Dangerous Situation at Southside Intersection (UPDATED 3X!)

For a few years now the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (aka MSD) has been working on a major sewer project under Bates Street in South St. Louis. They seem to be nearing completion and while the area should have better drainage than before not everything is left better than it was.

Above you can see a metal grate over a sewer inlet, with one being tilted creating a potential trip hazard.

Metal grates, in general, can present potential hazards. Women’s shoes can get caught in the openings, possibly causing them to fall. Someone using a cane can have the tip get caught as well. In wet weather, the smoth metal surface can be slippery. It is considered a good idea to keep metal grates (be they for sewer or even urban tree grates) out of the normal pedestrian path of travel.

From the US Access Board’s Public Rights-of-Way Design Guide:

3.2.4.1 Gratings

Other surface features that affect accessibility include gratings and similar fittings that have horizontal openings or gaps that exceed 1/2 inch (13 mm) in the direction of travel. Such gaps can capture the small front wheel of a wheelchair or the end of a crutch, suddenly stopping forward progress and possibly leading to a tip or fall. Additionally, the frame angles in which access covers and gratings are set often result in significant gaps when installed in a sidewalk.

Metal gratings are of particular concern to pedestrians who use walking aids. When wet, the grids can be extremely slippery, and the elongated openings can become a sliding track for the tip of a crutch or cane. Slip-resistant finishes or nonmetallic materials are available at additional cost for installations where the location or extent of exposed gratings may pose a problem for pedestrians, such as on pedestrian bridges and overpasses. Where possible, gratings and similar sidewalk fittings should be located off the travel path. Note, however, that tree gratings–unless part of the pedestrian circulation route— need not meet surfacing provisions.

Slots in grates, if used, should never be in the direction of travel.

Before someone attempts to tell me nobody walks in this area let me just say it gets a good bit of pedestrian traffic. It is true that three out of the four corners of this intersection have been encroached upon by anti-pedestrian development but this is a dense urban area where people do walk. Take a look at the Google map to see for yourself, if you don’t believe me.

Throughout the city and our suburban areas I could find numerous examples of poorly designed and built area that are likely far more dangerous than this one, but that is not the point. When areas receive millions of dollars of new infrastructure work I expect public agencies to do a better job with respect to the people that will use the facilities once completed. This is poor engineering/construction and is unacceptable in my view.

UPDATE 4/26/2007 @ 8:15am:

After making the above post I contacted MSD via email with a link to this post. This morning I received the following email message from their customer serivice department:

An MSD crew was out yesterday to inspect the grate that is tilted up. The crew found the angle iron holding up one of the grates has broken away causing the grate to tilt. Mr. Steve Welnick has been informed of this. Mr. Welnick is in charge of the Grand/Bates project.

I was also given Mr. Welnick’s cell number and I spoke to him this morning, we had a very good conversation. He is working on getting a crew to weld a new angle iron so the grate will be properly supported. Mr. Welnick also indicated he reviewed the drawings (he has only been on this project since January) and it was indeed built as engineered. I asked that he have a conversation with their engineers about ADA requirements and the use of grates.

UPDATE 4/26/2007 @ 8:45am:

Mr. Welnick called me back indicating the inlet grates were existing — they were shown on their drawings only because they were already there. He is looking to see if that was an earlier MSD project or possibly from the city’s Board of Public Service.

UPDATE 4/26/2007 @ 4:30pm:

OK, now MSD is telling me that Jack is to blame?  You know, the one with the big white ball head.  Apparently the Jack in the Box on the corner was responsible for the grate construction.  MSD is talking with the Dept of Streets as well as Jack in the Box.  In the meantime, I believe MSD got the grate level so the tilt would not contribute to someone falling.

New Orleans Group Fighting Big Box Development like Loughborough Commons

Citizens in New Orleans are fighting to retain that city’s character as generic suburban developers seek to bring “cookie-cutter” projects to their city. By way of example, the website Think New Orleans used an image of just such a project — Loughborough Commons. Yes, St. Louis is providing yet another example of what others are trying to avoid — even in the wake of a major natural disaster.

