Parting Thoughts from St. Louis Urban Planner Heading to Charlotte

A guest editorial by Brian Horton

Next week, this lifelong St. Louisan moves from the rustbelt to the sunbelt. I have found a great job for my combined interests in transportation and land use planning. The only drawback is that this strong career-building opportunity is not within or closer to my beloved hometown, but 700-plus miles east of here in rapidly growing and increasingly progressive Charlotte, NC.

In Charlotte, developers are already building multiple, mixed-use projects in anticipation of their first light-rail line opening late this year, with additional light rail, bus rapid transit, modern streetcars and commuter rail all planned as an extensive, multi-modal system. Most importantly, Charlotte has adopted a coordinated land use strategy with the goal of targeting forty percent of all new development into their planned transit corridors, supporting growth in the form of more compact, walkable development. Steve would likely love how Charlotte agreed to a new Lowe’s not far from the new South Corridor line nearing completion, only on the condition that the big-box wrap itself with dense housing. Sadly, as most readers of Steve’s blog know, St. Louis doesn’t even have sufficient sidewalks leading to its newly subsidized Lowe’s in Loughborough Commons.

In Charlotte, it’s frankly easier to get things done than in St. Louis. Even though Charlotte is significantly smaller than St. Louis, they’re growing, have money to build, and local government controls key planning decisions, including transit, roads, sidewalks, development review, and land use strategies. As a result, Charlotte has the impetus to shift gears, the resources to fulfill their plans, and little excuse for any disconnect between its land use and transportation decisions.

Of course, today’s Charlotte, having exploded into a major metropolis only in the last twenty years, still resembles a large suburb. But the policies are now in place for change. Likely aided by their growth pressures (perhaps a fear of becoming like nearby Atlanta), Charlotte now supports rather smart growth strategies. Still, Charlotte will be far from another Portland. Their pro-transit Republican mayor, banking-dominated corporate culture, and largely suburban-living electorate all support the bold plan for how it was sold. It’s about choices, and frankly, urban is again chic. If the fastest growing major city east of the Mississippi is to continue attracting people, it will be more marketable to have urban choices within a largely suburban looking place. And with the coordinated transit-land use plan calling for Corridors, Centers, and Wedges, low-density living will still very much persist in the largest designation areas of “wedges.”

Compared to Charlotte, I will immediately miss St. Louis for its unique neighborhoods and architecture, but certainly not its politics. The feel of an older city is something clearly missing in the largely post-1980 sunbelt boomtown. Here, we have the dumb luck of living in a place with a glorious past built largely when cities were still built for people instead of cars.

Sadly, too many locally bred leaders fail to see what an asset we have in the expansive “Old Urbanism” we have inherited. The best parts of St. Louis were largely built prior to the large-scale planning and auto-dominated development in the mid-to late-twentieth century. If Washington Avenue warehouses hadn’t been mothballed during those “dark ages” of planning, I doubt we could have ever quickly returned to such urban critical mass in the near future.

I would argue that leaders like Mayor Slay are more so riding the wave than leading the way. The market has already shifted towards urban living. Even suburbs now get it and are pursuing more urban development. What is so sad then is when the leaders of our urban core still don’t get it and still push for suburban development as the fix-all solution. I’m sorry, but a Winghaven in North St. Louis will be no more sustainable than Pruitt-Igoe. Locals should never forget that even big projects like Laclede Town and St. Louis Centre were briefly successes too initially. However, as Jane Jacobs had the street sense decades ago to observe before urban again became chic, urbanity will always thrive on organic relationships, which are possible in the hodge-podge blocks of city living. The resulting mix of street life found in blocks with a mix of new and old uses creates more sustainable vibrancy, whereas the overly controlled environments found in big projects risk failing as quickly as the next fad.

So ironically, I’ll now work in a largely suburban environment seeking to build the currently fashionable “New Urbanism,” while my hometown continues to ignore the vast amount of “Old Urbanism,” for which we have had the dumb luck to inherit. But you see, Charlotte also has the dumb luck of geography and climate. It’s close to the mountains, a day’s drive from the ocean, and enjoys a mild winter in exchange for summers no more humid than here. Of course, St. Louis will never have mountains or beaches. But what we do have more than any other city, especially for such low cost, is an amazing urban environment. Enough inherited mass is already here that we only need to now carefully ensure that proposed infill remains urban. Despite the context with which we are blessed, our local leaders continue to still mess it up.

