UrbanReviewSTL

Written By Steve Patterson July 2nd, 2009

The new Citygarden, a 2-block sculpture garden in downtown St. Louis, is a wonderful space.  The surrounding buildings are not so wonderful.  For the long-term viability of the area we need to improve the urban edge around Citygarden.

Across Market Street to the South is the first place I’d start, the Bank of America tower.  A horrible Urban Renewal era building with no relationship to the sidewalk.  The building is mostly in the 800 block of Market St but the base of the tower extends over 9th St with part of the building in the 900 block.

Above is looking West from Market St at 8th.  The raised terrace is the main disconnect between the sidewalk and building.  In a walkable environment you want minimal separation between the pedestrian on the sidewalk and entrances to interior spaces.  Each city block needs 4-6 distinct entries to make the journey interesting for the pedestrian.  Razing the building and starting over would work but it would be wasteful and is not necessary.

Plants can do wonders.  If they replaced the boring ivy with something that would drape over the wall that would do wonders.  Lose the button down collar look in the planter.  Replace serious with fun.  The first block of the Citygarden is to the right, across Market St.

Above: we are approaching 9th Street.  The sign up on the terrace is for a restaurant space for lease.  Yeah, good luck with that.  To make it work you’d need a sign & menu board down at the sidewalk level.  Some potted plants on the steps (away from the rails) would soften these stairs and make it more inviting.  The brass handrails are like shoulder pads on the show Dynasty: classy at the time but oh so dated now.

Above: At 9th looking back East at the opposite view of the steps.  A step down planter on this end attempts to mask the huge change in height above the sidewalk but the plantings are too wimpy for the massive space.  Like the retaining wall earlier the plantings should hang over the wall and vary in height.  Some color would be nice too.

Above: 9th Street looking South.  Just horrible. I can see guests of the hotel 2 blocks South using this route to get to Citygarden.   Removing the section over the street is ideal but not likely.  So I look for alternatives to improve this street.

Four lanes?  Four!  Insanity.  Thankfully Citygarden cuts this down to two after crossing Market Street. Ideally I’d put on-street parking on the two outer lanes.  But I’m guessing they don’t want vehicles parking under the building here.  Fine, but we still only need two travel lanes.  The sidewalks should be widened so that only two lanes remain.  The section of the building between 9th & 10th at grade is the drive thru.  A blank wall faces Market St & 10th concealing the drive-thru.  That is both good & bad.  Good because we don’t want to see a drive-thru in a city but bad because blank walls are no better.

Above: Continuing along Market St we see the blank wall along the side of KSDK channel 5.  To the left we see open space.  Yes, the trees are nice and the grass is green but this space, across Market St from the 2nd block of Citygarden is screaming out for a building(s).

• Downtown , Planning/Design
• Comments(6)

Written By JimmyZ July 1st, 2009

First, in the realm of full disclosure, I spent 5 years as an elected member of a quasi-governmental transit agency, first being appointed to fill a vacancy, then running and being elected to a four-year term.

When our country was founded, the framers of the constitution did not envision professional politicians. Elected officials were expected to serve limited terms for little or no compensation, taking a leave from their farms or mercantile operations to do so. Over the last 230 years, things have changed, sometimes substantially, and there no longer is only one way of having a legislative body. Most traditional bodies continue to deal with a broad range of issues, everything from finances and taxes to land use and urban design to criminalizing texting while driving and having saggy pants. We’ve also seen the rise of many specialized districts and boards, covering everything from fire protection and water and sewers to schools, transit and “improvement” districts.

In pretty much every case, there are few, if any requirements for running or being appointed to a position, other than a minimum age, residency requirements and/or being a citizen. There rarely, if ever, is any sort of requirement that you be educated in, or even actually understand, what you’ll be voting on and rejecting or approving. A farmer can approve a multi-million dollar highway bond package and a teacher can approve a union contract or the purchase of 3,000 tires for a transit agency.

Our tradition is to elect generalists to office, and our pay structure is all over the map. In many positions, compensation can best be defined as “token” - you either have to be retired or comfortable in your “real” job (and able to take time off) to be able to serve. Working stiffs need not apply, especially if your boss (or spouse) won’t give you the time off to serve. A few bodies do pay “living wages” to the people elected to serve on them. St. Louis’ Board of Alderman is in kind of a gray area - it pays well enough for a part-time job, but not enough for it to be a full-time one for many folks.

