Youth on Bike Hit by Motorist

Tonight, on my way home, I witnessed something I never thought I would: a youth on a bicycle getting hit by a car. I could see it about to happen and I was helpless to prevent it. As someone trained as a bicycle safety instructor (League Cycling Instructor is the proper title) we hope to prevent such accidents from happening, not be a witness to them.

I ask that you keep the youth in your thoughts. I can think about nothing else.

I don’t want to go into any of the specifics of the accident. In short the kid completely disregarded the traffic signals (Grand & Chippewa). I was heading South on Grand and I saw the kid crossing the intersection even though those of us on Grand had the right away. A northbound car struck him. I was on my scooter and was able to stop right there — others ran from their cars to the boy. While others attended to the boy (making sure not to move him) I called 911 (it appears others did as well). At first we all thought the car left but I think it took him a second to figure out what happened — the driver couldn’t have seen the kid crossing in his path until the moment of impact. The driver was understandably shaken. After giving my statement to the police the paramedics were about to take the youth to the hospital.

Please, everyone, if you have children teach them how to cycle properly. Don’t let them out on the street without a helmet (and properly adjusted). Yes, as kids we all rode our bikes without helmets and we survived. Well, not all survive. Don’t let them out on the street by themselves at 10pm at night —- on a bike or otherwise. If they are bicycling at night lighting is critical. Bicycling can be safe and enjoyable but only if done properly.

Many members of the St. Louis Bicycle Federation are also trained as an LCI (League Cycling Instructor), perhaps we can put together some local youth training sessions. I’ve already alerted this group to the accident.

Here are a couple of good sites to learn how to teach your kid to properly ride a bike:

•Bike Safety
•Safety City

I ask that you take the time to teach your kids about bike safety. Don’t have any? Teach your niece or nephew or have a conversation with the parents down the block.

Peace,

Steve

Loughborough Commons On Par with Most Development, Speaks Poorly of Our Standards

Today I’ve got a somewhat random collection of thoughts on the sprawl-centric Loughborough Commons development in south city. If you are tired of this subject, just stop reading now. Otherwise, here we go.

Loughborough Commons, for all its many faults, is on par with most newer development in the city and region. That is both reality and a sad statement of fact. What does this say about us as a region that we care so little about creating worthwhile public spaces, not just private developments with literal acres of asphalt with as much as a tree to break it up. Instead of being happy about a new grocery store we should be concerned, as tax payers, that our government has failed to deliver a project worthy of the incentives given.

The city has a Planning & Urban Design Agency but if they were involved in the project they failed miserably to guide the project to a point where they should not all be fired. If they were not consulted on such as massive project (30+ acres, $14 million in tax incentives) then I would wonder why Ald. Villa didn’t bring in their expertise. Either way something is wrong with how this got built.

The one difference in Loughborough Commons and all the other poorly planned projects is this: I personally spoke face-to-face with Ald. Matt Villa and engineer Dennice Kowelmann prior to starting construction and voiced my concerns about the design and pedestrian access. While I can (and likely will) criticize other projects such as the new 58-acre Dierberg’s development in Edwardville IL, I feel more connected to this one because I tried to make a difference before a single bit of dirt was moved.

This week’s Suburban Journal article on Loughborough Commons read more like a press release than a balanced article. Not addressed is the lack of pedestrian access from the entrance closest to neighboring houses, off Grand. Here is the headline, subheading and relevant quote:

Lowe’s to open in month at Loughborough Commons: Pedestrian access planned after Schnuck’s demolition.`

A spokesman for The DESCO Group, developer of the shopping center, said sidewalks will be added after the old Schnuck’s and its parking lot is torn down. The sidewalk will be where the old Schnuck’s entrance is.
“The development’s not finished yet,” Steve Houston said. “There will be a sidewalk for pedestrian access to that development.”

Sidewalk, singular. As I mentioned on a post on the 1st of the month, their site plan does show a sidewalk abutting the east side of the new entrance off Loughborough. This will be useful to those coming from the current bus stop (assuming it doesn’t get relocated, and those walking from the east side of I-55 along Loughborough. This will do little for those that live west of Loughborough Commons and nothing for those that live near the southwest corner of the project, arguably the greatest number of potential pedestrians. See the next segment for more on this issue.

The red section in the middle of the image at right is Loughborough Commons. The two green dots along the edge represent the two entrances to the site. The blue section in the upper left is the old public school greenhouse site that will soon be developed by Rolwes Homes and C.F. Vatterott and containing a total of 125 units. These will be comprised of 33 detached single family homes, 44 attached townhouses and 48 condos. I will do a review of this project at another time.

As we can see, four streets dead end at Loughborough Commons. Rather than connect to the adjacent neighborhood the projects turns it back to the neighborhood so that it can face the highway. Drivers speeding by at 70mph are seemingly more important than someone living a block away. With only two entrances into the 30+ acre site those walking from adjacent residences have limited choices. The DESCO Group and Ald. Matt Villa are doing damage control by saying they will have pedestrian access but that is only for half the entrance off Loughborough. Those near the south entrance off Grand get squat.