Click here to see the full post.

I suppose we should be thanking Ald. Matt Villa for helping bring this mostly tree-less “project” to St. Louis. A project that doesn’t connect to numerous adjacent streets and still doesn’t welcome pedestrians. We are now at over seven months since the Schnuck’s grocery store opened and still no federally mandated ADA-compliant accessible route is in place. Seven months! Even a simple accessible route between the Schnuck’s and Lowe’s store is not in place, again a violation of federal civil rights law. Clearly the developers have little regard for the civil rights of those not in cars.

More power to the good folks in New Orleans fighting to keep St. Louis-style big box development out of their urban city.

ADA Ramp Fixed Before Project Completion

In January I brought you images of an ADA ramp under construction that, if completed, would ironically prevent the public sidewalk from being ADA compliant (see prior post). In addition to posting the information here, I bought the issue to the attention of several city officials who were able to intervene in the public’s interest.

Above is the situation from late January, with the wall for the ramp into a building entrance very close to the lamp post and the parking meter just out of view.  This basically blocked the public sidewalk from being ADA compliant.

It wasn’t long before the contractor had the curving brick wall torn down and rebuilt so that it intruded less into the public right of way.  The above is from 3/26/07 showing the area nearly complete.

Another view of the too-close wall and how little space it left for pedestrians on the sidewalk.  Those using mobility scooters or wheelchairs would have had a nearly impossible time getting past this area.

Today the sidewalk works for pedestrians and the ADA ramp works for those entering the renovated building. It is nice to see things work out well in the end. I just hope that the city, designers and contractors will begin to pay more attention to these issues so that work must not be redone midstream.

Loughbrough Commons – No Accessible Entrance After Six Months

Next week marks the six month anniversary of the opening of the Schnuck’s grocery store at the auto-centric Loughborough Commons big box/strip center (see post from opening day). To date, developer DESCO has failed to provide an ADA-compliant accessible entrance from the public street to either of the open businesses. The Americans with Disabilities Act, you may recall, is not building code but is in fact federal civil rights legislation.

Part of the public sidewalk along Loughborough was removed and has remained open and muddy alll winter — forcing pedestrians along Loughborough into the street. Heading into the center is a minimal sidewalk which does not appear to comply with the maximum slope requirements for an accessible route. Now that I have my new digital level, I will be able to verify the slope of the sidewalk and how compliant or not it may be.
Ald. Matt Villa took exception with my comments at the time that Loughborough Commons didn’t welcome pedestrians, stating that it was not finished yet. Well Matt, do you have a timeline from DESCO on when we will see an ADA-compliant accessible route from the public street and from building to building? A year? Two years? Five years?

St. Louis To Use Eminent Domain to Raze Owner-Occupied Homes for Auto-Centric Retail

Ald. Phyllis Young, up for re-election in only two years, is seeking eminent domain to take people’s homes for a second phase of a project that hasn’t even started construction on the first phase. The project, Georgian Square, is to be located across Lafayette Ave from the former city hospital which is being reborn as The Georgian condos. Still, everyone calls it City Hospital. As such, I will call the proposed development City Hospital Square or CHS for short.

By now you’ve probably heard about or read about this proposed development. The phase II area, with existing buildings include three newer homes (roughly from 2000) is in a “Neighborhood Preservation Area” per the city’s 2005 Comprehensive Land-Use Plan:

Areas where the existing housing and corner commercial building stock will be preserved and augmented with new infill residential and corner commercial development physically integrated with, and primarily serving the immediate neighborhood. These areas generally consist of stable residential areas of the City, including but not limited to historic districts, where the character of the neighborhood is currently well preserved with relatively few vacant lots and abandoned buildings. The plan contemplates continued preservation and improvement, with quality rehabilitation and infill new construction that is sensitive to the character of existing residences. Commercial and institutional uses catering to the immediate needs of the neighborhood are acceptable and reflect the traditional role such activity has played in the history of the City.