In a roundabout way, this gets us back to the original question, especially when it comes to our Board of Aldermen. It’s very much a traditional body, and its makeup of 27 members should guarantee enough diversity in expertise (the Law of Large Numbers) to be able to cover almost any topic. Unfortunately, this is counteracted by both the tradition of Aldermanic courtesy, where each ward acts very autonomously, and the tradition that the Democratic party selects candidates more for their loyalty and hard than for their expertise.

Bottom line, there is no consistent answer. We have good people serving for very little money and we have mediocre, or worse, people showing up just to collect a paycheck and enjoy having the power. We have bodies that work well together, building on their individual members’ strengths and hiring and listening to good professional staff. We have bodies that are essentially dysfunctional and either ineffective or counterproductive. And we have bodies that can fit either description, depending on who won in the last election! It’s something nobody can legislate, but it is something we can all impact, by supporting the best candidates AND by staying involved and vocal after the election is over . . .

- Jim Zavist

• Local Politics
• Comments(10)

Written By Steve Patterson June 30th, 2009

At 10am this morning (Tuesday 6/30/09) Mayor Slay will dedicate Citygarden, the new 2-block long sculpture garden downtown.  Before I get into the garden I want to talk about what existed on these two blocks previously.

The two blocks (bounded by Market St on the South, 10th on the West, Chestnut on the North and 8th on the East) were the last two blocks to have their historic long-standing structures razed for a grand vision of a Gateway Mall — a vision of a long green spine that dates back to the early 20th Century (map).  The city was vastly different then — it was populated, dirty (coal was still burned for heat) and anything but uniform.  Early planners sought to clear away a section of the city to offer some relief and to bring some order to a bustling chaotic city.

The problem is city leaders over the decade became addicted to demolition as a solution.  That new order would invigorate the city, they thought.  But it was the unplanned chaos that gave the city life.

In 1993 two city blocks remained to complete this ordered new vision.

Last days of the Western Union Building in 1993

Stunning huh?  But in a city with more open green space than people to occupy what we had it was decided we should create more.

What we got was two more passive (boring) city blocks.  I argued with the city’s head architect at the time but it did no good:

Unlike some older mall blocks, particularly ones west of Tucker Boulevard, Royse said, the new ones “will be inviting and attractive . . . and
people should use the mall more.” (Post-Dispatch of July 16, 1993)

Royse, now retired in Seattle, was in town recently.  I saw him last Thursday at the Loop Trolley forum.  He had not yet seen how his two blocks of the mall, the last two, had been altered.

January 28, 2008

But the two blocks were not inviting, unless you wanted to be alone with nothing to do.  The buildings surrounding these two blocks have been uninviting since new. Blank walls, raised entrances, parking garage entries.  The stuff that sucks life out of a city.

And now, these two blocks are once again recreated.  They are the opposite of the 1993-2008 blocks — a good thing as Martha Stewart would say.

Artist rendering of City Garden. Source: citygardenstl.org

From what I’ve seen from Citygarden so far it is interesting, complex (requiring exploration),  colorful, and a delight to the senses. With a permanent cafe on the Eastern block you can stay and enjoy the space.  There is seating throughout.  We shouldn’t have razed the old buildings but once they were gone we should have created dynamic space.  Instead we got 16 years of dead passive space added to the many acres of additional dead passive space we’ve had for decades longer.

While I like the Citygarden I don’t like the process that led to today.  I wrote the following just over 2 years ago (see post):

In a classic St. Louis move, the city’s “leadership” is already moving forward with a plan the public has yet to see. Mayor Slay, Aldermanic President, Alderman Phyllis Young, and Downtown Parnership’s Jim Cloar last week talked of the newest concept as a done deal even though we the public have not seen anything yet. Typical.

The public open house is scheduled for this evening, Monday June 11, 2007 at 6:30pm in the rotunda at City Hall. This is one of those meetings designed to give the appearance of public participation without any actual participation. The usual round of types — officials, business executives, etc… — have already approved of the plan on our behalf. How big of them to do so. I assume tonight will also be a chance for all these folks to congratulate each other on a job well done. I’ll be there simply because I need to see what sort of disastrous plan the city has drafted this time. Any comment forms will likely be a waste of paper.

Hopefully these two blocks will serve as an example of the level of excitement necessary as we look at the remaining blocks of the Gateway Mall.  I’ve got a good relationship with Patricia Roland-Hamilton, the person in charge of The Gateway Mall Project.  We’ve had ongoing conversations about the qualities needed along the mall.

