Downtown Still Going Strong; Neighborhoods and Inner Suburbs Need Leadership

I got a call from developer Kevin McGowan on Saturday, you may recall the last time he called me was to defend himself over the pets issue in his own building (see post). So McGowan calls me all excited and thought I’d be interested in his news — super fast loft sales. I’m not in the business of acting as a free PR service to profitable downtown developers but as we talked I saw enough in this that it is more than a press release for his firm.

OK, here is the story. McGowan | Walsh has been unsure about what the composition should be for their three buildings at Cupples Station located to the due west of the ballpark (#s 7, 8 & 9). They’ve hung banners on all three for “Ballpark Lofts” but they’ve been looking at office use instead of residential or in addition to. They began to market lofts in the center building — #8 to test the market. They’d been taking deposits to get on a list. Saturday they asked potential buyers to firm up and pick their units — wanting to really see if the buyers would stick around or seek their deposit back. Well, McGowan reports they sold 57 out of 68 units — in just over an hour. Needless to say, he was ecstatic. This represents, he said, over $12 million in loft sales.

So I began to ask more questions. The selling prices were roughly $146K to $400K for square footage ranging from 750sf to roughly 1,500sf. Just a few years ago lofts were easily ranging from 1,200sf to over 2,000sf but we are seeing a shift to smaller units. McGowan confirmed the smaller and more affordable units are where the market it going. Still compared to other lofts downtown these prices seem on the low side but there is a good reason for that. Parking.

You see, McGowan | Walsh did what is called “unbundled” parking — a parking management technique discussed in Todd Litman’s book Parking Management Best Practices whereby a parking space is not included with the unit. Some rental units downtown have unbundled parking that costs extra each month but I don’t know of any other for sale loft downtown where this is the case, save for perhaps the Marquette building by The Lawrence Group. Anyway, buyers at McGowan’s Ballpark Lofts were given the option of purchasing a parking space for the tidy sum of $18,000. Parking is expensive to provide and it is good for people to see the real cost by not hiding it in the purchase price.

McGowan said that roughly 20-25% of the buyers decided against a parking space which, to me, is a very big deal. McGowan credits the MetroLink stop a block away for the buyers willingness to forgo parking and presumably a car. They do have a free scooter with each loft so perhaps these buyers are comfortable with transit and the occasional scoot.

While they are still undecided about the other two buildings this latest round of fast sales may push them toward residential and away from commercial office space. McGowan fully acknowledges the impact of the new Busch Stadium on the marketability of his lofts. He also gives credit to two unbuilt projects — the ballpark village and Chouteau’s Lake Greenway.

The area needs something because the most activity is the on and off ramps that intrude into the area. I’d like to see these simplified a bit so some of the land can be recovered for in-fill construction. Hopefully residents of these lofts will be open to walking, biking or scooting up to City Grocers, which will be moving to a bigger space in the Syndicate Building late next year (see Biz Journal story).

But we have a housing bubble right? Well, yes and no. The “Creative Class” have been seeking urban living options for a while now and downtown St. Louis is the only choice for such a lifestyle in the region. As such, downtown continues to see demand whereas tract homes in the hinterlands are stacking up unsold. The fact is nationally families are becoming a smaller and smaller segment. Singles and empty nesters are the norm, especially as the baby boomer generation ages. For many boomers there kids are long out of the house, they are divorced or have lost their spouse. They 4-bedroom ranch in St. Charles County just doesn’t appeal to them. But this doesn’t mean downtown developers can write their own checks. They are learning buyers have a ceiling they are willing to spend, unlike in the ‘burbs where many buyers will become house poor to own as big of place as they can get. No, urban dwellers want to enjoy life and need money for travel and other things often given up to afford the big house in the suburbs and the two (or three) cars in the garage. This is resulting in smaller living spaces — with residents getting out on the streets more often rather than go from the den to the living room to the family room to the sitting room to the media room when they feel restless.

