St. Louis, like most cities, has a variety of housings types. I’m rather font fond of this type of apartment building.
5743 Chippewa was built in 1939
It has 18 apartments, 6 one-bedroom & 12 two-bedroom, on a lot measuring 91 feet wide x 120 feet deep. That’s 18 units on a quarter acre lot! To the west is apartments over commercial storefronts and to the west single family detached homes, all from the late 1930s.
These were new modern light-filled apartments, a contrast to the old tenement slums in the old part of the city. This was the suburban ideal at the time. You’re thinking it can’t be called “suburban” since it is in the city. Wrong, it was sub-urban compared to how flats were built decades earlier.
Many of these exist in St. Louis, north & south, as well as in the inner ring of suburbs. Though I’ve never lived in one, I enjoy seeing them as I pass by.
As a disabled person, my independence is very important. I assume no matter the disability. independence is important. Thus it isn’t a surprise to me to see it mentioned in mission a statement:
Yet their website illustrates auto-centric thinking, not independence:
The Society is located at the southeast corner of Brentwood Blvd. and Manchester Road. The corner of Brentwood and Manchester is approximately 2 miles south of the Galleria shopping mall. The Society’s facility is approximately 12 miles west of downtown St. Louis.
There are signs visible from all four directions at that corner indicating the “Society For The Blind Building”, with all addresses (8764 – 8798) of occupants of the building below the name. The Society’s entry is clearly marked above the main entrance.
There are reserved parking places in front of the main entrance, as well as handicapped parking next to the building.
Where’s the information from public transit? I often encounter blind & visually impaired riders on transit.
The eastbound #57 MetroBus stops directly in front of their building on the SE corner of Manchester & Brentwood
It would help their independence if the Society made a slight modification to provide an pedestrian access route separate from the auto driveway. It would be fairly straightforward:
Blue lines mark the ideal path an ADA access route would take
As you can see from the image above, building a pedestrian route would be a fairly simple proposition for them. I sent them a message a couple of days ago suggesting this. I’ll keep you posted if anything happens.
I’m a huge advocate of recycling. I also know making it easier will get more people to recycle. But that convenience shouldn’t come at the expense of walkability. Unfortunately that’s what happened in south St. Louis recently.
Trying to reach Chippewa along Clifton Ave behind Target I encountered a big blue obstacle blocking the sidewalk.I had to go off into the grass to get around the bins. Not all wheelchairs/scooters are as capable. Someone walking with a cane or walker would have trouble walking on the grass.The six recycling bins, oriented to the street, viewed from across Clifton Ave
It wasn’t until this point in writing this post that I realized the dumpsters probably sit on the road most of the time, they likely got moved to the sidewalk while Clifton Ave was being resurfaced. I’m going to verify with city officials to ensure this was only temporary.
Recently I was critical of a proposed big box development along Forest Park Ave, adjacent to the main Saint Louis University campus. My issue isn’t with big box retail stores themselves, my issue is with how big box developments are typically laid out: massive surface parking lots, large blank walls facing public sidewalks, too few pedestrian connections to the outside & internally.
From page 12 of a 2010 Brookings report:
Considering the economic benefits, walkability should be a critical part of all strategic growth plans. The implications of this study cut across the federal and state, metropolitan, and place levels.
Public policy should become more favorable toward walkable placemaking. Currently, many federal and state subsidies substantially favor low-density development and tip the scales against walkable development. Further, many local zoning codes make walkable development illegal, necessitating costly and time-consuming zoning changes with no guarantee of success. Federal, state, and local policy makers should conduct a systematic review of existing public policies that are biased against walkable development, and adopt new measures aimed at facilitating (or at least removing roadblocks to) this type of development.
For their part, local and regional planning agencies should incorporate assessments of walkability into their strategic economic development plans. Planning entities should identify where regional- serving and local-serving walkable urban places exist within a metropolitan area, seek out those places that are positioned to become more walkable, and determine potential locations of future walkable places. This type of assessment will help determine where infrastructure and other built environment improvements are needed. Since high-density walkable urban places seem to account for a small amount of a metropolitan area’s existing land mass, it is probable that the infrastructure cost per dwelling unit or commercial square foot will be a fraction of that of existing low-density drivable suburban infrastructure costs.