Once inside I’ll do a full review of Citygarden.  Again, I like it already.  But I have noticed a few details I would like to have seen done differently.  These can now serve as lessons for when the remaining blocks are addressed.

- Steve Patterson

• Downtown , Events/Meetings , History/Preservation , Local Politics , Planning/Design
• Comments(12)

Written By Steve Patterson June 29th, 2009

A century ago in cities all over the country the downtown department store was the place to go shopping.  Wikipedia defines a department store as:

a retail establishment which specializes in satisfying a wide range of the consumer’s personal and residential durable goods product needs; and at the same time offering the consumer a choice multiple merchandise lines, at variable price points, in all product categories. Department stores usually sell products including apparel, furniture, home appliances, electronics, and additionally select other lines of products such as paint, hardware, toiletries, cosmetics, photographic equipment, jewelery, toys, and sporting goods. Certain department stores are further classified as discount department stores. Discount department stores commonly have central customer checkout areas, generally in the front area of the store. Department stores are usually part of a retail chain of many stores situated around a country or several countries.

The next to last sentence above is an important distinction - central checkout for discount department stores (Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc) versus a check out at in each department.  As the population transitioned from streetcars to cars purchases per trip could get larger.  But they’d need parking lots to hold the cars.  Traditional downtown stores opened free-standing stores outside the central business district and eventually they anchored open-air & enclosed malls.

I grew up in Oklahoma City.  In the early 1970s I’d go shopping with my mom at suburban locations of TG&Y, Otasco, and Sears.   Crossroads Mall opened 8 days before my 7th  birthday on 2/17/1974.  At only 1.7 miles from my house I would often bike there in later years.  We never went to downtown.  I assume a department store(s) existed downtown, I just never saw one.

Retailing has changed dramatically over the  last 100 years and even since 1974.  The 3-4 anchors at Crossroads Mall have all closed. Target is huge.  Wal-Mart is bigger.  People buy ketchup by the gallon at stores like Sam’s Club & Costco.  Amazon.com is a retail force.

In the last year and a half I’ve been to the Macy’s store in downtown St. Louis numerous times.  At just 10 blocks to the East it is the closest big store to me.  But most often I go to visit the two restaurants contained within, not to shop.  Clothing is the item I’ve most often purchased from traditional department stores.  When I think of buying housewares, furniture, or electronics I don’t think of the traditional department store. But I don’t even buy clothing at these stores.  Doesn’t matter to me if they are downtown or anchoring a suburban mall, the department store just isn’t the place where I like to shop.  Build me a downtown Target, however, and I will be there.  .

I can’t be the only one that thinks this way.  Does the traditional department store, downtown or not, have much of a future?

- Steve Patterson

• Retail
• Comments(18)

Written By Steve Patterson June 26th, 2009

Next week three national organizations; American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and  American Cancer Society, will announce their opposition a proposed smoke-free ordinance for the City of St. Louis.  Yes, you read correctly.  These organizations will be opposing local efforts to clear the public air of cigarette smoke.  Why you ask?  The bill is not pure.

Alderman Lyda Krewson’s bill (#46) includes a triggering mechanism  — it would not go into effect until a similar measure does in St. Louis County:

SECTION FIFTEEN. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall be effective on such date that the Saint Louis County Council enacts Smoke Free Air legislation which prohibits smoking in the enclosed public places as defined in Section Four of this Ordinance.

These organizations don’t like such measures being dependant upon other jurisdictions.  So they plan to oppose the measure.  They and the pro-smoking lobby will be on the same side.  Just seems wrong.

The St. Louis region is second only to Baltimore for the number of units of government on a per capita basis.  St. Louis County has 91 municipalities plus area that is unincorporated.  Ideally we’ve have a Missouri smoke-free law like the one covering the Illinois side of the region.  But that may be a while.

Krewson had several choices:

1. Do nothing and continue to wait for a state law.
2. Wait for St. Louis County to pass a law and then react.
3. Introduce a bill with no trigger and watch it never get out of committee.

The fact is that the chances of getting a smoke-free bill for the city only is slim to none.  Remember we have 28 wards.  Securing enough votes on a controversial measure takes considerable work.   Going it along, which I wouldn’t object to, would never pass.

