TGE Police Substation Still Not Open

In April of this year I linked to a KSDK news story about a new police substation in the Tower Grove East neighborhood that was to open soon. The part I talked about was the $14K in Vespa scooters for officers to help them maneuver around the neighborhood, getting places quickly and quietly. From the KSDK report:

Alderman Reed hopes the substation and the scooters will be a crime deterrent in an area that’s known past problems, “It will send a signal to the bad guys that we’re open for business. We’re open to stopping all the bad activity.”

The alderman worked hard to make this happen and purchased the scooters with Ward 6 funds. They cost about $14,000. The bikes can travel more than 100 miles per hour and maneuver between buildings.

Five months later the substation is still not open, it seems the lease details have not yet been worked out with the building owner. Residents, once excited about the substation, are now frustrated at the bureaucracy for taking so long and pointing fingers at other departments. What kind of signal does this send to home owners in the area?

The scooters exist. Well, at least one does. I saw it on the morning after the arson fires in Lafayette Square, also in the 6th ward. Alderman Lewis Reed is considering a run for President of the Board of Alderman in March. Regardless, the 6th Ward seat is up for election at the same time.

Prohibition is Alive, But Not So Well, in the 20th Ward

I’ve known Ald. Craig Schmid (D-20th Ward) about as long as I’ve known any other alderman, a good 8-10 years. He is very hard working and genuinely concerned about his ward. The problem is he continues to act as though it is 1995 — the year he was first elected to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. At that time every corner had a bar, and not the charming “Cheers” sort of place. No, these bars were the collection place for sorts of bad behavior.

To rid his ward of such places Schmid began a moral crusade to close down the ones that could be closed and to prevent the opening of new ones. This has generally served the ward well but in the last few years it has come under fire from those seeking to turn once fashionable shopping areas like Cherokee Street into a new hip area not unlike “The Loop” along Delmar both in the city (28th ward) and in University City. Much has been written about this controversy and the latest, before this, was Antonio French over at PubDef.

Schmid stubbornly sticks to his no bar ban, with an exception for an establishment with 50% of sales in food. I’m no restauranteur but I have read a few things. Namely, the failure rate among restaurants is high. The trick is figuring out the right mix to make the place succeed. The 50% of sales from food rule seems rather arbitrary in my mind. I can see a corner tavern that sells food & beer with say 52% coming from food sales being a bigger nuisance than a place that perhaps does only 48% of its sales via food. In legislation you must draw the line somewhere. But what is so magical about 50%? Is this based on some great research that shows a distinction at this point or was it just pulled out of thin air?

Steve Smith, owner of The Royale on Kingshighway, wants to open a new place on Cherokee. Given the debate it would seem he is admitting that less than 50% of his total sales would come from food. Looking at his menu I see a burger costs $8. Have a couple of beers with that and you are probably at 50/50. I’d probably order the $14 Ahi Tuna and water so that would offset a few drinkers. Still, others will come in and order an appetizer and have a few drinks over the course of a few hours. I’d be curious what percentage of his sales are from alcohol. Frankly, I don’t really care it is is only 10% or if it is 80% — he does a damn nice job! So do many of our other local restauranteurs. The Royale is exactly what we need on Cherokee along with a City Diner, a Mangia, and a few others.

Of course, the many Mexican restaurants and stores are wonderful and they should stay and thrive as well (I simply need to learn a bit of Spanish so that I can order something vegetarian). For Schmid I don’t think he is concerned about gentrification — making the area so trendy current residents are forced out. As long as he continues having this ban on bars, we may never have to worry about gentrification and rising real estate values.

Cherokee Street in the 4-6 blocks west of Jefferson probably has the highest potential of any of our underperforming old commercial districts. The scale is excellent and only a few buildings have been lost. The current ethnic diversity is great. What this street is lacking is vision. I don’t know that Schmid has any vision for this street or others. If he does have a vision, it most likely doesn’t include any bars — dirty old taverns or hip places such as The Royal. This is really a shame. Schmid’s prohibition on bars is really a prohibition on revitalizing the area.

My vision for the street is an eclectic mix of shops and patrons. While the Loop is very college crown and Euclid is very upper crust, I’d like to see Cherokee be the green crowd, the young and old hippies: the Haight-Ashbury of St. Louis. Well, not today’s generic chain store Haight-Ashbury but the bohemian version of not that long ago. I don’t really want to see a Gap store on Cherokee. I can see Cherokee having various artists selling their painting on the street and in small storefront galleries. I visualize people doing street performances on the corners. The trick is not to make it such a destination that you make it a tourist trap that attracts a Gap store. Future problems should be lack of parking. Solutions should be planned now — a rubber tire shuttle bus to eventually be replaced by a modern streetcar. Run along Cherokee and connect with South Grand on one end and take Jefferson & Gravois to connect with downtown (and MetroLink) on the other end.

