Despite Changes, Intersection Next to St. Louis University Still Dangerous

Last month I posted about the intersection of Vandeventer & West Pine where, at the request of Saint Louis University and Grand Center, the pedestrian signals had been turned off and the Vandeventer traffic given a flashing yellow. This left pedestrians coming to/from SLU from the neighborhood or parking lots to the West of Vandeventer were left on their own to find a break in traffic to make their way to the pedestrianized former West Pine on SLU’s campus. To be fair, I don’t think they sought out eliminating the pedestrian signals but that was a consequence of the action to give motorists on Vandeventer the flashing yellow.

Last week the lights were suddenly back to a typical red, yellow, green cycle. Sorta. I’d noticed some odd things with the intersection in the last week and a couple of days ago, right before the Young Democrats meeting a block away, I shot a few video clips to show the problems.

Here is some of what I have observed and that you will see in the rather boring video (5 minutes of watching signals change!):

• Pressing the pedestrian crossing button from the SW corner does not activate the pedestrian signal. The light is green for roughly 5 seconds — not enough time to safely cross the busy street.
• Pedestrians I observed do not seem willing to wait for the signals to change.
• From the NW corner the pedestrian signal button does activate the “walk” signal. This gives all motorists a red light and gives the walk signal across both streets.
• The walk signal is only on for 5 seconds before switching to “don’t walk.” The total time is 15 seconds. The signal for West Pine switches to green while the pedestrian signal is still flashing “don’t walk.”
• Only the crossing along the north side is accessible for users of wheelchairs & mobility scooters. While the SW corner has a curb ramp the crosswalk on the east side at SLU leads to a solid curb rather than a ramp.
• At 3:45 in the video you’ll see a man on the SLU side of Vandeventer press the pedestrian button. He seems impatient and appears to hold the button. I pan to the south to see that part of the intersection and the man crosses during a break in traffic — tired of waiting for the signal to change. It does appear that the button on that corner does activate the pedestrian signal.
• I did not test the button at the SE corner to see if it would activate the signal. Again, from the SW corner it does not work.
• Toward the very end (roughly 5:15) you’ll see how the pedestrian signal crossing West Pine stays on “walk” until the moment when the light changes — potentially catching a pedestrian in the intersection when the motorists are given the green. The pedestrian you see walking southbound on Vandeventer is Tim Schoemehl, son of former Mayor & director of Grand Center, Vince Schoemehl.

Here is the video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8UNBnYBJxQ[/youtube]

Hopefully the city and SLU are planning signal improvements for the intersection, as you can see it is certainly needed.

St. Louis’ Leaders Critical of New Urbanism while Supporting Sprawl Development in Old Urbanist Areas

A little bit more of suburbia is coming to the City of Saint Louis thanks to Ald. Phyllis Young. Rebuffed over the planned demolition of occupied homes on Bohemian Hill to the west of Soulard, she’s been working on a suburban scheme for the east edge of Soulard. And our city’s director of Planning & Urban Design, Rollin “Old Urbanism” Stanley? Well, he’s been too busy bashing the suburban Walgreen’s locations in St. Louis while traveling in other states and writing articles about the wonderful old urbanism he enjoys in Soulard — something not found in New Town at St. Charles. Hey Rollin — you know what else is not at New Town —- crap like this!!!! I say you need to step down off that high horse of yours and take a look in your own backyard. We’ve got suburbia breeding like rabbits all over the city — we need some real leadership from those on the payroll!

Of course this is really out of his hands — Stanley is only let out of his office for the big grandiose plans such as the failed riverfront and gateway mall. He is allowed, while out of state, to disparage the proliferation of suburban development but not in town to those actually making decisions. Clueless Young and spineless Stanley are two reasons why we are getting the development we are.

Case in point. The new auto-centric strip center on the very edge of Soulard.

