Target Bike Rack Completely Useless

Recently I was heading into the fairly new Target Greatland at Brentwood Promenade and noticed the bike rack adjacent to the entry (left of entry in photo).

I’m always happy to see businesses include a bike rack, however, it is nice when they actually install it in a place where someone might actually be able to use it.

The only way this bike rack, a unit designed to hold five (5) bicycles, can actually be used by someone is to lock a single bike parallel to the rack. So the five-bike rack becomes a single bike rack.

The reason it cannot be used as designed is the rack is mounted too close the back wall. If it were pulled out from the wall a foot or so it would allow the front wheel of a bike to go beyond the rack. This would allow for three bikes — the two outer positions and the center — to be secured. The other two spaces are designed to be approached from the opposite side. But even pulling the rack forward by a foot leaves little room for a cyclist to get around the bike to lock the frame and wheel to the rack.

This facility was professionally designed and professionally built. Someone thought to include a bike rack, perhaps that was a Target requirement. But the professionals, somewhere along the line, failed to make sure the proper rack was specified for the location. Yet another example where someone knowledgeable of such issues should have been reviewing the drawings, specifications and monitoring the construction process.

– Steve

Walking In Memphis… & Little Rock

I’m planning a road trip to visit the family in Oklahoma. Instead of my usual route directly on I-44 I’m taking a quick detour through Memphis & Little Rock. The main goal is to experience Memphis’ Mainstreet Trolley and Little Rock’s River Rail.

While I am in those cities I also want to check out some modern in-fill projects, New Urbanist projects and other vibrant areas. The problem is, I don’t know where to find what I’m looking for. So, I’m open to suggestions you may have on places to visit in Memphis & Little Rock. I will have only a few hours in each city and will be spending a night in Little Rock.

So, if you can think of urban projects or places to visit in either city please use the comments below. If you’ve got links to websites with helpful information please include those as well.

– Steve

New Website Launched for Northside-Southside Mass Transit Study

A new website has been launched for the Northside-Southside transit study. From the site’s homepage:

From January 2006 for the next 18 months, this is where you will find the latest information on planning MetroLink and other major transit improvements for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.

In reality the locally preferred routes selected a few years back were routes through the city to get to both north & south county. Plus, as I’ve said before, I don’t think light rail in the middle of the street is a good urban solution. Check out the site yourself and be sure to use the comment form!

The site is visually attractive and easy to use. However, it fails to include an RSS feed for updates. Those of us that use feeds to know when a site has been updated must now manually check the site. Not smart!

Click here to view the new site.

– Steve

Possible Modern Streetcar Routes for St. Louis

It is no secret I want modern streetcars in St. Louis. For those not familiar with the concept of modern streetcars, they are new high-tech vehicles quite similar to light rail vehicles. They have a low-floor design which allows for easy entry/exit from a curb. Unlike light rail systems, the modern streetcar runs in “mixed-traffic” with cars. Where vintage trolley/streetcar systems are more nostalgic than functional, the modern streetcar is highly function for local transit while The only example in North America is in Portland although a number of cities, such as Tucson, are considering such a system.

I’ve been reading up on Porland’s system, now a few years old, and they’ve had an amazing amount of development around their line. This is largely due to development being the initial goal, the line was designed to connect two vacant (or nearly vacant) industrial brownfield sites. Zoning was changed to require minimum density. Developers have been able to get a good return on their investment. From the Development Report dated January 2006:

The Portland Development Commission (PDC) negotiated a Master Development Agreement with Hoyt Street Properties, owners of a 40-acre brownfield in the heart of the River District. The Agreement tied development densities to public improvements with the minimum required housing density increased incrementally from 15 to 87 units per acre when the Lovejoy Viaduct was deconstructed, to 109 units/acre when the streetcar construction commenced and 131 units/acre when the first neighborhood park was built. The developer has stated that without the Streetcar and the accessibility it provides, these densities would not have been possible. The agreement was a unique and essential piece of the public/private partnership that catalyzed development of the River District and serves as a model for the agreement established for in South Waterfront.

Those are some serious densities. The kind of density that makes a neighborhood vibrant and a transit system that is highly viable. With the idea of placing transit where it could be coupled with new development I have prepared a few possible modern streetcar routes. I have intentionally placed the routes so they intersect or come close to the existing MetroLink line.

Basic Assumptions for all Concepts:

Streetcar line would be modeled on the Portland Streetcar with modern low-floor vehicles (not “vintage” or “heritage” vehicles). Streetcars would operate in mixed-traffic but would be given signal preference over cross-street traffic. Lines would run in the outside travel lane (not center) and would stop at curb bulb outs every 1/5 of a mile or so.

Eminent domain (or even threat) should not be used to assemble land for development within streetcar zone.

Form-bsaed zoning overlay should be enacted for the area served by the streetcar (three city blocks on each side of line). Zoning overlay should set out minimum units per acre (gradually increasing at certain benchmarks) and maximum parking spaces.