Sure, critics may say Charlotte has the luxury to be picky since it’s growing, but it takes a positive-thinking culture to grow. Until we stop settling for mediocrity, we will never grow. Other cities would die to have the inherited urbanity we take for granted, and yet it’s our most under-appreciated asset.

Over the years, I’ve noticed more optimism among transplants than natives. Those moving here from elsewhere, often lucky themselves to stumble on a place not selling itself, outsiders not hung up on what high school they went to, they tend to get it right away. Coming from other areas, outsiders quickly realize what an urban gem and great buy St. Louis is. Thus, I think too many of our region’s leaders are natives, an ironic observation from this native. Thus, our leaders fail to sell St. Louis to others, when they are not entirely sold themselves, taking their inherited place for granted.

Ideally, I hope to someday return to St. Louis and help my home region finally pursue similar strategies. For the moment though, I will move to a place that already gets it. I fear if I stay here, I will grow cynical fighting the good fight, ever pessimistic about a local culture that settles too quickly, or at least questions how great of a place it already is, let alone how much greater it could easily become.
—

From KDHX Radio:

At 7 p.m., Monday, July 16, Collateral Damage will feature Brian Horton, an urban planner at East-West Gateway Council of Governments, along with Steve Patterson of www.urbanreviewstl.com. Horton, who worked on plans for the next MetroLink extension, is about to move to Charlotte, North Carolina. Patterson, an avid watchdog on local urban issues, will discuss with Horton how St. Louis and Charlotte take different approaches on mass transit, transportation and urban development. The two will join co-hosts D.J. Wilson and Fred Hessel with end-of the-show commentary by Barroom Bob Putnam.

We are losing a great thinker in Brian Horton, his contributions will be missed — Steve. Share your thoughts below and tune-in Monday evening at 88.1.

The Dictatorship of the Wealthy

A guest editorial by Greg Michaud

A law that gives Paul McKee access to 100 million in tax credits for North St. Louis shows clearly the Dictatorship of the Wealthy is alive in Missouri and in America. No matter what happens in North St. Louis there are serious implications in writing a law that benefit one man and his companies.

The tax credit is unethical and represents a pattern of continual transferring of government resources to benefit a small select group. This pattern occurs on the local level all the way to the nations’ capital.

There are three main aspects of this tax credit law which has turned the political process into a playground for the wealthy. The first problem is the law is clearly written for Paul McKee, he owns some 500 properties in the area, no one else could qualify. The state legislators do not explore alternatives; they simply pass, almost mindlessly, the law for their patron. Donations figure into the passage of this law to the extent we should stopping clowning around and call donations what they are, bribes.

Beyond that serious breach of public trust is the complete exclusion of the citizens in the political process. Apparently neither Mayor Slay nor the aldermanic representatives know of any plans. The State of Missouri passes a 100 million dollar tax credit without assessment of the needs of the area in question is poor leadership, management and shows a lack of legislative skill and judgment. (I wonder if they would give a citizens group asking for passage of a 100 million dollar tax credit the time of day)

The final problem is the lack of a new city plan to accommodate any redevelopment. Citizens without a plan are not represented. If there was a plan, citizens in general would have been less concerned about McKee buying up property, as anything he did with the property would have to fit into an urban framework already agreed to by city government and the people. Unfortunately the city government has a reputation of just the opposite, rather than protecting the interests of the citizens, the wishes of developers are put first, hence the alarm at McKee’s purchases.

For the Dictatorship of the Wealthy topics such as the welfare of the people are meaningless. McKee has a trail of donations/bribes solidifying his interests. There are many variations this 100 million tax credit could have taken to help rebuild north St. Louis. A small scale tax credit is just as likely to be successful. And just why is 100 acres needed before redevelopment occurs? The questions, the options, and the possibilities are endless. Yet the way the state has handled this law it appears granting McKee 1 million dollars an acre to insure his profitability is the only viable option

The city of St. Louis, like most cities was built by many individuals and developers. The delight of a city like St. Louis is the visual variety and beauty. With someone controlling 100 hundred acres the visual monotony would become deadening, if not grim. In any case Soulard, the Loop, Lafayette Square, the West End and other neighborhoods revived without the input of a mega developer.

