ULI Announces Winner of Hines Competition

Earlier today the Urban Land Institute completed the 2006 Urban Design Competition with presentations and selection of the grand prize winner. The event was held at Dubough Hall on the main campus of St. Louis University. I reviewed the finalists earlier this month (read review).

The four finalist teams drew numbers to determine the order in which they’d. It was Harvard (#4110), Harvard (#1015), UC-Berkeley and Columbia. Each team was given 25 minutes for presentation with another 20 minutes of questions from the jury. While a team was presenting the other teams that had not yet gone were not permitted in the room. This makes sense so that a later team does not benefit from seeing the types of questions the jury might ask.

Among the audience members were Marjorie Melton of the Board of Public Service and Planning and Urban Design Director Rollin Stanley.

Each team submitted additional boards today with greater detail on their phase one planning & financials. Nothing in the presentations altered my views. I saw the two Harvard proposals as quite strong, the Berkeley as my overall favorite and the Columbia proposal as a sad reincarnation of 1960’s urban renewal thinking.

All of the teams did an excellent and highly professional job of verbally communicating their ideas. Some individuals were stronger than others but that was to be expected.

The jury took a few minutes to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of all four:

Harvard (4110 — Aurora):

Pro: A bold & confident plan that stresses streets can be positive, good clarity of plan.

Con: Lacks good integration between streets and greenway space. Jury not convinced of connection.

Harvard (1015 — Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing):

Pro: Took program literally and viewed greenway as an economic driver to bring people to area. Clever approach by “pinching” at Grand (focusing users on area). Entertainment & retail along Grand a good idea.

Con: Cortex area with green roofs not so compelling in terms of site plan, wanted to see more green in the Cortex area. Boardwalk area in NE quadrant may not work and unsure about viability of high rise along Grand at MetroLink.

Columbia:

Pro: Extremely bold moves with walkway system. Very close to one requirement of competition — leaving the bridge design intact.

Con: Economic development required to pay for the infrastructure may not be possible in this location.

Berkeley:

Pro: Does more to establish a neighborhood with a strong grid, magnet school, integration of green with “fingers” in the development.

Con: MetroLink not as fully engaged as it could be. Boardwalk creates barrier.

The three non-winning finalists teams each get $10,000.

The winning team, Harvard #1015 Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing, won $50,000. While this was not my favorite I think is a very strong proposal. I saw nothing in their concepts that I would argue against. I had argued in January for just such a proposal to create a strong element out of Grand. They did an excellent job of recognizing the TOD (transit oriented development) potential of the site and worked to maximize the existing MetroLink stop. And maximizing transit is exactly what St. Louis needs to do — and quickly.

Congratulations to team members Thomas Hussey, Christina Cambruzzi, Oliver Corlette, Patrick Curran and Tyler Meyr. Congrats as well to faculty advisor Rick Peiser. The additional boards detailing the phase one for each team will be uploaded to the ULI Competition website next week.

– Steve

SLU Claims Ownership of Grand Sidewalk

Today I attended the ULI Competition presentations at Saint Louis University. Being such a nice day (although windy) I decided to take my scooter. Plus, I knew parking would be an issue so why not ease the issue with the compact scooter?

During the lunch break I walked to Nadoz at the Coronado. Finally at nearly 3pm it was time to leave (I’ll tell you the winner in a separate post). What do I find on my scooter? An orange “tow warning” from SLU’s Parking and Card Services which read:

“You have parked on Saint Louis University property and violated the Parking Policies and Procedures Regulation as checked below:”

Within the “other” section they wrote in “parking on sidewalk.”

While inside I had chained my scooter to the sign post at the curb — the only place I could find in the vicinity of Dubourg Hall on Grand. I went inside for hours knowing my scooter was most likely safe from theft as well as not blocking the public sidewalk.

But is it really a “public” sidewalk. I called the phone number on the card, 314-977-2957. The woman on the end said that the sidwalk along Grand is SLU property and they control it. As such, I was not permitted to park my tiny little 49cc scooter on their sidewalk. instead, I am supposed to get a visitor parking permit and parking in a regular parking space in one of their numerous garages or surface lots.

