The Future of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the St. Louis Region

Local transit booster group Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) sponsored a program earlier today called, The Future of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the St. Louis Region. This invitation only event included representatives from throughout the region including, Donna Day from East-West Gateway Council of Governments; Rollin Stanley, St. Louis’ Director of Urban Planning & Design (and CMT board member); a number of local architects and developers, etc…

The guest speakers brought in by CMT were pretty impressive.

First up was Ken Kinney, the project director on the Northside/Southside Light Rail Study. Mr. Kinney is with the firm of HNTB out of their Chicago office. He talked about the current study which is building upon prior work done in 1998-2000. Specifically he mentioned the current study area is focusing solely on the City of St. Louis with the northside route ending near I-70 (close to Goodfellow) and the southside route ending at I-55 & Loughborough (yes, the site of “Loughborough Commons” sprawl center, still under construction)

Kinney indicated they are doing a “Transit/Development – Supportive Policy Analysis” as part of both study areas. From his comments I took this to mean two things. First he mentioned looking at other cities to see how their transit policies might help development. Second was to look at the municipal policies to see how that might affect (pro or con) development along proposed routes.

He admitted the most controversial part of the northside and southside routes are that they both include running at street level, especially downtown. He showed an example of a high-floor vehicle like our MetroLink vehicles in a center median situation (Manchester, England). As you can imagine this requires large platforms. As others in the process have previously indicated, they will most likely use what is referred to as a “low-floor” vehicle. These have a low center section that is seldom more than a foot above grade so stops are much easier to design and build. Meeting ADA (American’s with Disability Act) requirements are also much easier going this route.

For the low-floor light rail he showed a suburban Portland example in the center of Interstate Avenue. In this case the center of the road is consumed with the poles in the center and a line going in each direction. Traffic is kept to the outside and away from the tracks. The example at right is actually a computer mock up for Interstate Ave in Portland (source).

But next he showed his “favorite” example: the newish Portland Streetcar (a modern line, not vintage). His image shows new condo buildings being constructed next to the line. Below is an image from the same general area.

[Portland thumbnail by milantram, click image for full sized version.]

This streetcar line was not finished on my last visit to Portland. Time for another visit!

Next up to speak was Robert Cervero from the University of California at Berkeley. I see in the program that his “participation has been made possible through East-West Gateway Council of Governments.” Mr. Cervero is a subconsultant on the northside & southside study areas.

Most of are probably familiar with the term TOD (Transit Oriented Development) but he mentioned a couple of others. TOD’s step-brother, TAD (Transit Adjacent Development). A good example of TAD is say the suburban stuff in Richmond Heights off Eager road. This development is adjacent to transit but it not oriented to transit. Another is AOD, or Auto Oriented Development. This is suburbia or the proposed Grand McDonald’s. He used another phrase I really liked, “walk-n-ride” to describe just walking from your development to the transit train. This is a contrast to the common park-n-ride lot we see near most of our suburban MetroLink stations.

Cervero stressed “balanced corridor planning” when evaluating various criteria such as speed and development potential. He showed how New Jersey had a number of older commuter rail lines that were not encouraging new TOD’s around stations. After decreasing travel times to Manhattan from 45 minutes to 30 minutes suddenly everyone was interested in riding the lines and they began to see increased TODs and stations.

Cervero indicated he felt our MetroLink light rail system has been hugely successful from a ridership standpoint but not so much so from a TOD perspective. I’d certainly agree. St. Louis, he argues, took the path of least resistance when building our system by using existing tunnels and rail corridors. This path didn’t require expensive land purchases or the taking of homes (although it did require moving some graves near the airport). The problem with the existing route(s) is by using rail lines the transit wasn’t necessarily placed in areas where we might have seen increased development around a stop.

He concluded his time with a picture of the Grand South Grand area at Arsenal and Grand. He described the wonderful building fabric and said, “You almost want a Portland-style streetcar.” Not almost, I do want a streetcar line down Grand (among others)! I’ve made my preference for streetcars quite clear to CMT Executive Director Tom Shrout so when Cervero made this comment I looked over to see Tom’s reaction, he was looking back to see my reaction.