I’ve re-read the above paragraph numerous times and I still can’t find the part where it talks about forcing people out of their properties and razing viable structures for more suburban schlock. What is being said, through Ald. Young, is it doesn’t matter what we say on paper or where you buy your house, a Walgreen’s takes priority. In a city littered with vacant land it is criminal to contemplate razing both wonderful old properties as well as nearly new homes.

However, the bulk of the land is vacant, as soon as they finish razing the row houses along Lafayette. This land is located in a “Regional Commerce Area” per the Land-Use Plan:

Areas where the development of existing and commercial uses intended to serve a regional clientele should be encouraged. Developments in these areas will often be new projects. These areas generally consist of existing regional commercial uses or large sites at intersections of major roads/highways with regional access and visibility. Several large and currently underutilized sites exist in the City at prominent intersections. These locations provide “ready to go” locations for large format retailers with strong adjacent markets.

This area, without a doubt, needs new construction. The question is, what form will this new construction take? While I agree with others saying the old Foodland site on Jefferson @ Lafayette would be a better choice the fact is both sites need new construction. I’m not going to get into a debate about which should come first. Both need to be redeveloped and both need to be done so in a clearly urban manner — in other words no big parking lots between the entrance and public sidewalk.

Need more parking? Put in under, on top of, next to or behind the main buildings — just not out front. That kinda development just shouldn’t fly in such an urban area. Well, perhaps that is why they want to raze the block of existing buildings — to make less urban. I really think developers have some sick need to control more land than necessary. When defending the use of eminent domain to gain site control advocates will always talk about “some guy in the middle” holding out for more than his property is worth. But in the case of Loughborough Commons and here the houses in question are on the edge. The developers simply assume, no matter how much land they have already, they need that last little bit to make their project work. I sometimes think if they had a 500 acres but another 10 was off in a corner but on a major road they’d want that — saying their proejct simply won’t work without it.

The problem is our developers, elected officials, architects, planners, engineers and related professions haven’t learned how to develop in a tight land market. As more and more city property is being redeveloped it is only going to get harder and harder for developers to make big land deals. They will need to learn to design projects more densely and not assume they can wipe away an adjacent block. The result will actually be better projects — more building(s) on a given parcel of land. This will make the area more walkable and most likely more desired.

Of course our ancient zoning remains a key player in our problems in the city. It is based on a cheap land, cheap gas model where parking is king. It is hard to push a developer to do expensive underground parking (think Target on Hampton) when the developer down the street might do a massive surface parking lot. The solution is we as a city must embrace an urban form that makes the city a city. That means our standards moving forward should set maximums on the amount of surface parking while offering rewards for more urban forms of parking. Such a reward might be allowing the developer to build an additional floor(s) on their project to make up for the additional parking expense. Getting our aldermen to wake up and see the possibilities, however, is the big challenge. Replacing them might well be easier than trying to educate them.

Here is what needs to happen with City Hospital Square:

• The Phase II takings of private property needs to be dropped completely.
• The possible taking of a few vacant pacels in the block between Tucker & 13th should be considered, provided a project is not in the works already for that vacant land.
• The main project needs to be redesigned placing buildings up to Lafayette Ave with the only parking in front being on-street parking.
• These buildings should be 2-4 stories in height along Lafayette.
• Similarly, buildings along 13th Street need to face 13th, not turning their back on the adjacent residential.
• Some form of shared parking needs to be considered — this might be underground, a common parking structure, roof-top, or back lot should be used for the main project. Very small amounts of surface lots may be appropriate to provide accessible spaces near entrances.
• Bike, scooter & motorcyle parking needs to be provided as space saving alternatives to typical parking.
• Sidewalks from Soulard to the East and Lafayette Square to the West need to be evaluated and updated as necessary to make the area as pedestrian friendly as possible.