Above, the under construction strip center is the blue box on the right. Ald Young and planner Stanley both live in the 9xx block of Lami, shown on the map. As you can see, the neighborhood is quite dense relative to the industrial mess created to the east during another failed urban renewal project during the 1960s.

Stanley writes of his house & neighborhood in the October 2007 issue of Planning magazine:

I walk two blocks to a little grocery store, and there are several restaurants and bars nearby. A century-old farmers market is a few blocks further. The Ace Hardware store is a four-minute bike ride away in the industrial area where many residents used to work.

Is this “new” urbanism? Not at all. My neighborhood is the result of 140 years of urban evolution. It represents neighborhoods all over the U.S., North America, and the world.

He goes on to deride the corner store in New Town at St. Charles for not having the history of his building, a former bar now upscale residential.

For those of us who live in “old urbanist” communities, it’s painful to see our tax dollars fleeing to the hinterlands to pay for the roads the state so loves to build — just to serve all those new developments. The same dollars could go to create public transit, which would serve so many more people. Now that would be good urbanist policy.

Nice, very nice. The man can’t get good urban development blocks from his own house but he can take time to bad mouth in a national magazine the more urban development happening in the corn fields!!! Uh, something is wrong with this picture. Shouldn’t those of us in old urbanist areas be setting the bar for urban design?

OK, back to this blight under construction…

Above you can see, in the early stages at right, a former office/warehouse building getting a make over. In the background, across 7th street (most often assumed to be Broadway) at Russell. With the exception of the two gas stations on the West side of 7th at Russell, the area to the West is compact, urban and walkable. But first a bit of history.
A 1960s urban renewal project cleared the Eastern section of Soulard and re-directed Broadway along 7th street. With the exception of a few buildings along the old Broadway, the entire area known as Kosciusko was razed. This new wider 7th street cut off Soulard from the commercial spine of Broadway. But it was a good excuse to raze a big area for industrial uses.

The problem is that now this industrial area where residences and businesses once stood, is itself getting a bit tired. One ugly block building at 7th & Russell sat vacant for some time with a for sale/lease sign. Someone came up with the concept to turn it into a strip center — change a few openings, tart up the facade facing Soulard/7th, at a free-standing Starbucks Drive-Thru and of course toss some parking out front. And in St. Louis logic, because the building was not occupied and not the final desired result — we are calling it “blighted.” Thus, the project qualifies for public subsidy.

Above, looking SE along 7th you can see the old building being prepped for a new facade. In the foreground is the sidewalk removed to create an auto entrance for the new Starbucks Drive-Thru.

See, a Drive-Thru. Not a neighborhood coffee house that happens to have a drive-thru. No, a Drive-Thru that will most likely lack an ADA-compliant access route from the public sidewalk to the accessible entrance of the building. Perhaps the city expects those in wheelchairs to wheel-thru to get their latte?

So like I said, the Soulard side is being given a new stage set.

The standard EIFS system provides the backdrop of the generic backlit signage seen on strip malls from coast to coast. In the foreground is one of the parking lot curbs already in place. None seem to indicate any provisions for accessing the site via foot.

Above, the strip center on the right with soon to be parking out front. The future Starbucks Drive-Thru is in the background on the right. You can also make out the Arch if you look closely. Rather than encourage 7th street, at left, to build up as an urban corridor. The city’s 2005 “Strategic Land Use Plan” appropriately lists this area as “Neighborhood Commerce” which is defined as:

Areas where the development of new and the rehabilitation of existing commercial uses that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods should be encouraged. These areas include traditional commercial streets at relatively major intersections and along significant roadways where commercial uses serve multiple neighborhoods or where the development of new commercial uses serving adjacent neighborhoods is intended. Mixed use buildings with commercial at grade and a mix of uses on upper floors are an ideal type within these areas. These areas may include higher density mixed use residential and commercial and may initially include flexibility in design to allow ground floor uses to change over time e.g., ground floor space that can transition from residential to commercial use as the local demand for retail goods and services strengthens in the area.

