Locust St. Now Two-Way West of 14th!

What a difference! Today I drove the full length of Locust Street from 14th west to Teresa (just shy of Grand). For the first time since I’ve lived in St. Louis, I was able to drive eastbound on Locust. It was like a totally different street!

Heading westbound from downtown you see new markings on the street when you are approaching 14th Street behind the library. The right lane becomes a right-turn only lane while the left lane is forward or a left turn. Ahead you can see temporary two-way signs that will likely stay around until people have adjusted to the change.

Driving down the street I noticed myself not wanting to drive as fast. With only a single lane in my direction and cars coming the other way in their lane it just didn’t seem like a high-speed escape route anymore. I knew if would feel different but it was more profound than I had anticipated.

… Continue Reading

Grand Bridge Should Follow Columbus Ohio Example

In the last post I casually mentioned the concept of a retail bridge for Grand Boulevard. It took me a while but I finally found the example that I had referred to. In 2004 a developer added retail to both sides of a Columbus Ohio bridge spanning a major interstate that created a pedestrian barrier.

St. Louis is planning to rebuild the existing Grand bridge by adding a landscaped median as well as wider sidewalks and bike lanes. The intent is to make it more pedestrian friendly so that St. Louis University to the north and their medical center campus to the south are better connected. You can dress up a bridge all you like but it is still hundreds of feet of dead space. No amount of median planting will make it pedestrian friendly.

In Columbus a developer was granted the right to basically construct two new bridges over the interstate highway, each on the side of the existing bridge. By doing so pedestrians and drivers alike don’t really reailze they are on a bridge at all — it simply becomes a city street.

The Grand bridge spans railroad tracks, the existing MetroLink line and the eastbound lanes of I-64 (hwy 40 to locals). The actual width of the tracks and highway is quite short. The rest of the bridge just spans industrial land.

Here is my proposal:

Before all the naysayers try to explain why we cannot be urban let me try to address a few points. The area has already been blighted and is going to be redeveloped. Building new buildings up to the existing bridge is feasible, perhaps more so than the plan to add width and medians to the current structure. Also, we can be urban and what better place to create an urban street than at a location with a MetroLink light rail stop and between two major university campuses.

Related Links:
Biz Journal story on Grand bridge project
Cap at Union Station, Columbus OH

– Steve

ULI To Hold Chouteau Lake Competition

The Urban Land Institute along with some local organizations, including St. Lousi University, are sponsoring a competition for part of the proposed Chouteau Lake/Greenway area. With a submission deadline of February 6th it doesn’t give much time. From the Competition Brief:

The development site is an approximately 100-acre parcel encompassing a block on both sides of Grand Boulevard, bounded by Spring Street at the west and Theresa Street at the east; and spanning the proposed Chouteau Greenway, from Forest Park Boulevard at the north to Chouteau Avenue at the south. The northern and southern boundaries abut the north and south campuses of SLU, and your master plan must suggest ways in which your development would connect to the existing campuses and other neighborhood amenities.

In prior posts I’ve commented on the new SLU research buliding currently under construction to the south of this site — basically that it is an anti-urban tower sitting in the center of a green field. I’ve also written that when the Grand Boulevard bridge is rebuilt it should have street-level retail added to each side to “bridge” the gap of the tracks below.

Click here for the ULI Competition website.

[UPDATED 1/30/06 @ 9AM – I found the 2004 project in Columbus Ohio where retail was placed along both sides of a bridge spanning a major urban interstate. It is called the ‘Cap at Union Station.’ Click here to see the developer’s website on the project (includes many photos and a site plan).

From the ULI:

The Cap at Union Station is a $7.8 million retail development that reconnects downtown Columbus, Ohio, with the burgeoning Short North arts and entertainment district. Opened in October 2004, the project effectively heals part of a 40-year scar that was created by the construction of the city’s Interstate 670 (I-670) inner-belt highway. Composed of three separate bridges—one for through-traffic across the highway, and one on either side for the retail structures—the Cap provides 25,496 square feet (2,369 square meters) of leasable space, transforming the void caused by I-670 into a seamless urban streetscape with nine retail shops and restaurants. While other cities like Seattle and Kansas City have erected convention centers over urban highways, the I-670 Cap is one of the first speculative retail projects built over a highway in the United States.

– Steve

Assumptions And Perspectives May Vary

Following my post on Sunday entitled ‘Festivus vs. Rams’ I had a very good face-to-face conversation with a friend of mine that happened to have a different take than I did on the benefit of the dome on downtown. In short, he argued the early 1990s dome and convention center expansion was positive.

Again, he is a friend and I value his opinions. It was a good conversation, one that you can’t get from short blog posts and the subsequent comments. What I got from our conversation was a much different view on things than I have but also a better understanding of how someone might conclude this makes a positive contribution.

His view in favor of the dome went something like this:

Before the dome was built the area was a dump.

Tony’s restaurant was isolated.

The bus station wasn’t attractive.

Much of the area was just surface parking lots.

The dome & expansion cleaned up the area and gave it some physical form beyond random buildings and surface lots.

Without the possibility of football the city never would have done anything with the area.