In the world of sprawl development a single token sidewalk is usually sufficient in the minds of the developer (and Ald. Villa in this case). It is clear that careful consideration was not given to bringing in pedestrians from the surrounding area. With the new development just two blocks away is it shameful they will not have direct access to the local grocery store via a short walk down Blow, Roswell or Robert.

It should be noted that Loughborough Commons is in the 11th Ward (Ald. Matt Villa) while the old greenhouse site is in the 12th Ward (Ald. Fred Heitert), Eugene Street is the dividing line. Aldermanic courtesy would have prevented Heitert from questioning the development in an adjacent ward even though it is only a block away from his ward.

This morning carts were completely blocking the sidewalk heading to the south toward Lowe’s. We could argue, I suppose, the Lowe’s is not yet open but there is parking in use in that direction. I’ve also seen workers from Lowe’s attempting to walk to the Schnuck’s having to navigate around the planned obstacles (planting areas) and unplanned obstacles (excess shopping carts). These carts are chained together and locked.

At other times I’ve the carts have been gone from the same area, most likely when the store is busier and more carts are needed. Still, pedestrian circulation within a project should not be dependent upon something like how many shopping carts are in use. This picture and the one above are both off the south entrance to the new store but the same situation is happening on the other side.

This morning a few carts were partially blocking the walkway that right now along connects to a number of accessible (ADA) parking spaces. This walk, however, will at some point be continued as part of The DESCO Group’s planned pedestrian access. So, it is fair to say this bit of sidewalk is part of the main and only planned pedestrian access point to get to the grocery store. And today it was being used for cart storage.

You might say these carts were simply left overs from those using the accessible parking. And such an argument may have some validity. However, this would demonstrate a lack of good planning to anticipate that those using these parking spaces would have carts and need a place to put them out of the way of the main pedestrian path to the nearest grocery store.

The other day, when the south walkway was open, the north walkway was completely blocked. Carts are cabled together and part of the chain is on the sidewalk creating a potential hazzard. Toward the end of the walk, more carts completely close off the end. I watched as a woman parked on the other side of the white van had to walk in the development’s main driveway to get to her vehicle.

Again, this little bit of sidewalk is part only planned pedestrian path from the public street (Loughborough) to the entrance of the Schnuck’s store. Ald. Villa and The DESCO Group can say “it’s not finished” all they want to but their actions speak volumes. Pedestrian movement, even those using ADA spaces, are given very little to no consideration.

One of the items cited as a reason for blighting for this project was the site of the Schnuck’s store, built as a National store, was used for industrial purposes. From the report:

The site of the Schnucks grocery store was previously utilized for decades for industrial uses. During the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s the site was occupied by the St. Louis Machine Tool Company. In the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s it was occupied by a paint manufacturing company. As a result, site remediation will be necessary.

That is interesting since immediately following the opening of the new store workers began removing the old asphalt and transferring tons of dirt from another area of the development site. the image at right was taken earlier today. The old parking lot lights, still working, are simply being buried. Was the contamination limited of this site limited to strictly where the current building is located? Did they manage to decontaminate overnight? Or was site contamination simply a smoke screen to get tax incentives. You can be assured that I will be requesting proof from various local agencies for documentation on the remediation efforts.

These pictures and a few more can all be viewed as larger images in a set on my Flickr account.

As stated at the beginning, Loughborough Commons is really no worse than most development in the city or balance of the region. This is quite unfortunate as we deserve better development, especially in areas where you have existing walkable environments that could greatly benefit from a locally owned grocery store an easy walk down the street. What we got, instead, was an expensive project where you are expected to drive even though you can see if from your front sidewalk. Such practices should not be permitted to continue.

Developer Curran Tosses Egg on Preservation Board’s Face

Developer Michael Curran just reduced the number of units at the Mississippi Bluffs project from 56 to a measly 34. I say measly because the site is a massive 8.2 acres. Part of the site, as you may recall, had the wonderful but tired Doering Mansion (shown at right). This formerly graceful mansion sat on the far north 1.79 acres. Myself and others argued before the Preservation Board the Doering Mansion should be saved which would still leave 6.4 acres for new construction. The Doering Mansion was razed earlier this year.

From the Suburban Journal last week:

Curran had argued before the St. Louis Preservation Board late last year that he had to have the larger amount to make the project feasible.

At the time, Curran was seeking the Preservation Board’s permission to tear down the Doering Mansion on the north side of the property to make room for more townhouses.

He said at the time with a smaller amount of townhouses – 42 – he couldn’t recover the cost of preparing the property for development, including demolishing the old Good Samaritan Home. To recoup the investment on a smaller area, he would have to build a larger condominium development with about 120 units.

That would overwhelm a prime piece of property, Curran said at the time. Rather than do that, Curran said at the time he would sell the property to another developer.

The Preservation Board wound up voting to approve the project and demolish the mansion.