Transit is a big factor, in my view, toward the choice to buy a loft without a parking space. This is also a factor for the conservative bankers to finance a project without a space per unit — McGowan said MetroLink was a key part of showing their bankers they did not need a space for every unit.. Sadly, we have very few places downtown where that remains a reasonable option. The development future of downtown is in the west area between 18th and Jefferson and into Midtown toward Grand. The near north side has great potential with the vacant Pruitt-Igoe and the largely vacant area between Washington Avenue and the emerging Old North St. Louis neighborhood. Getting a permanent transit option to these locations will enable developers to use vacant land not as parking lots for adjacent buildings but for new in-fill construction. We are at the key point in the development around the CBD and without good localized transit (aka streetcar or guided tram).

And of course the bulk of the city is not downtown yet it only gets passing attention. The inner-ring of suburbs in St. Louis County are as urban as much of St. Louis and deserve renewed focus as well to offset losses in population many of them are experiencing. Natural market forces are coming together downtown with the trick being keeping the “leaders” and their outdated zoning and thinking out of the way. The same simply doesn’t work outside the immediate downtown area — the neighborhoods of the city and adjacent inner-ring suburbs need strong leadership to bring good zoning to them. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions it is just not happening. Downtown will continue to strengthen while the rest of the region is going to suffer from our 1960s urban edge growth mentality. Meanwhile, other regions in the U.S. will continue to outpace our region in terms of population and job growth.

Valet Video: Cones & Sign in Bike Lane

The valets were out in full force tonight: Central West End, Midtown, Washington Avenue, Downtown, Lafayette Square. In the CWE they had cones running around the new fountain on Maryland Plaza — some event or new venue in the courtyard space behind Design Within Reach (the new rooftop place?). Cones also blocked off various empty spaces on both sides of the street. Also across the street and to the east were more cones and a sign at Bar Italia. And a few doors east of there cones blocked spaces for Sub Zero on Euclid. I didn’t stop.

I did, however, stop at Dante’s on Olive just west of Compton. Here the valet company was taking numerous spaces but the real offense was the placement of their valet sign and cones within the bike lane. Cyclists, especially those doing so at night have many things to worry about (such as drunk drivers) they don’t need to have an obstacle course placed in their path.

Here is short video (under a minute):

I actually talked to the very courteous and professional valets as well as a patron of the bar that said he was a buddy of the owner. The valets, as I said, were professional. The owner’s buddy couldn’t believe I cared about this issue and was razzing me but in the end we actually had a series of conversations that were very pleasant. He was really funny too, great sense of humor. While I was there I noticed many people arriving, most on foot (presumably not wanting to pay $5 to park when they could just walk a block). The crowd was really diverse in age and appearance which made me think this might be a cool place to hang out some evening.

Just a block east on the south side of Olive ‘The Loft’ also had a sign in the middle of the bike lane. All the usual suspects downtown had cones out although many on Washington Ave no longer had them on the street. Over on Locust Ten14 had cones everywhere around 11:15pm. They had a long line to get in the door, not sure if folks who valet get preference for entrance or if you valet then wait in line. The new place downtown, Dolce, had cones on two blocks of Broadway and adjacent to the new Marquette lofts.

Aldermen are now looking into this issue and hopefully will come up with a workable ordinance in the next month or so.

Valet Parking; An Issue Addressed by Other Cities but Ignored by St. Louis

Valet parking continues to be a problem in the City of St. Louis. Along Washington Avenue, Locust, Lindell (near Compton), Mississippi and on Euclid valet companies are abusing permits issues by the street department. These firms, predominantly Midwest Valet, are pushing the envelop to the point where they are killing the street life in areas where they operate. For example, on Washington Avenue across from Lucas Park Grille they routinely take 4-6 parking spaces which are held until a nice car comes along. This happens despite the permit indicating they use of the spaces is strictly for bringing cars in and out — that cars must be moved to private parking spaces immediately.