… Continue Reading

ULI Competition Finalists Selected, Posted Online

ULI has announced the finalists in their national competition. Here is a look at each of the four final teams:

Columbia

Jury Summary:
Team 2105’s proposal introduces a skywalk system that connects Saint Louis University’s Frost campus with its health sciences center. The skywalk allows pedestrians to move from one end of the university campus to the other without interfering with vehicular and freight traffic, and draws student activities into the project area, where they can be shared by the academic and medical communities. At the landscape level, environmental strategies create open and green spaces, and site edges blend discreetly into the surrounding community.

I had to check my calendar after seeing this project, making sure it was not 1960. I also had recollections of the tragic I.M. Pei plan to “modernize” my hometown of Oklahoma City — razing old buildings, creating large “super blocks” and putting pedestrians in underground tunnels or in tubes over the sidewalks. In short, everything a city is not.

If pedestrians cannot walk along the street then change the conditions of the street. Safety must be a concern and removing people from the watchful eye of others is just foolish. The SLU campus already creates a situation where outsiders are not welcomed, we don’t need to create more of that. The Columbia project serves best as an example of what we should not do to this area. How it got to be a finalist is beyond me.

Harvard #1015

Jury Summary:
“Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing” leverages the east-west intracity connections made possible by Chouteau Greenway by creating a north-south “academic spine” along Grand Boulevard bridge. An urban northern edge and a biotech-oriented southern edge unites the Saint Louis University campus around a mixed-use node where academics, biotechnology, transit, recreation, commercial, and residential activities can concentrate.

Like so many of the proposals, this concept shortens the length of the Grand viaduct and adds buildings up to the sidewalk. Who was it that suggested this a month ago? Oh yeah, that would be me. It is nice to see others came to the same conclusion I did about the importance of urbanizing Grand.

This team left the Del Taco & Union Council Plaza buildings with a note, “streetscape to be improved.” I don’t think enough patterned sidewalk or landscaping will make this area urban enough. I’ve been known to spin through Del Taco’s drive-thru late at night (ok, early morning) but I think it needs to go.

Harvard #4110

Jury Summary:
“Aurora” creates a biotech research, development, and entrepreneurial center that represents Saint Louis University’s interface with the local biotech industry. It accepts the commercial corridors of Grand Boulevard, Chouteau Avenue, and Forest Park Boulevard, fills the interior of the blocks with appropriate uses, and establishes a symbiotic relationship with the Greenway.

This is a very nice proposal, with Grand getting a shorter bridge and urban makeover. This concept includes an intersection at Papin (the block north of Chouteau), as well as a new intersection, called Campus Drive, just south of the highway. A new bridge at Theresa Street will help connect areas on each side of the valley.

On the negative side their building massing is rather blocky. I would have liked to have seen more street grid between Grand and Spring on both the north & south areas. They also seemed to simply delete on & off ramps from I-64, something I wouldn’t mind so much but in realty not very practical.

But, I love that Grand from Chouteau to Forest Park is faced with a variety of buildings.

UC Berkeley

Jury Summary:
“Weave” proposes an urban prototype for St. Louis that rejects the creation of a specific-use redevelopment district and instead introduces explicit north-south connections throughout the site that weaves it into the communities to its north and south. While the Greenway is the major east-west cross-weave, smaller strips of green space weave through the site, eventually connecting with the Greenway. Reinforcing the vision of a community developed around transit and other urban amenities is a magnet school in close proximity to SLU and the Armory, redeveloped as a performing arts center.

The University of California at Berkeley project impresses me on multiple levels. In addition to making Grand a proper urban street they are seeking to “weave” areas together with four additional north-south bridges over Mill Creek Valley! More street grid is a good thing, especially in this case.

Like other finalists, this team created an intersection south of I-64. Unlike other teams, this one provided on & off ramps at Grand. Between the shorter bridge and Chouteau this team has two intersections.

Their proposal includes a large variety of building sizes, including a number of small scale buildings unseen on other proposals. This is especially important along Grand where they are using a number of smaller buildings to create an intimate walking environment.

I liked part of the text from their presentation on the urban form:

“Create strong north-south connections, explicitly rejecting current redevelopment plans (CORTEX EAST) in order to use bio-tech/university influx as a catalyst for weaving and knitting communities.“

This is one smart team, rejecting the big CORTEX generic redevelopment plan and creating a pedestrian-friendly street grid. For my money this team from Berkeley should get first place.

Seven teams received honorable mentions. A team from Texas included a streetcar line along Grand to connect the theatre district near the Fox to the SLU medical campus — a good idea that can be expanded north and south. I also liked some of the housing they showed on their proposal.

Representatives from each of the four finalists will be in town on the 10th to actually view the site, they will be given a chance to revise their proposals. The winner will be announced on March 31st. I’m rooting for the team from Berkeley.

– Steve