In reviewing SLU’s parking information online a couple of things become clear:

But who exactly has authority over the sidewalk? If I had parked my scooter within the inner campus I’d certainly see where they have control. But the sidewalk along a public street — Grand Blvd?

Is this sidewalk truly public?

– Steve

ULI Competition Finalists Presentation on Friday

A few weeks ago the four finalists in the 2006 ULI Urban Design Competition were selected by the jury. I reviewed these on March 6th (read review). At the time I voiced my approval for the Berkley proposal and my complete shock at how un-urban the Columbia University proposal was.

This Friday all four teams will be in St. Louis to present their projects to the jury. Here is the official announcement:

THE CHALLENGE – PLANNING, DESIGN, AND DEVELOPMENT AT GRAND BOULEVARD ALONG THE CHOUTEAU GREENWAY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

Teams representing Columbia University, Harvard University (two), and the University of California, Berkeley have been selected as the finalists for the fourth annual ULI (Urban Land Institute) Gerald D. Hines Student Urban Design Competition. The finalist teams are charged with the design of a development site in the city of St. Louis. The competition is open to graduate students who are pursuing real estate-related studies at a North American university, including programs in real estate development, city planning, urban design, architecture and landscape architecture. The four finalists were chosen from 81 teams comprised of more than 400 students representing 30 universities in the U.S. and Canada. The competition is designed as an exercise; there is no guarantee that the students’ plans will be implemented as part of any development of the site.

This year’s competition site intersects with part of the proposed Chouteau Greenway, a development project spearheaded by McCormack Baron Salazar in St. Louis on behalf of a coalition of public and private sponsors in the city. It involves creating a greenway from Memorial Park on the Mississippi River westward to the city’s 1,300-acre Forest Park, over a course set to include 195 acres of public space and 2,000 acres of mixed-use redeveloped space adjoining the greenway.

The schedule for the final competition is as follows:

Friday, March 31, 2006

8:30 am to 12:45 pm Team Presentations

12:45 to 2:00pm Break

2:00pm Announcement of Winner

Location:
Pere Marquette Gallery
Dubourg Hall
Saint Louis University
221 North Grand Blvd.

Here’s the link to the website http://udcompetition.uli.org/.

I’ll let you know Friday which team won the competition.

– Steve

ULI Competition Finalists Selected, Posted Online

ULI has announced the finalists in their national competition. Here is a look at each of the four final teams:

Columbia

Jury Summary:
Team 2105’s proposal introduces a skywalk system that connects Saint Louis University’s Frost campus with its health sciences center. The skywalk allows pedestrians to move from one end of the university campus to the other without interfering with vehicular and freight traffic, and draws student activities into the project area, where they can be shared by the academic and medical communities. At the landscape level, environmental strategies create open and green spaces, and site edges blend discreetly into the surrounding community.

I had to check my calendar after seeing this project, making sure it was not 1960. I also had recollections of the tragic I.M. Pei plan to “modernize” my hometown of Oklahoma City — razing old buildings, creating large “super blocks” and putting pedestrians in underground tunnels or in tubes over the sidewalks. In short, everything a city is not.

If pedestrians cannot walk along the street then change the conditions of the street. Safety must be a concern and removing people from the watchful eye of others is just foolish. The SLU campus already creates a situation where outsiders are not welcomed, we don’t need to create more of that. The Columbia project serves best as an example of what we should not do to this area. How it got to be a finalist is beyond me.

Harvard #1015

Jury Summary:
“Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing” leverages the east-west intracity connections made possible by Chouteau Greenway by creating a north-south “academic spine” along Grand Boulevard bridge. An urban northern edge and a biotech-oriented southern edge unites the Saint Louis University campus around a mixed-use node where academics, biotechnology, transit, recreation, commercial, and residential activities can concentrate.