Sounds good to me! So what happened? Well, the zoning remains J-Industrial. Translation, the Alderman and developer can do as they please and make changes on a case by case basis. The very last thing they want is anything remotely coming close to requiring, via zoning, the mixed-use neighborhood commercial described above.

But instead we are getting a typical strip center with parking out front on what is clearly a major intersection adjacent to a very pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. These developers would likely put this in the center of Soulard if they could. To their suburban eyes this is a big improvement. To me this is one more reason why we will remain at 350,000 people. Our development standards could not be any lower.

Here are some quotes from the 17-page attachment to BB257 currently before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen:

The proposed land uses, zoning, public facilities and utility plans are appropriate and consistent with local objectives as defined by the General Plan of the City of St. Louis which includes the “Strategic Land Use Plan” (2005). Any specific proposal to the LCRA for development of the Area or any portion of the Area shall contain, among other things, adequate provisions for traffic, vehicular parking, safety from fire, adequate provisions for light and air, sound design and arrangement and improved employment opportunities.

Really? This plan is consistent with the land use plan I quoted above? I think they try to get around the neighborhood commerce issue by stating the area isn’t in a residential area.

4. PRESENT LAND USE AND DENSITY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIESThe properties surrounding the Area are primarily used for commercial and industrial uses.

Residential density for the surrounding neighborhoods is approximately 0 persons per acre.

Zero persons per acre? Did you see the map above? This is one of the oldest areas in the city and one that is naturally more dense than 20th century areas. But as you might expect they found a reason to blight what was an ugly but sound building.

6. FINDING OF BLIGHT

The property within the Area is unoccupied and in poor condition (as defined in Section A(2) above). The existence of deteriorated property constitutes both an economic liability to the City of St. Louis and presents a hazard to the health and well-being of its citizens. These conditions, therefore, qualify the Area as blighted within the meaning of Section 99.300 et seq. of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2000, as amended (the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law).

Wow, who knew that a vacant commercial building was hazardous to our health? Maybe someday I’ll get to vote on the legislation that declares this new project blighted because it is so effing suburban in nature. Of course in 17 pages amended to the bill they talk about all sorts of requirements:

The Area shall be subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations and codes, including but not limited to, the City Building Code, Zoning District Regulations, and stipulations of the Planning and Urban Design Agency (“PDA”) of the City. The population densities, land coverage, and building intensities of redevelopment shall be governed by the Zoning Code. No changes in the building codes or ordinances are required.

All federal laws? Like the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires an ADA-compliant access route from a public sidewalk? Naw, the city will give them the tax abatement anyway because they don’t care about pedestrians. Still, the above seems pretty general. Do they get anymore specific? Yep!

Rehabilitation shall respect the original exterior in terms of design and materials. Window and door shapes and detailing shall be compatible with the original design

New construction shall be compatible in design with the surrounding neighborhood, if any, in terms of scale, materials, set back, profile and site layout.

Respect original exterior? You mean the brutal concrete block original? Gee, the site layout certainly isn’t compatible with Soulard or even the urban storefronts along Broadway in the same block. Damn that boiler plate language. Anything else?

Canvas awnings with signs are permitted, provided they are compatible with the overall design and architectural details of the building upon which they are to be placed and are placed neatly within the window or door opening. Signage on awnings may be located on the sloping portion of the canvas awning, on the front of a canopy or on the awning valance. In no case shall signage be allowed on both an awning and a building for the same business. Logos and graphic elements may be up to ten (10) sq. ft. in size (depending on the size of the awning), while names or brand copy shall be in proportion to the size of the awning, but in no case shall lettering be more than twelve inches (12”) high.

Wow, that is a lot to absorb and it is only a portion of the sign section. What about landscaping?

The property shall be well-landscaped. Perimeter street trees of a minimum caliper of 2-1/2 inches and generally 30-35 feet on center, depending upon tree type, utilities, curb cuts, etc., shall be provided along all public or private streets – preferably in tree lawns along the curb. If necessary, sidewalks shall be notched to accommodate the trees.

