney she is not required to have a business license and only those with a business license can vote. Yet, she was able to be elected and serve on the board. One of the priorities of the new board will be to revise and update their bylaws to fix past loopholes and simply items that were unforeseen when the organization was first established.

The next trick will be to get someone interested in re-opening the old upstairs bowling alley on Cherokee Street. Yes, Cherokee had a pretty awesome bowling alley at one time. Mr. Edwards, can we talk over a taco?

BTW, I had planned to attend the E&A meeting on the TIF for St. Louis Centre (see post) but this meeting ran too long. For coverage of that meeting check out Lucas Hudson’s report over at the ACC.

Battle for Control of Cherokee Street

At 1pm this afternoon the Cherokee Street Business Association will hold elections for its board of directors and officers. Unlike most business assocations, where things just continue with little controversy, this meeting may well be as heated as they come. This meeting may be a glimpse of how the upcoming 20th Ward election will go.

You see, Ald. Craig Schmid is pretty much of the same ‘keep out things’ mode of thinking of Wallace and her supporters. In the past, I think this has served a valid purpose. But times change and we must learn and adapt along the way. Among the groups on Cherokee are professionals, business owners catering to Mexican clientele, restaurants and bakeries, various artists and art groups, and a somewhat “radical” left-wing element. Wallace seems to have issues with all of them.

Galen Gondolfi, a candidate for Schmid’s 20th ward seat, is among those seeking change on Cherokee. Jason Deem, a young business man whom I have met and consulted on a rehab project, is seeking to be the new President of the association. Deem has assembled a diverse group of people from the street, all running as a slate. You can view their flyer in: English or Spanish.

Will a win for Deem and his slate mean trouble for Schmid in the larger ward? Maybe, maybe not. But, a Deem win will mark a shift on the street that Gondolfi will certainly tout on the campaign countdown to March 6th. Craig Schmid is not among the favorites of St. Louis’ political establishments but I have to think they’d rather keep him over a more progressive Gondolfi. Ken Ortmann, whose ward includes part of Cherokee, is not up for re-election until March 2009.

At issue is more than just who controls the gavel at meetings. Cherokee is a special taxing district so those who control the board, along with the aldermen, control the use of monies collected from taxes. How this money is used, or not used, will be important in the coming years.

More information on the growing rift on Cherokee from the RFT archives:

• Not on Our Street, June 8 2005
• Ruckus on Cherokee Street, June 14, 2006

The meeting will be held at 1pm on the 2nd floor of the Juvenile Court Building across from the Casa Loma Ballroom, at Iowa and Cherokee (map).  The group, under Wallace’s leadership does have a website, www.cherokeestation.com, which currently has only an announcement about a Cindo de Mayo this past May.

Review of Today’s Preservation Board Agenda

The St. Louis Preservation Board meets this afternoon at 4pm. A number of items are on the agenda, I’ve listed them all below.

4270 Castleman in the Shaw Historic Distirct:
• Condo developer has zero parking due to small lot with no alley.
• Wants to buy LRA property next door which faces Tower Grove Rd (and the Botanical Gardens) for parking.
• Seeking parking for eight cars — two per condo.
• This is a good example where parking should be “unbundled” from the actual units. If someone wants to live alone or doesn’t have a car why should they have to pay for two spaces? Build the parking lot with six spaces, not eight. Give each owner the option of buying a space and after each of the four has done so see if anyone else wants to buy the remaining two.

2027 Lynch Street in the Benton Park Historic District:

• Proposal for new construction.
• Design looks good.
• Nice to see in-fill construction happening within neighborhoods, really not necessary to wipe away the old to provide new housing.

1310 & 1312 Mackay Place in the Lafayette Square Local Historic District:

• This is to construct two townhouses on a vacant site.
• The cultural resources staff correctly points out the site has a distinct slope from one side to the next but the two units maintain a level appearance (windows, overall height) whereas original housing would have stepped down the hillside. By stepping down the hillside it helps give the appearance of two townhouses rather than one big mass.
• Lafayette Square has had recent issues with utilities and front doors so we will see how that is addressed at the meeting.

2028 S. 9th Street in the Soulard Local Historic District:

• Hammerstone’s Bar constructed a fence and covered bar area without a permit.
• Cultural Resources says the structure does not meet the standards (maybe this is why they did not get a permit?)
• Structure should have been based on a “model example” from the neighborhood. This means, the owner should have found a a historic example of a covered bar. Yeah, right.
• I think the structure could have been a bit more attractive in the composition of materials — it looks a bit generic. Still, I think the preservation standards wish to keep us in the year 1900.
• It is probably time to review some of these standards to see if they should be updated to deal with newer materials and changing development patterns.

4485 Vista Avenue in a “Preservation Review District.”

• A Preservation Review District is not a historic district but an area where demolitions of “contributing structures” must be approved by the Preservation Board.
• This very historic and rare home is in The Grove neighborhood (aka Forest Park SE).
• Structure is small, in poor condition and has ugly siding. Still, it is quite rare in the city.
• Staff is recommending that a decision be deferred for six months.
• Most likely this area will see a wholesale clearance program, a very retro urban renewal program that totally sanitizes the area of anything worthwhile.
• I can understand neighbors that are tired of seeing a vacant and boarded house. The fears around safety are also valid as such a building can invite a criminal element. Still, we simply cannot afford to raze every vacant structure in the city — we’d have too little left.
• The city, in my estimation, does a poor job of marketing these properties. Why aren’t they on the real estate multi-list system? Where is our homestead program to aggressively market these types of properties and literally give them to someone qualified to fix them up? Instead the city holds these properties for years to the point where the neighbors demand demolition. This is not a good system.

Extending the boundaries of the Central West End Historic District

• Boundary would extend north to include a number of blocks of Olive in wards 18 & 28.
• A lot is happening in this area and being in a historic district would afford some of these properties access to historic tax credits and protection from being demolished (especially those in Kennedy’s 18th Ward where he refuses to place the ward in a Preservation Review District).
• One of my favorite buildings in the entire city is in the new boundaries so it would be nice to see it rehabbed (see p. 46 of agenda, building on right).