Before Krewson introduced the bill I was among the persons advocating the trigger mechanism.  It would let the city take a leadership role iuin the region and give some assurances to the St. Louis County Council that when they passed a law that it would trigger the city law.  Maybe these national groups don’t realize that St. Louis is not in St. Louis County?

Getting this law on the books in the city would be an important first step to getting St. Louis County on board.  Passing this bill with the county trigger shifts the debate to the county.  They may pass a measure triggered by a similar measure in St. Charles County.  I agree, it is not ideal.  Politics is never pretty and when practiced in a highly fragmented environment it is downright ugly.  So I have a problem with these organizations standing in the way of the only way we are going to get smoke-free air on the Missouri side of the region.

Krewson returned my request for comment ysterday morning.  She was aware these groups are planning to oppose her bill.

She has been at the Board of Aldermen for nearly 12 years now.  Her day job is as a CFO.  She can count.  She knows how to get legislation passed.  These organizations don’t get it — the St. Louis region is not typical.  We need to change out city charter.  We need to consolidate the 91 separate municipalities in St. Louis County.  But I don’t want to wait for those events to get smoke-free air.

The one size fits all strategy these national organizations seek just doesn’t cut it.  It irks me they may ruin our chances.  Hopefully we can overcome their objections.  Hearings on the bill begin Tuesday at noon in room 208 at  city hall.

- Steve Patterson

• Local Politics , STL Region , Smoke Free
• Comments(7)

Written By Steve Patterson June 26th, 2009

Yesterday I attended an Economic Development Forum sponsored by the Loop Trolley.  Guest speaker,  Portland developer John Carroll, spoke about the benefits he has seen in Portland over the last decade.

Portland developer John Carroll speaking 6/25/2009 at the Missouri History Museum

The streetcar/trolley is not the most efficient way to get persons from point A to B.  That would mode would be the bus.  However, as our speaker pointed out, the permanence of a fixed rail helps entice development.

It was December 5, 2005 that the ribbon was cut on the two restored streetcars used to promote the Loop Trolley.  I was there that day:

Loop Trolley ribbon cutting on 12/5/2005

That day I wrote:

One could argue that the loop, both East and West, is going fine and doesn’t need the federal dollars that it will likely receive to move this project forward. I agree philosophically. Cherokee Street comes to mind [as] a commercial street that could benefit from an exciting transportation system such as this trolley system. But Cherokee Street doesn’t have a Joe Edwards pushing for anything. So I say build the trolley not where it is needed most but where we can get it built and where it will get used.

Once built, the region, I hope, will demand more streetcars throughout the city and region.

In the nearly four years since I wrote the above I have experienced streetcar systems in San Francisco, New Orleans, Memphis, Little Rock, Seattle, Portland and Toronto.  Quite the list and quite different from each other.  Some are old systems that have remained in operation.  Others are new with restored, reproduction and modern vehicles.  I’ve attended two Rail-Volution conferences since then — Chicago in 2006 and Miami Beach in 2007.

The Loop area is so named because of the streetcar line that used to make a loop and turn back toward downtown.  The western end is in the municipality of University City.  In recent years the restaurants & shopping have expanded east of Skinker in the City of St. Louis.

Loop’s leader Joe Edwards want to return a streetcar (er, Trolley) to Delmar.

The blue line on the left shows the route as planned.  It simply would go from the Lion gates at the west end to De Balivere at the east and then loop around the Missouri History Museum on the edge of Forest Park.  Along the short route it would pass two MetroLink light rail stations (Delmar & Forest Park).  Would the trolley be transit overkill?  At first I thought so.

But between these two stations and all along the proposed route there are plenty of development opportunities.  Development around light rail stations happens in rings whereas development along streetcars follows the line — impacting far more real estate and reaching more people.  More bang for the buck basically.

Plus I want to get a system in operation in St. Louis so that it can be expanded to serve more of the city.  The lines on the map above are my most recent ideas for potential extensions (a variation on earlier thoughts).

One idea is to take a line into Forest Park to reach the Art Museu, Zoo,  and Muni.  This would be a great way to get an overview of the park and it could reduce the need for more parking.  Next I’d extend a line north through what is now the Ruth Porter perdestrian mall.  At the very least go up to Page and come back south on Goodfellow.  The biggest extension would continue east on Delmar.