Ornamental or shade trees should be provided in the front lawns along with evergreen accent shrubs.

Existing, healthy trees shall be retained, if feasible.

Man, they seem to cover everything. What about fencing?

Fencing in the front yards and facing side street shall be limited to ornamental metal with a black matte finish. Fencing behind the building line and not facing a street may be chain link with a black matter finish, or a good quality, privacy fence provided it is not wood stockade style. Fencing facing a side street may be ornamental metal or a good quality board fence up to six (6) feet in height provided landscaping is provided between the fence and the sidewalk.

Of course all this is required to meet the “Urban Design Objectives;”

The property shall be developed so it is an attractive residential asset to the surrounding neighborhood.

Hmm, I must have missed the part where the get to the items that make this “an attractive residential asset to the surrounding neighborhood.” Ah, here we go — parking regulations:

Parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable zoning and building code requirements of the City, including PDA standards. This will provide adequate vehicular parking for the Area.

Surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line. Surface parking along public streets shall be buffered by a continuous evergreen hedge at least two and one-half (2-1/2) feet high on planting and maintained at three and onehalf (3-1/2) feet high at maturity. Three percent (3%) of the interior of all parking lots containing more than twenty-five (25) spaces shall be landscaped with trees, at least two and one-half (2-1/2) inch caliper in size on planting. The trees shall be planted on islands, the largest dimension of which shall be at least five (5) feet, planted with low lying ground cover or other plant material.

I highlighted one sentence from the above — “surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line.” It would certainly appear to me that all of the parking is beyond the building line — by the very nature of being in front of the building!!! And sorry, an evergreen hedge is a poor buffer in such an urban context. The detailed addendum to the bill even covers discrimination and minority participation:

A Redeveloper shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation or physical handicap in the construction and operation of any project in the Area and shall take such affirmative action as may be appropriate to afford opportunities to everyone in all activities of the project, including enforcement, contracting, operating and purchasing.

So what is missing? The part about the city allegedly being “old urbanism” and provisions so that say the city’s top urban planner can walk a few blocks on a sidewalk to get to this new residential asset!!! Or perhaps, in exchange for granting tax abatement, we require say a bike rack for parking of something besides cars! You’d think, in 17 pages, with all the talk of types of fencing, heights of shrubs and diameter of trees they could squeeze in a few words that mandate a simple sidewalk to get you from the public sidewalk to the front door of each business! Is that so difficult for this city to comprehend? We’ve got people that are living in homes that can see this strip mall out their windows and yet provisions to walk to a business is not even a requirement for 10-year tax abatement? This city is a joke and Rollin Stanley’s words about “old urbanism” fall flat when we see what is permitted under his watch.
Despite the project nearing completion the legislation to grand the tax abatement was just introduced on 9/21/2007 and is still pending before the “Neighborhood Development” committee of the Board of Aldermen. I’m sure they’ll all bring their official rubber stamps.

The Magic Continues at Loughborough Commons

It has been a while since I’ve written about Loughborough Commons, the big box retail center receiving something like $14 million in various tax incentives. They been busy building some more retail square footage and preparing for some new tenants to open soon. This is simply a teaser post to show you a couple of the things I’ve been watching for a while.

Above, a staircase leads you down to the parking lot for the multi-unit strip center from the public sidewalk along Loughborough. So we have an SSC — sunken strip center. Or is the center depressed rather than sunken? Or simply depressing? When this stair was announced in the Holly Hills neighborhood newsletter a while back, prior to construction, they made mention of a bike rack at the bottom of the stairs. And here it is — a bike rack at the bottom of stairs.