The problem we have is the street department is really ill-equiped to address this issue. The city has no valet parking ordinance so streets director Jim Suelmann is basically winging it by issuing these permits. While I appreciate him trying to make due it is really no way to run a city and certainly not a way to deal with an issue that could potentially harm emerging districts. His response to me with respect to violations has been to call the police. I think the police have more important things to spend their time on than trying to keep valet companies from violating weak permits. The Board of Aldermen needs to pass a comprehensive ordinance regarding valet parking.

I did some quick research and found this issue front and center in many cities struggling with overly aggressive valet companies attempting to take over their streets and public parking spaces:

Miami:

From the City of Miami Parking Authority web page:

The City of Miami, in conjunction with the Miami Parking Authority, established a new Valet Ordinance in October, 2004. This ordinance covers the operation of all permanent valet stands within the City of Miami established for restaurants and shopping centers, as well as those created for special events and other one time uses. Operators are now required to submit a formal application that is reviewed by various City Departments, and is administered and reviewed by the Miami Parking Authority.

The actual ordinance (pdf) includes a number of things worthy of consideration for St. Louis. First, they must submit a site plan showing where they will have the drop-off area as well as their desk and key holder. In addition they must show proof of having sufficient off-street parking for all vehicles — on-street parking is prohibited.

They address the issue of “ramping” — the drop-off and pick-up of vehicles:

The public on-street/curbside parking spaces, metered or non-metered, shall only be used for ramping of vehicles. Ramping of vehicles shall consist of allowing the customer to enter or exit a vehicle and to turn it over to or retrieve it from a valet parking operator employee. Ramping shall only be permitted and operated in the public on-street/curbside spaces provided by the department for ramping. There shall be no storage of vehicles in the area used for ramping. A vehicle will be considered stored if it remains in the ramping area for more than ten (10) minutes. Ramping spaces shall not be blocked by any type of sign, structure or other type of object. These spaces shall not be cordoned off by any type of signage, rope or barrier of any kind;

The give the valet company the use of 60 feet (roughly 3 spaces) to perform this operation. This leaves the remaining spaces free for the general public.

Scottsdale, AZ:

The City of Scottsdale recently held an open house to train local valet companies on their new valet ordinance. Their website on valet parking includes a link to the actual ordinance (20 pages) and the application materials (10 pages). Here is how Scottsdale defines the valet parking zone:

The valet parking zone shall be no less than sixty (60) feet in length. The valet parking zone shall be no less than ten (10) feet and no more than twenty (20) feet in width. A valet parking
zone located on Scottsdale Road shall be no less than twelve (12) feet and no more than twenty (20) feet in width. The valet parking zone shall not be located:

(a) Closer than thirty (30) feet to the intersection of any two (2) or more streets;

(b) On any of the roads identified as unavailable on the map specified in section 16-573; or

(c) Within one hundred (100) feet of another valet parking zone which is on the same
side of the street.

Cambridge, MA:

The City of CAmbridge doesn’t waste a lot of words, their short and sweet valet parking page gives you the basics. Here is a bit of their provisions:

E. If there is a parking meter (s) at the valet space (s) the applicant will be responsible for covering the parking meter (s) during the hours of valet operation. The bag used to cover the meter (s) shall be approved by the Director.

F. The cost for valet space shall be $20.00 per year per foot of curb required to operate the service safely between 6 P.M. and midnight on the days required.

G. No charge shall be assessed for the use of this valet service on the public way.

So, a 60 foot space would cost $1,200 per year. Taking 10 spaces, as some of these companies in St. Louis are doing, would cost $4,000 per year. What is interesting is they specifically indicate no fee “shall be assessed” if the valet is operating in the public right of way. This makes sense if you are going to take away public parking spaces you should not be profiting but instead be providing a service.