And is he going to bring his suburban outlook to the City? Will it be cul de sacs and a major strip mall every so often? He controls the real estate; it means his chain store friends will also be in line with their hands out. The little guy will be locked out in a suburban format.

America is at war, possible energy shortages loom in the future, global warming is real beyond a doubt, and fully 40% of the energy America uses comes from the built environment and another 28% from transport. There should be serious debate about what type of city to build now and in the future. It is past time to rethink how St. Louis is doing business. It is astounding there is a lack of political or corporate leadership (and courage) in this area; the conditions are so obviously headed for a potential crisis. Yet like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned, these modern day Nero’s don’t want to upset their status quo money making machine.

Reimagining the built environment is essential. Any rebuilding of the city must include all transit, which means a city designed for bicycles, walking, streetcars, trains and mopeds as well as cars. Any rebuilding should consider densities, including energy saving row housing. Any rebuilding should look at dispersing stores into neighborhoods and public space and parks should be included and connected to a city wide system of public spaces (also connected by transit).

In his blog Mayor Slay said he doesn’t know McKee’s intentions are exactly the problem. Mayor Slay and the Board of Alderman as the representatives of the people should be telling McKee what the plans are for St. Louis, not the other way around.

Without taking hold of Urban Planning within the city limits, without a plan that integrates transit, public space, housing densities and commercial areas, city officials and the mayor are derelict in their duty. The citizens are left out of the process.

Mayor Slay attempts to reconcile McKee with the citizens in his blog by saying he will need a “battery of commission and legislative approvals, and a forest of hearings and meetings will be necessary” and he also says “should there ever be a redevelopment plan for the area current stakeholders must be included in the process.” It sounds good, except citizens have been systemically excluded in the recent past; so it is difficult to trust his words now.

However flawed the planning issues are concerning this project, the Dictatorship of the Wealthy is no more than an inside deal for insiders in the political process. It is a deal signed off by state legislators without investigation and without due diligence.

The Post-Dispatch has shown independence from the pervasive power structure, but cannot ignore this insider trading. Until it is stopped, the notion of a tax credit for one man graphically illustrates the nature and condition of a dictatorship. It is “an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law or other social and political factors within the state.” McKee operates beyond the realm of democratic principles.

In summary Governor Blunt should veto the measure. Upon the veto the House and Senate should enact new legislation in cooperation of the people, leveraged for the benefit of society, not to protect the profit margins of McKee and his entourage.

Failure to enact new legislation will demonstrate the corruption of government and its dictatorship towards the public. As stated in the Declaration of Independence “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

The Dictatorship of the Wealthy subverts democracy and severely limits debate. It directs government funds into the pockets of a few. In the end it is destroying America with decision making colored with attempts to fulfill the lust of the wealthy. It is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

– Greg Michaud has lived in various parts of the world and is currently raising his daughter in South St. Louis.

Spring in Summertime

A guest editorial by Jim Zavist, AIA

This is a post about urban artifacts, connections made, broken and the potential to reconnect, and about the curiosity of a relative newcomer . . . As an older city, St. Louis has more than its fair share of urban artifacts, things in the built environment that no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally constructed. The downtown loft district contains many examples, the caves under some of the old and extinct breweries are another example, and the Spring Avenue viaduct will be the focus of this post. The what, you may ask? It’s the remaining portion of a multilane viaduct over the rail yards a couple of blocks east of Grand Boulevard, south of Forest Park Parkway and SLU‘s main campus.