A bike rack at the bottom of stairs! Get it? Pretty convenient location if you are capable of biking down a set of stairs. So when you bike into the parking area from the complete opposite side you might decide to ride over here to lock up your bike — if you know it is there. And yes, the bike rack is the same width as the concrete pad so that on the off chance the front side is full and you need to use the back side you must push your bike through the grass and shrubs, assuming the sprinkler system is not on. I’m not sure how they expect you to bike back up the stairs.

Those that bike for transportation might have actually appreciated not having to lift their bike over the curb. Say you’ve got one of those handy kid holders on the back of your bike — suddenly the bike is a lot heavier and the kid is precious cargo. Those biking through the park with a kid trailer are simply out of luck as no place is big enough to park your bike & kid trailer. Well, unless you can pick up both over the curb and through the shrubs you can leave the trailer on the grass portion at the back.

I’m also really fond of the ADA ramp at the bottom of the stairs. That will actually come in quite handy for everyone taking their wheelchair up & down the stair. The red truncated domes serving as a “detectable warning” for those with visual impairments are meant to be felt under foot to alert someone when entering a road — not a parking area. That is communicating to someone the are entering a street situation. Clearly they should have consulted with someone with some actual knowledge about the ADA.
Speaking of ADA ramps.

Down the hillside closer to the Schnuck’s and Lowe’s some new stores are being built. In the foreground is a new sidewalk and ramps that to the right connect to the sidewalk along the edge of the main driveway (I say sidewalk but it is too steep to be considered a sidewalk per ADA). The original drawings for the center didn’t include this is the way to get to the Schnuck’s — they had pedestrians crossing the main drive earlier and then the side drive to where you see the back of the stop sign above. I think this could have been a better solution. OK, so you make your way down the hillside from the pubic street, you cross a drive that is just to the right, you make the 90 degree turn, you note the half buried fire hydrant, and you spot the ramp across the drive — they don’t line up.

This is entirely new construction and the ramps on each side of the main driveway do not align. This is all by the same people being built at the same time — am I being unreasonable expecting that they’d align ramps so the person in the mobility scooter, the child on their bike or the parent pushing a baby stroller can safely cross the main entrance to a busy shopping center? This is not complicated stuff here. Yeah yeah, they are not done yet. I don’t want to hear it —- they’ve poured the concrete so they are done with this portion.

I am waiting for a bit more to get done and I will bring you a more in depth review of the new areas and some changes in the old. It is clear to me they were making an effort to improve upon what they had previously done but from the looks of things they simply didn’t have the right people on the job.

Walk-ins Welcome, Well Not Literally

As part of my monthly ‘appreciate the city day’ I visited a friend out in the older ring suburb of Richmond Heights. I’m working on a highly detailed post about the reconstruction of I-64 (aka highway 40) but in the meantime I wanted to share just one bit of what I saw yesterday. It is these little trips out to the burbs that help me remember that no matter how bad things are in the city they are usually worse in suburban areas.

So walking along Clayton Road between Hanley and Brentwood I spotted the above sign, “Walk Ins Welcome.” I immediately smiled when I saw the sign…

Despite all the cute architectural elements of this building, meant to evoke images of home, is as auto-centric as everything else. Sure, walk ins are welcome but only from the parking lot — they don’t provide a sidewalk to the front door from the public sidewalk. Oh the irony that someone had to walk through the grass to put out the welcome sign.

While I appreciate the care this facility offers I am continually amazed that the simple notion of providing a means for someone to walk to a facility is omitted. Conveniently they placed their phone number on the board so I pulled out my cell phone and called. The nice receptionist was a bit taken aback when I asked how I was supposed to walk in without a sidewalk. She said, “Are you in the parking lot?” “No” I replied, “I’m on the public sidewalk.” “Oh, I see you now.” I left a message for their director but I’ve not heard back.

So they are certainly not going to let those in their care, especially those with memory issues, out for an afternoon walk along a busy street. However, family and friends of those in the facility might live nearby and it would be convenient for someone to walk or bike over.

When planning new facilities we should make sure walk ins truly are welcomed.