After crossing Kingshighway the eastbound track would go down Washington, one block south of Delmar.   This would widen the impack of the investment.  It would jog down to Olive at Vandeventer and then straight line into the CBD.  The return line would pass the MetroLink light rail station at 6th & Washington as well as pass the convention center.  Joe Edwards said he felt a streetcar line could give St. Louis the nod when competing with other cities for a conventions.  A streetcar passing between the convention center and convention hotel would be a natural draw.  Visitors could easily be enticed to hop on the line to see the sights along the route — getting an overview to help them where to decide where to dine.

At Tucker I show the westbound line going west on Locust rather than Washington.  This puts is only a block off the eastbound track on Olive, avoids messing up the expensive streetscape on Washington between 12th & 18th and, as a bonus, it would run past my front door at 16th & Locust.

Of course it can’t all be just east & west.  Above I show a north-south pair of lines on Vandeventer & Sarah.  Around Jefferson Paul McKee is planning a north line for his NorthSide project.  I’d want a line or two heading south as well.  I’d like to be able to reach all parts of the city via streetcar.  Perhaps  if I live another 50 years?  But the lines shown above are realistic and they could, over time, work to increase our population and job base.  We could become the type of city that retains young graduates from laces like Saint Louis University and Waashington University.

To learn more about the Loop Trolley consider attending the public open house at 4pm on July 8th, Regional Arts Commission, 6128 Delmar, 4 to 7 p.m.

- Steve Patterson

• Mass Transit
• Comments(20)

Written By Angelo Stege June 25th, 2009

At the West end of the Cherokee Station Business District lies a three story brick storefront property. Ruined by years of neglect, this rotting structure stands in defiance of being utterly forgotten by its owners.

The city finally issued a condemnation notice last week. The door had been kicked in by vagrants, unmasking the internal ruin. This debris-filled stairwell degrades right inside of the front doorway. Plainly visible to any passerby; and enticing to anyone needing a free place to stay the night.

Saint Louis doesn’t need to be losing any more buildings, that goes especially for 107 year old brick storefronts. South City has done a remarkable job of avoiding the wholesale tear-downs that ravaged North City. South City has thoroughly rejected bulldozers and the McKee’s that circle over them. Thanks to dedicated landlords, an undaunted Alderman, energetic entrepreneurs and activists, and a sprinkling of idealistic artists Cherokee Street has managed to save, restore, and invigorate its numerous historic buildings.

2857 is the only building within the mixed-use/commercial district in the shape it’s in.

20th Ward Alderman Craig Schmid, once contacted about the property’s condemnation, committed to finding what resources the city has in getting the property into the hands of a responsible developer.

The situation is ripe for a community-driven rehab project. As a resident and proprietor on Cherokee Street, I have a vested interest in seeing this building reconstructed. Other stakeholders, business owners and residents, have expressed interest in pooling what resources they have to save this building.

To be sure, this is a major job. The structural report states plainly that whole walls will need to be relaid. Internal damage is severe, water has had nearly every window open to its invasion. Plants have managed to grow from the windowsills and a tree has sprung out of the garage.

This post is a call for more involvement. Brick by Brick Saint Louis needs to be preserved. If you are a rehabber, a member of the Cherokee Street community, or simply a fellow Saint Louisan dedicated to the preservation of architectural history I ask that you join this project.

For more information on how to get involved please contact me.   With enough volunteers we can start putting together an organization and a plan to save this building.

Update: Before I’ve even managed to post the first installment, new developments have arisen. On Saturday, June 20th, workmen were spotted making superficial fixes on the building. A real door has been placed in the front; no other changes are visible.

Photos provided by Cranky Yellow’s photographer Amanda Beard; www.amandabeardphotography.com. All rights reserved.

- Angelo Stege

• Cherokee Business District , History/Preservation , Real Estate , South City , Urban Renewal
• Comments(27)

Written By JimmyZ June 24th, 2009

On June 12th, the Post-Dispatch reported that Dan Isom, the new Police chief believes that the city will need to spend “tens of millions of dollars on renovating, rebuilding or relocating” the existing Metro Police Department headquarters (just south of city hall).

St. Louis Police HQ, photo by Steve Patterson

The three options being presented the Police Board on June 24th are:

1. A complete updating of the existing building, apparently by working around the existing occupants.
2. Moving into a temporary location while the existing building is demolished and a new one is constructed on the existing site.
3. Moving to an existing building somewhere else in town.

I’d add a fourth - moving to a new building/campus, somewhere else in town.