As much as I like Schmid, I think his 12 years have been well served as a ‘get rid of the problems’ type of aldermen but now I we need an ‘I’ve got revitalization solutions’ type of alderman. If Schmid can transform himself then great. But, I don’t see that happening.

Valet Parking; An Issue Addressed by Other Cities but Ignored by St. Louis

Valet parking continues to be a problem in the City of St. Louis. Along Washington Avenue, Locust, Lindell (near Compton), Mississippi and on Euclid valet companies are abusing permits issues by the street department. These firms, predominantly Midwest Valet, are pushing the envelop to the point where they are killing the street life in areas where they operate. For example, on Washington Avenue across from Lucas Park Grille they routinely take 4-6 parking spaces which are held until a nice car comes along. This happens despite the permit indicating they use of the spaces is strictly for bringing cars in and out — that cars must be moved to private parking spaces immediately.

The problem we have is the street department is really ill-equiped to address this issue. The city has no valet parking ordinance so streets director Jim Suelmann is basically winging it by issuing these permits. While I appreciate him trying to make due it is really no way to run a city and certainly not a way to deal with an issue that could potentially harm emerging districts. His response to me with respect to violations has been to call the police. I think the police have more important things to spend their time on than trying to keep valet companies from violating weak permits. The Board of Aldermen needs to pass a comprehensive ordinance regarding valet parking.

I did some quick research and found this issue front and center in many cities struggling with overly aggressive valet companies attempting to take over their streets and public parking spaces:

Miami:

From the City of Miami Parking Authority web page:

The City of Miami, in conjunction with the Miami Parking Authority, established a new Valet Ordinance in October, 2004. This ordinance covers the operation of all permanent valet stands within the City of Miami established for restaurants and shopping centers, as well as those created for special events and other one time uses. Operators are now required to submit a formal application that is reviewed by various City Departments, and is administered and reviewed by the Miami Parking Authority.

The actual ordinance (pdf) includes a number of things worthy of consideration for St. Louis. First, they must submit a site plan showing where they will have the drop-off area as well as their desk and key holder. In addition they must show proof of having sufficient off-street parking for all vehicles — on-street parking is prohibited.

They address the issue of “ramping” — the drop-off and pick-up of vehicles:

The public on-street/curbside parking spaces, metered or non-metered, shall only be used for ramping of vehicles. Ramping of vehicles shall consist of allowing the customer to enter or exit a vehicle and to turn it over to or retrieve it from a valet parking operator employee. Ramping shall only be permitted and operated in the public on-street/curbside spaces provided by the department for ramping. There shall be no storage of vehicles in the area used for ramping. A vehicle will be considered stored if it remains in the ramping area for more than ten (10) minutes. Ramping spaces shall not be blocked by any type of sign, structure or other type of object. These spaces shall not be cordoned off by any type of signage, rope or barrier of any kind;

The give the valet company the use of 60 feet (roughly 3 spaces) to perform this operation. This leaves the remaining spaces free for the general public.

Scottsdale, AZ:

The City of Scottsdale recently held an open house to train local valet companies on their new valet ordinance. Their website on valet parking includes a link to the actual ordinance (20 pages) and the application materials (10 pages). Here is how Scottsdale defines the valet parking zone:

The valet parking zone shall be no less than sixty (60) feet in length. The valet parking zone shall be no less than ten (10) feet and no more than twenty (20) feet in width. A valet parking
zone located on Scottsdale Road shall be no less than twelve (12) feet and no more than twenty (20) feet in width. The valet parking zone shall not be located:

(a) Closer than thirty (30) feet to the intersection of any two (2) or more streets;

(b) On any of the roads identified as unavailable on the map specified in section 16-573; or

(c) Within one hundred (100) feet of another valet parking zone which is on the same
side of the street.

Cambridge, MA:

The City of CAmbridge doesn’t waste a lot of words, their short and sweet valet parking page gives you the basics. Here is a bit of their provisions:

E. If there is a parking meter (s) at the valet space (s) the applicant will be responsible for covering the parking meter (s) during the hours of valet operation. The bag used to cover the meter (s) shall be approved by the Director.