The last bit is the key to our different perspective. I’ve been arguing what could have been instead of an expanded convention center & football stadium while others, like my friend, are of the belief that if we didn’t build what we have now we never would have done anything with the area. So at the very least the dome is positive in that it was something. Both perspectives are valid, neither is right or wrong.

Yes, had the convention center and dome site been left as-is the downtown area wouldn’t be the same, or as positive. And I’ll even go along with the idea the area could very well be sitting there the same (or worse) today had we not expanded the convention center and built the dome. If that were indeed the case then the loft district and other improvements in downtown would not be where they are today.

But, this is all assuming A) the convention center and dome were the only alternatives for the area and B) that nothing else would have gotten built in the last 15 years.

So bear with me oh great Rams fans. Step back to the mid to late 80’s when Bill Bidwell wanted his own stadium or he’d pull the football Cardinals from St. Louis (as it in fact did). What if we would have built a stadium on the Pruitt-Igoe site then? What if we had put the football Cardinals in Metro East along what was then a future MetroLink route?

Stay with me on this…

With a football stadium added to the region near downtown the current convention center & dome site in the early 90’s would still have been a mess with Tony’s the only ray of hope. But we wouldn’t have spent a few extra hundred million losing a team and then spending eight years trying to get one back. That time lost and effort spent was costly. Not that it would have actually happened but humor me and wonder if the convention/dome area had been remade into a vibrant part of downtown — keep street grid, new shops & retail, new residential buildings, more restaurants to compliment Tony’s.

What’s done is done. We have the dome and convention center already. It is better than the nearly vacant mess that was there because it adds people to the area. But, I still think, in hindsight, the area could have made a much greater contribution to downtown. The purpose of this exercise is not to beat up the people that made the decisions in the 50’s-70’s to raze buildings for parking or to make those that enjoy a Rams game to feel guilty about the area. No, the purpose is to learn what have we done in the past and why. What can we learn from this to help us in future decisions?

I want us to expand our thinking when it comes to new projects.

In many respects I believe we are still in a 1950’s “urban renewal” mode of thinking — that everything must be located downtown; that we must create neat & tidy districts of narrowly defined uses; that everything needs parking; and that a few big events or venues is better than blocks and blocks of smaller activities.

St. Louis, prior to the 50’s, had shopping, entertainment and workplaces spread throughout the city. These were connected both by streetcars and roads for cars. Downtown was the center of activity but it wasn’t where everything had to be.

The fact we placed the symphony hall on Grand rather than downtown in 1968 is a very good thing. But trying to build an arts and entertainment district around it and the Fox is a bad thing. We should have art, entertainment, sports, retail, restaurants, residences, and workplaces everywhere — not just in districts. But I’m getting off track, I’ll have to come back to this another time.

My main thought is when I post about a project not being the best or most urban it is on the assumption that we could have done better. I now know that some of you will have the assumption that as least we did something. Maybe I’m being too optimistic (or naive)? But just maybe some of you are not giving the region enough credit for being able to rebuilt the core into a world class city.

– Steve

“A Good Old Building Is Better Than A Bad New One”

I ran across an interesting commentary on St. Louis:

Except for the arch and the old courthouse, which form some genuinely provocative urban views, downtown St. Louis is a monument to chamber of commerce planning and design. It is a businessman’s dream of redevelopment come true.There are all the faceless, characterless, scaleless symbols of economic regeneration — luxury apartments, hotels, a 50,000 seat stadium and multiple parking garages for 7,400 cars. Sleek, new, prosperous, stolid and dull, well served by superhighways, the buildings are a collection of familiar profit formulas, uninspired in concept, unvarying in scale, unrelated by any standards, principals or subtleties of planning or urban design. They just stand there. They come round, rectangular, singly and in pairs. Pick your standard commercial cliche.

The new St. Louis is a success economically and a failure urbanistically. It has the impersonal gloss of a promotional brochure. A prime example of the modern landscape of urban alienation, it has gained a lot of real estate and lost a historic city.

Wow, pretty harsh words. Tragically they are nearly as true today as the day they were first published — February 4, 1968. Yes, the words above are from nearly forty years ago.

Ada Louise Huxtable, Architecture Critic for the New York Times from 1963 – 1982, had plenty to say about Architecture and planning. I read a compilation of articles called Goodbye History, Hello Hamburger: An Anthology of Architectural Delights and Disasters while I was in architecture school in the late 80’s. Today while boxing up some stuff I ran across the book, long since forgotten. I recall enjoying her writing when I was in college so I look forward to re-reading the book to see how her views have stood up to the test of time and my own personal experiences in the last 15 years.

I’ll leave you with another quote from Huxtable. Remember that in 1968 our symphony hall, Powell Hall, had just opened:

The success of Powell Symphony Hall in St. Louis is probably going to lead a lot of people to a lot of wrong conclusions. In a kind of architectural Gresham’s law, the right thing wrongly interpreted usually has more bad than good results.

The first wrong conclusion is that Powell Hall represents the triumph of traditional over modern architecture. False. The correct conclusion here is that a good old building is better than a bad new one. Powell Hall represents the triumph simply of suitable preservation. And, one might add, of rare good sense.

Ms Huxtable was awarded the first Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism in 1970.

– Steve