Apparently, at one time (from the early 1900‘s through the 1950‘s), Spring Avenue had been “improved”, widened and streamlined to provide a bypass around the congestion at Grand and Lindell. By the 1950’s and ‘60’s, other priorities became more important, namely double-decking Highway 40 to create the I-64 freeway that we have today. Something had to give, and a 2-3 block section of the viaduct was removed a block south of Forest Park Parkway and either end blocked off. For some reason, more than half (the southern half) was left in place, over the railroad. And in a token gesture to urbanity, one of those wonderful Highway Department pedestrian bridges was added over/under the freeway, that, surprisingly, remains open today. SLU also took advantage of the viaduct closure to also close Spring Avenue on their campus (where the clock tower stands today).

A few months back, Steve was pushing the idea of making the Grand Boulevard viaduct more pedestrian friendly. While I agreed that the Grand viaduct is a terrible place to be a pedestrian, I couldn’t see the financial viability of the concepts being proposed. However, in poking around this area, to try and “understand” the Spring Avenue viaduct, I see much more potential for a similar concept a block west of Grand. [See ‘Grand Bridge Should Follow Columbus Ohio Example‘ from January 2006 – SLP]

This map helps give some context.

I’m not the graphics whiz that Steve is when it comes to online mapping, but this is the basic concept: The line north on either side of Forest Park Parkway, between SLU and I-64 is my “Northern Segment”.

The line just south of I-64 is my “Middle Segment”.

Off the right is my “Metro Connector”.

The next segment (with no line) is the actual remaining viaduct.

And the final line is my “Southern Segment”, on either side of Chouteau Avenue.

To repeat some of the previous assumptions: SLU’s two campuses are separated by some inhospitable terrain. Both campuses are growing, and students are receptive to the pedestrian environments currently in place. The Aquinas Center recently relocated into new quarters on the NW corner of Spring & Forest Park Parkway. There’s a new redevelopment on the SE corner of Spring and Chouteau. The Grand Metrolink station isn’t very friendly or accessible to either campus. And, we have unused urban artifacts.

Which brings me to (I think) a relatively simple concept — let’s just fill in the gaps and create a pedestrian- (and bike- and skateboard-) friendly connection between both campuses and the Metrolink station. Taking it a block by block, starting at the north . . .

Laclede to Forest Park Parkway – just wider sidewalks

Forest Park Parkway to I-64 – remove the trailers, make a connection to the existing pedestrian bridge.

I-64 to Scott Avenue (Metrolink, north end of existing viaduct) — this is actually one of the two toughest stretches — in an ideal world, it could be great to return to an elevated connection, connecting the pedestrian bridge on the north and the viaduct on the south. The two big downsides are a) the cost, and b) what it would do to any potential street-level activity (at the old armory to the east and/or the old Macy’s warehouse to the west)

Scott Avenue to Gratiot Street – clean up, fix up and put the old viaduct back into useful service! Besides a great pedestrian and bike connection, it could become a skateboard park, farmers’ market, year-round tacky midway (like an oceanside boardwalk), homeless encampment or a SLU-sponsored sculpture garden – it’s essentially a blank canvas.

Gratiot to Chouteau – lose a traffic lane or two, widen the sidewalks, and replace the truck dealer and other industrial uses with more pedestrian-friendly uses.

Chouteau to Rutger Street – just better sidewalks and more of a focus to and from the SLU Hospital campus – someone’s obviously doing a major project already on the southeast corner of Spring & Chouteau.

East from Spring, between Scott and the Metrolink tracks — a block long, gradual ramp down to grade, to access the existing Grand Metrolink Station platform (the other “tough” segment).

This is one of the truly fun things about the Urban Review STL website — the ability to ask questions and to dream big dreams. At this point I have a lot of both – I’d like to hear what the rest of you think can and should be done to flesh out this vision . . . Or to tell me why it simply can’t work here . . .

Local architect Jim Zavist was born in upstate New York, raised in Louisville KY, spent 30 years in Denver Colorado and relocated to St. Louis in 2005.

SLP – I just had to add some additional thoughts. First, I want to thank Jim for his contribution — much appreciated!  On the Grand viaduct/bridge, it should be noted the city is planning a major renovation of the bridge to make it more pedestrian friendly — by widening the bridge and placing planters in the center.  My suggestion was to construct buildings on the ground on either side of the bridge and plan them so a main floor is aligned with the public sidewalk – quite feasible in my view.  Having said that, I am interested in Jim’s concept for Spring in addition to efforts on Grand.  OK folks, what do you think?