Palm Desert, CA:

All of these provisions, including the City of Palm Desert, talk about violations and consequences:

Routine inspections and field observations will be conducted by Public Works and/or Code enforcement staff to insure compliance with the regulations set forth to apply to valet parking
permit tees. Violations found will be recorded for reevaluation and possible revocation of the permit.

Others mentioned above go into detail about fines for non-compliance. I like the idea of checking to ensure that permits are being followed. Imagine the building department issuing a building permit but then not performing inspections to ensure it was followed. If the street department is going to issue valet permits they need to be able to inspect for compliance.

Austin, TX:

The City of Austin has a pretty detailed ordinance covering most of the basics, it can be read on pages 123-133 of this PDF document.

Other Cities:

From an article on valet parking from White Plains NY:

In Boston, time limits on how long a vehicle can be parked waiting to be parked are set. Beantown requires records to be maintained for each car parked; permits are issued for one year, and renewable. As of November, 2003, Boston charged $40 per linear foot of curb space used for the permit, and $150 per sign for a five year period.

For example if one parking space was 20 feet long and “Cheers” used 10 spaces for their “holding queue” the fee would be $8,000 a year. Plus the restaurant and business would have to pay the establishment where they were parking the cars if they did not have their own lot or were using a city lot.

Reading Boston’s valet parking permit regulations indicates White Plains has to look at creating valet parking areas where the cars are eventually parked; perhaps consider shared valet parking zones, and insurance issues. Boston does not allow parking at street meters.

When Palo Alto enacted a Valet Parking ordinance in 1999, the fees were similar to Boston’s: $450 permit application, $74 annual permit renewal; $220 short-term permit; $35 per space per week for on-street parking spaces (for the valet parking zone); $150 per valet parking sign fee and a $30 penalty for unauthorized parking in on-street valet parking spaces.

When Santa Monica was drawing up their ordinance in 2001, they recommended $1,750 per valet location, and a space use fee of .50 per hour of valet operation annualized upfront. Santa Monica projected a $50,000 revenue from the 17 operations expected, and that was 5 years ago. They also opted for a uniform rate, so motorists could not congest traffic by “shopping” for the least expensive valet rate.

In Houston, valet parking regs were enacted in 2003. Businesses there must apply for a valet zone permit for $100 a year. Valet companies in that city which operate the valet parking for businesses that offer it must pay $1,000 the first year and $750 each additional year. Houston also requires the valet companies operating the nightly drop-offs and returns to maintain liability coverage of a minimum of $300,000, and perform a criminal background check on their “Kookies.” (Remember Edd Byrnes as the Parkboy on 77 Sunset Strip?)

In the mile-high city of Denver, they have a most specific ordinance which can be read at www.denvergov.org/parking_Management/template311681.asp. The ordinance allows the valet offering establishment two meter spaces (40 feet) for their valet zone included in the excise and license application fees. And Additional meter spaces for more than a 40 foot zone are purchasable for the annual meter time request for one year upfront about $2,500 back in 2001 when the ordinance was enacted. This is in addition to the fees the establishment will have to pay for the private parking area where the cars will eventually be parked.

The issues are many: hours of operation; method of operation; how much of the street is given over; insurance; who parks the cars; where they are parked; the routes the cars take to and from the valet zone; signage; licensing fees; and potential revenue and enforcement penalties for violations.

The City of Denver has a very nice 2-page summary of their ordinance. This helps the public and the operators know what to do and expect without having to read through a lengthy ordinance written in legalese.

Clearly this is an issue that cities all over the country have faced and addressed. I’ve been writing about valet parking abuses in St. Louis since February yet I’ve not seen any new or proposed ordinance coming out of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. I volunteered my time to assist the city streets department in drafting some guidelines for valet parking but I was given the brush off.