OK, just so we understand. Before the mansion was razed it was argued by the developer that if he could not tear down the historic structure that would reduce his planned 56 units to 42 units and at that rate he could not make any money and would be forced to abandon the project and sell the property. The only way he could recoup his costs if the mansion stayed was to build a bigger structure on the balance of the site containing 120 units. The classic doom and gloom argument.

Now, he says, due to site costs he cannot build 56 units because it would be too expensive!!! Thus, he is placing only 34 units on the 8.2 acre site. He couldn’t make money with 42 units on 6.4 acres plus a mansion but he can somehow make money with 34 and no mansion? Was the Preservation Board taken for a ride when they approved the demolition of the Doering Mansion? I think so.

This is yet another example of a poorly executed project in this city. The Mansion was razed in February and yet no construction has begun. Had they started razing the old Good Samaritan Home first they might have realized the folly of their plan and been able to go back to the drawing board before the loss of the mansion. This developer has an excellent track record with historic rehab projects but is not doing so well with new construction. He probably would have been better off with the old mansion. This fine example of planning shares the same ward as Loughborough Commons, Matt Villa’s 11th Ward.

The New QuikTrip at Gravois & Chippewa Should Be An Urban Prototype

The general consensus is the relocation of an existing QT from the Bevo area up the street to the wedge at Gravois & Chippewa is OK. Assuming that to be these case, let’s discuss the design options for the site.

But it is a gas station you say, implying options to do not exist for the site layout. After all, everyone knows you place the building as far back on the site and put all the pump islands out front. What is to debate?

Well, that very assumption!

Yes, I’m calling for QT to build an urban gas station like those required in other cities around the world. Not only are the design options interesting and more urban, it makes better use of the land which can return higher profits. Here is the basic argument: flip the typical site plan around — put the building next to the street and the pumps in back.

First, let’s see just how wasteful QT is with land development.

At we can see from the existing QT to the east on Gravois they have made little attempt to maximize the site. As a result, a very large land area that was originally many smaller parcels is reduced to only serving one function: the QT. This is not an urban model and is well suited to far suburban areas but not in an urbanized city environment.

But this post is not about what they did wrong at this site and what it could look like if rebuilt. I’m showing the example at right to demonstrate wasteful site planning practices common among such entities as large gas stations.

At left is my crude diagram of the [proposed] site [at Gravois & Chippewa]. The teal color represents the canopy over the gas pumps with the red rectangle representing QT’s standard building design. The blue triangle represents an urban opportunity. Here is what I picture: a 2-3 story building with street-level retail and small living spaces above. These might be rental, perhaps condo? The building might be designed to create some live/work spaces. The building might end up being more than a single building.

What does all this change accomplish? Several things. First, an urban building at the corner reduces the visual impact of the gas station while still providing that service. The urban corner building also begins to place some “community” in the area where, according to Ald. Kirner, none exists. This would be an incremental step toward rebuilding what was once two highly pedestrian friendly urban corridors.

I am not calling for QT to design a special building to house their function —- I’m tolerant of the standard formula. They actually do a decent job of connecting their buildings to public sidewalks which could be easily accomplish in the site plan mockup I’m showing. And the urban building?

I’m guessing folks are going to say two things. One being there is no demand for either retail or living spaces in the area and second that QT is not in the business of building such buildings. True, demand may not exist at the moment or even five years. But if QT builds their facility in the manner I’m suggesting and plants some evergreen trees behind the building it certainly wouldn’t look any worse than coming down Gravois looking at nothing but gas pumps. As demand increases and say MetroLink ends up on Gravois or the tracks nearby then we are ready to do some urban in-fill without having to relocate or rebuild the QT — we’d be that much ahead. And I wouldn’t expect QT to build the building — I’d expect them to sell or lease the land. A non-profit housing group could lease the land from QT on a long term lease so that QT got a good tax write off and then build some smaller living spaces without any off-street parking. This would be great for those who either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. On-street parking could serve the retail spaces.

Think of this as land banking — we are saving this corner that might normally be wasted through typical sprawl planning and holding it until we are ready for something a bit more urban. To move the process along I’d favor some sort of tax incentives to QT so they could offer this land on the cheap to a developer that completed a structure that met some basic urban criteria. This could be a win for the city and QT.

– Steve

Ald. Kirner: “Very Little Community” at Gravois & Chippewa

Ald. Dorothy Kirner, D-25th Ward, was recently quoted in the Suburban Journal about the plan for the QuikTrip to move from near Gravois and Delor (14th Ward) to the former used car lot of McMahon Ford:

“There is very little community in there. It’s all businesses,” Kirner said. “I don’t see any problem with the residents.”

The message is basically we’ve long since wiped out any residents of the area and therefore nobody is around to object to yet another over-scaled gas station on a prominent city corner. In cities where urbanity is valued, not derided, such a site would become a mixed-use project with street-level retail and housing — helping to create community where it may not currently exist. Such limited view thinking will continue to prevent St. Louis from reaching its full potential as a vibrant urban center.

– Steve