Media Literacy Week, Tonight’s Blogging Panel to be Streamed Live

As part of Media Literacy Education Week here in the St. Louis region, I will be participating in a blogging panel discussing the topic, “Why blog?”

Here is the official announcement:

“Why blog?” Info and advice from top St. Louis-area bloggers and web experts.  If you’ve ever wondered what this whole blogging thing is, now is your chance to ask the experts.  Or, if you’ve already got a blog online, learn from the professionals how to make connections on the web and increase the traffic to your site.  How can you earn an income from blogging?   What is the future of this type of interactive media?

• Moderator: Kammie Kobyleski – Lindenwood Univ. Asst.Professor (www.passionmeetspurpose.com)
• Jill Hampton – Web Producer, KTVI (myFOXstl.com)
• Dana Loesch – (www.mamalogues.com) – Mamalogues in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Benjamin Vierck – (www.stlbloggers.com) and (www.bloghorn.com)
• Steve Patterson of (www.urbanreviewstl.com)

Spellmann Center Leadership Room (4th floor), Lindenwood University, 209 South Kingshighway, St. Charles, MO 63301

Yes, it is way out in St. Charles — I’m carpooling with Dana Loesch to the event.  For those that don’t want to attend in person, you can watch via live streaming on your computer!  In fact, you can even email in questions to the panel during the event!

Click here for the streaming page (and email link for questions).   For more information on the Media Literacy Education Week visit the Gateway Media Literacy Partners.

Who Represents Us?

A Guest Editorial by Jim Zavist, AIA

With the recent changes at the School Board, I wanted to raise the following fundamental question – who do (or should) our politicians represent? Do they represent the people who nominated or appointed them, the people who funded their campaign, the people who voted for them and/or everyone in their district, ward, area or city? It seems like a simple question, but many times actions speak louder than words. And, having done time as both an appointed and an elected politician, I can vouch that it’s not an easy answer.

The “old”, elected School Board had one or more members with close ties to the teacher’s union. The old Board also had an appointed member who obviously split ways from the mayor (who appointed her). The “new”, appointed Board is being portrayed, negatively, as somehow more removed from the issues facing our schools. Is it better or worse? I don’t know, yet.

My own experience is that my actions and reactions changed as my constituency broadened and the role of the various organizations changed. In Denver, in the late ’80’s, I became active in a neighborhood organization, rising quickly to president. One issue facing us was a new light rail line. My personal, libertarian bent was that it would be highly subsidized and shouldn’t be built. The voters disagreed and it was built.

In the late ’90’s, a vacancy occurred on the transit district’s elected board. Denver’s mayor appointed me to fill the balance of the term. I changed my focus from a very-local, neighborhood perspective to a regional perspective. I made the commitment that my role was to make the system the best it could be and not to try and “destroy it from within” as some previous board members had attempted. I also tried to be responsive to constituent comments and concerns, especially individually-generated ones, and not so responsive to petitions and multiple, identical post cards and emails.

Which gets me back to both the St. Louis School Board and the Board of Aldermen. Who do they actually represent? Who “has their ear” and exerts the greatest influence in their decisions? Is it the Democratic “machine” and the ward committee people? The various unions and their political-action committees? The Mayor, Governor and President of the Board of Aldermen? Those parts of town that voted heavily for them (and not those parts that didn’t)? The major corporations and donors that funded their campaign? Every citizen who personally contacts them? Only those citizens that actually reside in “their” ward or live in the city? The politician’s own vision, education and close circle of friends?

I know, I know, everyone is different. That’s the beauty of “representative” government. But when the representative sample becomes too small and/or too closed, more and more people become disenfranchised and excluded from what should be a very public and inclusive process. And, yes, we can always get worked up and “throw the rascals out”, but that rarely happens, and even when it does, you still need to overcome institutional inertia. So two final questions – do the systems (and the people) we have now, work (well enough)? And if not, what should change and how should we get that change started?

Local architect Jim Zavist was born in upstate New York, raised in Louisville KY, spent 30 years in Denver Colorado and relocated to St. Louis in 2005.