F. The cost for valet space shall be $20.00 per year per foot of curb required to operate the service safely between 6 P.M. and midnight on the days required.

G. No charge shall be assessed for the use of this valet service on the public way.

So, a 60 foot space would cost $1,200 per year. Taking 10 spaces, as some of these companies in St. Louis are doing, would cost $4,000 per year. What is interesting is they specifically indicate no fee “shall be assessed” if the valet is operating in the public right of way. This makes sense if you are going to take away public parking spaces you should not be profiting but instead be providing a service.

Palm Desert, CA:

All of these provisions, including the City of Palm Desert, talk about violations and consequences:

Routine inspections and field observations will be conducted by Public Works and/or Code enforcement staff to insure compliance with the regulations set forth to apply to valet parking
permit tees. Violations found will be recorded for reevaluation and possible revocation of the permit.

Others mentioned above go into detail about fines for non-compliance. I like the idea of checking to ensure that permits are being followed. Imagine the building department issuing a building permit but then not performing inspections to ensure it was followed. If the street department is going to issue valet permits they need to be able to inspect for compliance.

Austin, TX:

The City of Austin has a pretty detailed ordinance covering most of the basics, it can be read on pages 123-133 of this PDF document.

Other Cities:

From an article on valet parking from White Plains NY:

In Boston, time limits on how long a vehicle can be parked waiting to be parked are set. Beantown requires records to be maintained for each car parked; permits are issued for one year, and renewable. As of November, 2003, Boston charged $40 per linear foot of curb space used for the permit, and $150 per sign for a five year period.

For example if one parking space was 20 feet long and “Cheers” used 10 spaces for their “holding queue” the fee would be $8,000 a year. Plus the restaurant and business would have to pay the establishment where they were parking the cars if they did not have their own lot or were using a city lot.

Reading Boston’s valet parking permit regulations indicates White Plains has to look at creating valet parking areas where the cars are eventually parked; perhaps consider shared valet parking zones, and insurance issues. Boston does not allow parking at street meters.

When Palo Alto enacted a Valet Parking ordinance in 1999, the fees were similar to Boston’s: $450 permit application, $74 annual permit renewal; $220 short-term permit; $35 per space per week for on-street parking spaces (for the valet parking zone); $150 per valet parking sign fee and a $30 penalty for unauthorized parking in on-street valet parking spaces.

When Santa Monica was drawing up their ordinance in 2001, they recommended $1,750 per valet location, and a space use fee of .50 per hour of valet operation annualized upfront. Santa Monica projected a $50,000 revenue from the 17 operations expected, and that was 5 years ago. They also opted for a uniform rate, so motorists could not congest traffic by “shopping” for the least expensive valet rate.

In Houston, valet parking regs were enacted in 2003. Businesses there must apply for a valet zone permit for $100 a year. Valet companies in that city which operate the valet parking for businesses that offer it must pay $1,000 the first year and $750 each additional year. Houston also requires the valet companies operating the nightly drop-offs and returns to maintain liability coverage of a minimum of $300,000, and perform a criminal background check on their “Kookies.” (Remember Edd Byrnes as the Parkboy on 77 Sunset Strip?)

In the mile-high city of Denver, they have a most specific ordinance which can be read at www.denvergov.org/parking_Management/template311681.asp. The ordinance allows the valet offering establishment two meter spaces (40 feet) for their valet zone included in the excise and license application fees. And Additional meter spaces for more than a 40 foot zone are purchasable for the annual meter time request for one year upfront about $2,500 back in 2001 when the ordinance was enacted. This is in addition to the fees the establishment will have to pay for the private parking area where the cars will eventually be parked.

The issues are many: hours of operation; method of operation; how much of the street is given over; insurance; who parks the cars; where they are parked; the routes the cars take to and from the valet zone; signage; licensing fees; and potential revenue and enforcement penalties for violations.

The City of Denver has a very nice 2-page summary of their ordinance. This helps the public and the operators know what to do and expect without having to read through a lengthy ordinance written in legalese.

Clearly this is an issue that cities all over the country have faced and addressed. I’ve been writing about valet parking abuses in St. Louis since February yet I’ve not seen any new or proposed ordinance coming out of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. I volunteered my time to assist the city streets department in drafting some guidelines for valet parking but I was given the brush off.