Last up was Jack Wierzenski from Dallas’ transit system, DART. [Side note: I took my driver’s test in my mom’s Dodge Dart] DART was established in 1983 with the system opening 13 years later in 1996. Since then they’ve managed to build considerable more total lines than us with far more coming on line in the next 10 years. After touring St. Louis today he said they are behind us with respect to retail & loft development downtown.

He showed some great examples of previous park-n-ride lots from the original system that are now TOD projects. The end of one line is in Plano, TX where their downtown was a bit tired. A new TOD has helped improve the area. The made a number of comments about their engineers, how their only focus was moving the transit vehicles as quickly as possible or having parking and bus lines right next to the stations. His job is balance the engineers against the need for creating quality pedestrian environments at the stations. Are you listening Metro?

Following the presentations was a frank discussion about where we are now. One participant didn’t think the images of dense new development would fly in north St. Louis because most residents would fear being displaced by eminent domain. Public approval is certainly needed so community concerns need to be addressed. The issue of ‘density’ as a dirty word came up and got a good chuckle from the entire room. One speaker, I think Jack Wierzenski from Dallas, indicated they do “visual surveys” where they use pictures/images to gauge people’s interest in various types of projects. Visually people will most often chose the dense and connected example but if given a written choice of low-density or high-density projects they’d chose the low-density. Visual surveys, are all you PR types listening?

I’ve got many more thoughts on encouraging TOD in the St. Louis region but I’l have to share those another day. What are your thoughts?

– Steve

Preservation Board to Review An Issue With Lafayette Walk

The agenda for Monday’s Preservation Board meeting is not yet published (due to a web issue I’m told) but I do know of one issue that will be heard: exposed gas meters in front of Orchard Development’s new Lafayette Walk project.

In January 2005 the Preservation Board approved the Lafayette Walk project (PDF review file) with staff noting:

The project is an important contribution at this neglected entrance to a significant City neighborhood. Because of its size and the manner in which it will dominate this entrance, it is very important that the details in project design as well as in project execution be well done. The success of the Lafayette Square Historic District, in large part, relies on the fine detail and historic character of its buildings and streets.

Some Lafayette Square residents are rightly upset that each unit has an exposed gas meter facing the public sidewalk. What is not known is how this happened or who is to blame. Was it a gas company requirement? The developer trying to save some money on installation of the gas service? Or simply an oversight on the part of the Cultural Resources staff? Whatever the reason it is most certainly unsightly.

You can only do so much with landscaping, especially in such small spaces. Yes, this is minor in the big scheme of things but these meters really stand out. The Preservation Board meetings are almost always interesting and this topic alone promises to make it a good one. The fun begins Monday 2/27/06 at 4pm at 1015 Locust, 12th floor.

– Steve

Proposed McDonald’s, A Story of Aldermanic Deception & Suburban Design

Alderman Florida flat out lied. Not an omission of a few details. No sir, a bold faced lie.

I sat next to Alderman Florida on Monday as the proposed McDonald’s at 3708 S. Grand was discussed before the Commercial District Committee of the Dutchtown South Community Corporation. She claimed to not have any graphics to show the group of the proposal, instead she showed site plans for the nearby Southside National Bank project. Yet, in her possession was a site plan for the McDonald’s project. When questioned on the subject she claimed the site plan she had was not the final plan. Digging a deeper hole she said a current site plan did not exist, that nothing had been submitted. We were puzzled at the idea of a public hearing on the zoning of a drive-thru could be held without a site plan. The truth is it can’t.

Florida also tried to play dumb on the details of the proposal, claiming she didn’t know if they were using the full site or not.

Alderman Florida briefly unfolded the site plan and I was able to get a good look at it. The plan uses the full 40,000sf site (approximately 200ft x 200ft), includes new curb cuts on Grand and Winnebego, lots of parking and a drive through. As is typical with these fast food places, the building is set back from both streets with drive lanes between the public sidewalk and building. On the Winnebego side parking, a drive and the drive-thru separate pedestrians from the building.

Florida described the McDonald’s as an “urban-style” building. Let’s see, we have a large site where roughly 5% of the land will be covered in building with the remaining 95% in asphalt. Plus the building is set back from the sidewalk and is only one-story in height. I’m just not seeing anything to make this urban. Oh yes, I forgot, it has red brick. So taking the standard formula painted concrete block McDonald’s and put some red brick on the place and all of a sudden it is urban? Sorry, I don’t think so.