At the same time, the apparent supply-demand mismatch for walkable places may be contributing significantly to the price premium these places demand. To the extent that this is the case, the short- and medium-term shortage of walkable places makes them inaccessible (unaffordable) to many people who desire to live in such places. As such, it is important to have an affordable housing strategy in place while those improvements are being implemented. (Walk this Way: The Economic Promise of Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Christopher B. Leinberger and Mariela Alfonzo)
The proposed “Midtown Station” project would turn its back on both Vandeventer & Forest Park Avenues, which is only marginally acceptable pattern out in suburbia, but unacceptable in an urban context — especially adjacent to a major university.
In searching for alternatives I remembered a project I visited about a decade ago and blogged about in 2005. This development has multiple big box stores including a 2-level Target, a Best Buy, a Sport’s Authority, and a Ross. Smaller size spaces front the sidewalk.
Urban big box development on Northgate in SeattleA Quizno’s fronts onto the Northgate Way sidewalk
This project isn’t located in downtown Seattle either, it’s nearly 8 miles up I-5 (map). The main mode in this part of Seattle is private automobile, but thankfully newer development isn’t geared solely to motorists.
The best local example of rethinking big box development the Market at McKnight in Rock Hill, with a 36,000sf Stein Mart that opened in October 2007. Ok, not exactly a big box, but a big portion of the 130,000sf development.
The Market at McKnight project in Rock Hill is the best local example of providing a more pleasant front along the roadway with big box behindOne story buildings along Manchester Rd give a more urban feel, windows give something for pedestrians to look into as they walk byNo business has a door onto the Manchester sidewalk, but it is pleasant as a pedestrian and motorists can see businesses as they drive by.The businesses actually front the surface parking lotPedestrians have a clear path to reach the Stein Mart on the far side of the development.My window view from The Original Mongolian Grill
The view isn’t great, but the point is there’s a relationship with the sidewalk & street. From inside I could see others going by and they could see me. Instead of creating something active along Forest Park Ave. Midtown Station wants to create something like this:
Back (Clifton Ave) side of the Hampton & Chippewa Target location.
Dreadful anywhere, but especially so close to a college campus and near public transit. Developers have shown there are alternatives to the standard big box project of the last 15-20 years.
Last week regional transportation planners presented four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) being considered. Soon two will be picked to submit for federal funding.
Four alternative BRT routes, click image to view larger version
I attended the presentation at City Hall and participated in the audience voting using hand held devices. They asked a couple of questions to help them in their decision. To keep things simple I’m just asking which two of the four BRT routes should move forward with a request for federal funding.
These four potential BRT routes are options for improving transit connections between St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis. One of the study’s main goals is to address the need for quick, direct travel from neighborhoods north and south of Downtown St. Louis to employers located in north and west St. Louis County. The “Central Corridor” stretching from Downtown St. Louis to the Central West End and Clayton still holds the region’s largest concentration of jobs, but the largest job growth is occurring in places like Chesterfield, Earth City, and St. Charles – areas easily accessible by highway, but currently not by public transit. The type of BRT service currently being studied is intended to expand access and improve travel time to those job opportunities – of particular importance to reverse commuters traveling to major job centers in suburban areas – while also providing a premium transit alternative for car commuters. The Rapid Transit Connector Study will identify candidates for Metro’s first two BRT routes; Metro will continue to work with the region to identify future BRT routes. Other transit options identified in Moving Transit Forward, such as expansions of the MetroLink System, are intended to meet other long-term goals such as strengthening neighborhoods and encouraging transit-oriented development. Alternatives analysis involves evaluating the performance of each alternative along parameters including ridership, expanded access to key destinations, travel time savings, and land use benefits. These technical outcomes will be combined with public input to identify the two potential projects most likely to meet project goals, benefit the region, and successfully compete for federal funding.
You may not like any of the four, however, I’ve not allowed any custom answers so you can’t suggest any other routes. These four need to be narrowed to two. I did provide “none” as an option as well as “unsure/no answer.” The poll is in the right sidebar (desktop layout).
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