Along Washington Avenue the valet parking woes are spread across three wards in a three block area! The 1100 block of Washington where Copia takes nearly 300ft for car parking is located in the 7th Ward (Phyllis Young). The 1200 block where Lucas Park Grille and a club take up a considerable percentage of the block is located in the 5th Ward (April Ford-Griffin) and finally the 1300 block where Lucas Park Grille spills over as well as the bar/club in the 1400 block is located in the 6th Ward (Lewis Reed). Other abuses in the 6th Ward include valets at 1111 Mississippi. On Olive on either side of Compton you get valets doing things such as placing orange cones in the bike lanes. One side of Compton on the south side of Olive is Reed’s 6th Ward while the west side of Compton along Lindell is in the 19th Ward (Mike McMillan). Heading west to the West End things are more clear — Euclid and Maryland is squarely in the 28th Ward (Lyda Krewson).

Our aldermen, in my view, don’t think much beyond their ward boundaries so the idea of them working together on a city-wide solution just might be a bit too much to expect. Other cities, somehow, manage to get beyond ward boundaries and develop solutions for their entire city.

I Was Being Followed Today

So I am on my scooter heading westbound on Market Street and as I cross Tucker in front of City Hall a black sedan with dark windows pulls onto the roadway behind me. All the way to past A.G. Edwards the car doesn’t pass me. Now before you scroll down to tell me I am paranoid let me explain.

I was heading to the ground breaking for the new Saint Louis University Arena and I presumed the car trailing me was none other than that of Mayor Francis Slay. After the ceremony I caught up with Slay’s bodyguard and driver who confirmed they were indeed the car behind me on Market St.

Nothing sinister or reason for paranoia, just a funny coincidence of timing. However, if I would have had a blue light and siren on the scooter I could have pretended I was Lou Hamilton (reference if you don’t get the joke).

A post on the SLU Arena to follow…

– Steve

Surviving I-64 Reconstruction

Yesterday I attended a luncheon organized by the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. Not one of my favorite organizations but the topic and speakers looked interesting so I forked over the $35 fee.

The topic was I-64 Reconstruction: Getting Prepared. Guests were Marc Cutler, a Senior VP with Cambridge Systematics and Rick Dimino, President of Boston’s Artery Business Committee. Both were brought in to help advise our region on how to get us through the reconstruction of I-64. Their experience: The Big Dig.

They are part of a team looking at ways to address traffic during the construction process. This includes looking at traffic along the construction route, north-south crossings over the construction zone, and other arterial roads that will handle much of the normal traffic.

Other topics briefly discussed were ways the public deals with construction. This was basically three shifts in behavior: time shifting, mode shifting or destination shifting.

With time shifting the idea would be adjust work schedules so that not everyone is commuting at the same times of the day. With mode shifting the idea is to get commuters out of the car and into transit or cycling. Destination shifting is something we’ll hopefully minimize as we don’t want people avoiding destinations. However, minimizing trips can be a good thing.

Working to keep bus service going will be a major challenge as 17 bus lines either use the highway or cross the highway. As the speakers pointed out, the last thing you want to do during a major highway reconstruction project is reduce transit service.

I spoke with Rick Dimino following the meeting and he indicated he was surprised that we were not including transit along I-64 as part of the reconstruction. He also acknowledged how at the end of Boston’s Big Dig they are going to be able to weave the city back together after being severed by their 1950’s highway. A goal that will not be accomplished by our project.

I really enjoyed talking with Dimino as I think he really gets urbanity. He said early designs for the original Boston highway avoided the center of town. Had the original designs been followed the highway would have been built elsewhere and they never would have had The Big Dig project.

The consultant team is expected to have detailed findings by May 16th and a technical report in June.

I’m still not convinced we need to rebuild I-64. I like the idea of looking at how our existing streets can be better utilized by traffic and how mass transit can play a bigger role in our future. While I am very supportive of the route chosen for the Cross-County MetroLink that is set to open later this year, I do think setting aside a right-of-way along I-64 from the new line out West would be very wise. Sadly, we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and not give ourselves that option.

– Steve