Damn, I hate being lied to.

Right to my face no less!
… Continue Reading

Alderwoman Florida To Discuss Proposed McDonald’s

I recently commented on the land swap that would mean the construction of a new McDonald’s fast-food franchise on the site of the former Sears store on Grand at Winnebego. An upcoming conditional use hearing is reportedly to be held on the 16th but I have not been able to confirm the date, time and place.

However, I have received word that Ald. Florida will be fielding questions from the folks in Dutchtown:

As per the request of the DSCC Board of Directors, Alderwoman Jennifer Florida will meet with the DSCC Board of Directors and Commercial District Committee to discuss the McDonald’s on Monday, February 13, 2006 @ 4:30 PM @ Dutchtown South Community Corporation.

Sunshine Laws require this meeting be open to the public so be sure to attend if you have an interest in this project. The Dutchtown office is located at 4204 Virginia (@ Meramec), 63111 (map)

In short I feel the McDonald’s should not be allowed to build on the site. The fast food structure surrounded by parking and a drive-thru lane is an incompatible use in an urban environment. This section of Grand is becoming increasingly urban and has the potential to extend the feel of the area to the north. Allowing this former Sears site to become a low-use sprawl project is a careless use of resources that will make it increasingly difficult to finish the residential development directly behind the site.

But we are not alone in dealing with dreaded drive-thrus.

McSpotlight.org is a world-wide resource for fighting McDonald’s restaurants. Another great resource is No McDrive-Through!, a Toronto group that successfully prevented a McDonald’s drive-thru from being constructed in their pedestrian neighborhood.

– Steve

Richmond Heights City Council Supports More Sprawl

Monday evening the Richmond Heights City Council selected the worst of three proposals for the area being called Hadley Township. In a prior post I reviewed the three proposals and I considered the ‘new urbanist’ proposal from Conrad Properties as the best of the lot. Even my strong dislike for THF Realty didn’t stop me from thinking their proposal was second.

The site plan (108K PDF) is the flawed start of the Michelson/Heine-Croghan proposal that was selected. Let’s start at the corner of Dale Avenue and Hanley Road. The buildings on either side are supposed to form a “gateway” to Richmond Heights. The color rendering on their proposal shows a picturesque sidewalk scene but reality will be quite different. As long as Hanley remains a major street without calming methods such as on-street parking it will no be a street to walk on. Dale has more potential but the M/H-C proposal doesn’t appear to include any on-street parking either. Furthermore, the building that is to form this gateway is single-story with a predictable clock tower to add some visual height.

While I appreciate the efforts to retain some existing housing they’ve done so by cutting these houses off from the new development. This results in a bunch of cul-de-sacs where the streets now cross the creek. We should be connecting, not separating.

Retail ranges from a big box to a medium box to a strip center. Yawn. I guess we didn’t quite get enough of this mix from THF’s sprawl center to the south or the waste of land off Eager to the west. But look at what appears to be the sidewalk in front of the big box, it becomes a service drive behind the medium box and strip center.

Their proposal calls for a hotel in the exact same corner that the THF proposal did. Surprise, right by the highway. Like the THF proposal, it is unlikely that a hotel guest will be able to walk along sidewalks to a nearby restaurant.

The numbers tell the real story. The selected proposal has a total of 156 residential units with all but 16 of those as either attached or detached single-family. The THF proposal had total of 637 residential units (136 single-family detached, 373 condos and 128 apartments). Not bad. The Conrad proposal topped all with 850 total residential units (50 single family detached, 350 single family attached, 350 condos and 100 apartments). Richmond Heights was afraid of urban density.

But it is the density of Conrad’s or THF’s proposals that would have created a walkable neighborhood and much more tax base. The Conrad proposal called for the most public assistance in total dollars but theirs was the least as a percentage of the total project cost ($58-$68 million, 16-19%). By contrast, the Michelson/Heine-Croghan proposal is seeking $47 million in assistance which is 28% of their proposal. The tax payers in Richmond Heights are getting taken!

Richmond Heights had a chance to create a spectacular area but they have instead settled for low density mediocrity.

– Steve

Technorati Tags:
St. Louis, Urban Planning, New Urbanism, Saint Louis