Along Washington Avenue the valet parking woes are spread across three wards in a three block area! The 1100 block of Washington where Copia takes nearly 300ft for car parking is located in the 7th Ward (Phyllis Young). The 1200 block where Lucas Park Grille and a club take up a considerable percentage of the block is located in the 5th Ward (April Ford-Griffin) and finally the 1300 block where Lucas Park Grille spills over as well as the bar/club in the 1400 block is located in the 6th Ward (Lewis Reed). Other abuses in the 6th Ward include valets at 1111 Mississippi. On Olive on either side of Compton you get valets doing things such as placing orange cones in the bike lanes. One side of Compton on the south side of Olive is Reed’s 6th Ward while the west side of Compton along Lindell is in the 19th Ward (Mike McMillan). Heading west to the West End things are more clear — Euclid and Maryland is squarely in the 28th Ward (Lyda Krewson).

Our aldermen, in my view, don’t think much beyond their ward boundaries so the idea of them working together on a city-wide solution just might be a bit too much to expect. Other cities, somehow, manage to get beyond ward boundaries and develop solutions for their entire city.

Enjoy “Grovefest” in Forest Park Southeast on Saturday

This coming Saturday, the 23rd of September 2006, is a chance to party in the emerging area increasingly known as The Grove. From the Grovefest press release:

Forest Park Southeast is one of the most exciting areas of rejuvenation in St. Louis. The neighborhood enjoys many of the best proximities in the metropolitan area. Conveniently located between both major highways, 40 and 44, Forest Park Southeast is also adjacent to the finest cultural institutions the city offers; the Saint Louis Science Center, The Missouri Botanical Gardens, Forest Park, and all of the Grand Center attractions. The Washington University Medical complex is within walking distance and the Saint Louis University is just around the corner. An envisioned bio-tech corridor is progressing just across highway 40 under the Cortex initiative. And established neighborhoods nearby such as the Central West End, Tower Grove, and Lafayette Square serve as excellent role models for this neighborhoods revitalization.

Manchester Avenue as the central corridor to Forest Park Southeast offers similar building character and streetscape potential to another popular local urban and culturally diverse destination “The Loop”. A retail, dining, and entertainment district is indeed emerging along Manchester in Forest Park Southeast and is on track to become an important asset for St. Louis in much the same way The Loop has. The Forest Park Southeast Business Association has begun the grassroots work of positioning this stretch of Manchester Avenue as “The Grove” derived from adjacent Adams Grove and Tower Grove.

With this progression in mind it seemed an opportune time to hold an annual festival that celebrates the city and the uniqueness of “The Grove”. Known as the Grove Fest, the annual neighborhood showcase invites the St. Louis metropolitan area to enjoy a day of food, music, art and activities with a spot light on what’s new and what’s coming to Forest Park Southeast.

Proceeds will support the effort to continue the revitalization of Manchester Avenue by funding sidewalk and curb repair/replacement, sidewalk enlargement for outdoor seating, improved signage, streetscape trees and lighting, street furniture, parking lot improvements, and traffic light enhancements.
On behalf of the Grove Fest Committee (dedicated business owners and stakeholders in Forest Park Southeast) we whole heartedly invite you to explore this exciting neighborhoods possibility and support the 1st annual Grove Fest. This year’s event takes place on Saturday, September 23rd on Manchester between Sarah and Boyle noon to midnight.

www.grovefest.org

Manchester Road. Noon to midnight. Have fun!

What happened to the new McDonald’s?

After months of controversy over McDonald’s moving from its current location at the NW corner of Grand and Chippewa to the SE corner of Grand & Winnebego we’ve seen no evidence of anything moving forward. Not that I want the drive-thru moved adjacent to the homes in the Gravois Park neighborhood, but we were all given the impression that time was of the essence.

It has been nearly 3 months since the city’s Board of Adjustment denied an appeal by residents to prevent the McDonald’s from being built. Pyramid Construction was supposed to do a land swap with McDonald’s but a quick check of records for 3708 S. Grand indicates Pyramid Construction is still the property owner. The same records also indicate building permit application #358646 to construction the restaurant remains open, the permit has not yet been issued. With all the administrative hurdles jumped I just can’t imagine why three months would pass without construction starting.

It would appear that someone involved in the deal isn’t going forward. The parties are Pyramid Construction, McDonald’s corporate, the franchise operator and deal maker Ald. Jennifer Florida.

If the deal has gone south now is our chance to work as a community to envision what this street could look like. If you go back to my post from a couple of weeks ago using Photoshop to show incremental changes we can hopefully do a similar treatment for South Grand. If McDonald’s is staying where they are and the empty site at Winnebego is to remain empty or get another plan we need to bring everyone together to work on good solutions that are a fit for the community.