Like so many of the proposals, this concept shortens the length of the Grand viaduct and adds buildings up to the sidewalk. Who was it that suggested this a month ago? Oh yeah, that would be me. It is nice to see others came to the same conclusion I did about the importance of urbanizing Grand.

This team left the Del Taco & Union Council Plaza buildings with a note, “streetscape to be improved.” I don’t think enough patterned sidewalk or landscaping will make this area urban enough. I’ve been known to spin through Del Taco’s drive-thru late at night (ok, early morning) but I think it needs to go.

Harvard #4110

Jury Summary:
“Aurora” creates a biotech research, development, and entrepreneurial center that represents Saint Louis University’s interface with the local biotech industry. It accepts the commercial corridors of Grand Boulevard, Chouteau Avenue, and Forest Park Boulevard, fills the interior of the blocks with appropriate uses, and establishes a symbiotic relationship with the Greenway.

This is a very nice proposal, with Grand getting a shorter bridge and urban makeover. This concept includes an intersection at Papin (the block north of Chouteau), as well as a new intersection, called Campus Drive, just south of the highway. A new bridge at Theresa Street will help connect areas on each side of the valley.

On the negative side their building massing is rather blocky. I would have liked to have seen more street grid between Grand and Spring on both the north & south areas. They also seemed to simply delete on & off ramps from I-64, something I wouldn’t mind so much but in realty not very practical.

But, I love that Grand from Chouteau to Forest Park is faced with a variety of buildings.

UC Berkeley

Jury Summary:
“Weave” proposes an urban prototype for St. Louis that rejects the creation of a specific-use redevelopment district and instead introduces explicit north-south connections throughout the site that weaves it into the communities to its north and south. While the Greenway is the major east-west cross-weave, smaller strips of green space weave through the site, eventually connecting with the Greenway. Reinforcing the vision of a community developed around transit and other urban amenities is a magnet school in close proximity to SLU and the Armory, redeveloped as a performing arts center.

The University of California at Berkeley project impresses me on multiple levels. In addition to making Grand a proper urban street they are seeking to “weave” areas together with four additional north-south bridges over Mill Creek Valley! More street grid is a good thing, especially in this case.

Like other finalists, this team created an intersection south of I-64. Unlike other teams, this one provided on & off ramps at Grand. Between the shorter bridge and Chouteau this team has two intersections.

Their proposal includes a large variety of building sizes, including a number of small scale buildings unseen on other proposals. This is especially important along Grand where they are using a number of smaller buildings to create an intimate walking environment.

I liked part of the text from their presentation on the urban form:

“Create strong north-south connections, explicitly rejecting current redevelopment plans (CORTEX EAST) in order to use bio-tech/university influx as a catalyst for weaving and knitting communities.“

This is one smart team, rejecting the big CORTEX generic redevelopment plan and creating a pedestrian-friendly street grid. For my money this team from Berkeley should get first place.

Seven teams received honorable mentions. A team from Texas included a streetcar line along Grand to connect the theatre district near the Fox to the SLU medical campus — a good idea that can be expanded north and south. I also liked some of the housing they showed on their proposal.

Representatives from each of the four finalists will be in town on the 10th to actually view the site, they will be given a chance to revise their proposals. The winner will be announced on March 31st. I’m rooting for the team from Berkeley.

– Steve

How Wide is Too Wide?

Today I was at the intersection of Washington & Jefferson. Having a few extra minutes in my schedule and the desire to be outside (couldn’t take the scooter this morning) I decided to measure pedestrian crossing across Washington Ave on the east side of the intersection.

Care to take any guesses?

60 feet? Ha!

75 feet? Get real.

100 feet? Close.

A whopping 105 from curb to curb in the center of the intersection. Granted we don’t have many pedestrians in the area at this time. But with loft development in the immediate vicinity this will soon change. Or maybe it won’t? With crossings this wide and no separate pedestrian crossing signals this area may be doomed to being lifeless.

Decades ago the city undertook a massive program of street widening to accommodate the auto. It is time invested in reversing past mistakes.

– Steve