‘Road to Freedom’ Tour Stopped in St. Louis

This past Saturday, after visting the Jeff Smith 3 on 3 basketball tournament in Fairground Park, I quickly scooted over to the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park for the panel presentation as part of the Road to Freedom tour — seeking to restore the intent of the original Americans With Disabilities Act.

Interestingly enough, as I was nearly there I spotted the above crosswalk while waiting at the light at De Baliviere Ave and Forest Park Parkway. I’m sorry, when you have to stop painting the crosswalk lines because of a big intruding hunk of concrete with a traffic signal in the middle then you know you have a slight problem.

Looking the other direction we see problems with the newly constructed ramp and sidewalk area as well. I didn’t have my digital level with me but I can visually see the ramp and sidewalk area are too steep to comply. Perhaps Metro claimed, due to the design of the light rail system, it was infeasible to comply? Now imagine if you were in a wheelchair and were trying to cross the walk I just showed you — with the concrete barrier and signal in the middle and these corner ramps. Keep in mind that you’d be crossing with fast-moving traffic on Forest Park Parkway — do you dare maneuver out into the lane to get around the concrete barrier and than again to approach the ramp straight on to avoid tipping over?

As I arrived the bus was out front and to the right you can see a smaller bus from Paraquad delivering folks that don’t drive themselves.

Once at the top of the stairs you get a nice view to the north out of the front of the Museum.

The panel for the afternoon included, from left to right; Moderator Jim Tuscher, Paraquad; Jim Ward, ADA Watch and The Road to Freedom; David Newburger, Newburger and Vossmeyer, LLC and the Starkloff Disability Institute; Kyle Tate, Paraquad; Gina Hillberry, Cohen Hillberry Architects; and Max Starkloff, Starkloff Disability Institute.

The speakers were all very interesting and passionate about “keeping the promise of the ADA.” We heard stories about people having trouble keeping employment after getting MS (although fine but walking with a cane); sueing Metro to make sure the transit system complies with the ADA and so on. Although preaching to the choir, this was meant as a call to action in the disability community so that they in turn seek to get support for the ADA Restoration ACT now before Congress.

From a suggested sample letter:

When President George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, he said that “every man, woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom.”

More than 15 years after passage of the ADA, however, people with disabilities are still being treated unfairly. People with disabilities are in a no-win situation. The courts have allowed employers to say that a person is “too disabled” to perform a job, but “not disabled enough” to be protected by the ADA. The individual is never even given the chance to do the job. This is wrong!

Every American wants a fair chance to use their job skills and support themselves through work. Just like other Americans, people with disabilities can and want to work to their full ability. The ADA was passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – to create a level playing field so everyone who wants a job has a fair chance to find and keep a job they have the skills to do.

Many people who are trying to work despite having an impairment are not being given a fair chance. The ADA Restoration Act would correct this injustice. This legislation restores the basic right of people who have a disability to be judged based on performance – just like women, minorities, and the rest of the American workforce.

The Road To Freedom site has a petition and encourages everyone to contact their members of congress for support.

It is a shame when we have people seeking work but are turned down due to a simple impairment. Sure, the guy in the wheelchair isn’t going to be hired as a window washer. Granted, the person who cannot speak is not going to be a phone representative. We have thousands of people that, if the richest country in the world decides to make it a goal, can lead very independent and productive lives.

Remember, one day it may be you that is disabled and suddenly the freedom of movement you’ve enjoyed is taken away from you. Look around your environment, can you get to the store without a car? Would you be able to navigate to the post office or to the nearest transit to get to work? If you say have a desk job, would you expect to still have a job if you found yourself without the use of your legs?

I urge you to think beyond your current circumstances at what your life would be like if suddenly you were injured in an accident or a disease left you less mobile than today. Think about as you and your family members age and wonder if they will be able to stay in their homes and do the things they had done for decades. We have the ability moving forward to create environments that allow people the independence that is supposed to come with being an American.