According the newspaper article, the last major renovation was in 1962, nearly 50 years ago. I’ve never been in this building, but I’ve been in plenty of other ones, both public and private, of the same age, and I have little reason to doubt the chief’s conclusions. So far, all I know about the options are what I’ve read in the paper. And at this point, I’m thinking the last option is probably the best one and the second one is the worst one.

There are multiple issues that should be considered, some obvious, some not. The structure was built in 1928, so it would certainly qualify as both a significant structure and an historic one. According to the Post-Dispatch, “The department hit peak deployment in the 1970s, with 2,200 officers. A year ago, it sank to 1,340, roughly a low for the last century. The number was up to 1,393 this spring.” The way people commute has changed significantly over the past 75 years - most ranking officers now have take-home vehicles, and no longer use public transit to get to work. In its unique, state-run status, the Police chief doesn’t really need to report to the Mayor on a regular basis. Our Aldermen work more closely with the District commanders (located at one of three area stations outside of downtown) than they do with the chief. The need for security of the building and its contents has evolved significantly since it was built. How the Police Department is managed and how Police work is accomplished has evolved, and continues to.

One big reason for keeping the location where it is is its proximity to the courts - one job of the Police is to testify in criminal trials. A secondary reason is that it’s close to both public transit and other city offices. But, much like how the Fire Department Headquarters are more-centrally located, outside of downtown, at Jefferson and Cass, there are arguments for starting “with a clean sheet” somewhere else. It all boils down to what everyone at HQ does, and, unfortunately, where to park the fleet of official vehicles that are an integral part of any police operation.

As we all know, St. Louis has a lot of underutilized structures, vacant land and struggling neighborhoods. For that reason alone, I see little reason for this building to be demolished. If it can be renovated and made to work for the Police for another 30 years, great, do it, and I’ll continue to ignore the on-street parking the Police claim on Clark and other streets. It’s the best way to preserve an historic structure, but I have my doubts about how real of an option that really is. In reality, it may make a lot more sense to find the Police a new location and to put other city departments here.

Which gets to moving - we have multiple options when it comes to existing buildings, including the old phone company headquarters downtown and multiple surplus city school buildings. The city owns multiple parcels of vacant land. What it really boils down is the complexity and the uniqueness of the various components of the program for an ideal home for the management of the organization. According to the Post-Dispatch, the current building houses “most of the department’s 517 civilian employees . . . along with hundreds of police officers, including the upper command staff.” If most of the officers and civilian employees who work at HQ rarely go to court, location becomes a different issue - there are reasons why a location outside of downtown might make more sense, including the ability to create a secure, low-rise campus (an anchor for McEagle perhaps?). I know, I know, it’s not the “urban” answer, but it could likely be the most cost-effective one, and one that would remove a vehicular-intensive operation from downtown.

The only option that really makes little sense is a temporary move. We don’t lack for vacant land, even in the immediate area. This is a significant building, and given our current economic constraints, I have little confidence that any replacement would measure up to the exterior appearance of the existing structure. We either need to make what’s there work for the 21st Century, or we need to find a new location that will. And, as the the mayor’s chief of staff noted in the Post-Dispatch article, “the market for office space has gone real soft, so . . . it is a . . . buyer’s market”, one where you can easily purchase a building for significantly less than its replacement cost. The only real downside of contemplating a move out of downtown will be the inevitable politics that will be a part of it - bringing ±750 stable, long-term jobs to any neighborhood would likely be viewed positively. Bringing them to one that’s “economically challenged” / “struggling” could be a godsend . . .

- Jim Zavist

• Downtown , History/Preservation
• Comments(13)

Written By Steve Patterson June 23rd, 2009

Earlier today a Missouri court rejected a challenge to a Kansas City law mandating restarant & bars be smoke-free.

The [Missouri Court of Appeals] affirmed Kansas City’s comprehensive smoking ban. An appeal had been filed by JC’s Sports Bar in Clay County.

Jonathan Sternberg, the attorney representing the bar, had argued that Kansas City is not allowed to regulate smoking in bars, billiard parlors and restaurants that seat fewer than 50 people because state law permits smoking in such places. He said Kansas City’s strict smoking restrictions are in conflict with state law and violate the Missouri Constitution.

But the city argued that state law does not “permit” smoking in bars, small restaurants and billiard halls; it simply leaves those places unregulated, and cities can still impose smoking restrictions there. The court of appeals agreed, saying that Kansas City’s authority to enact the ban was not denied by other laws.  (Source)

The pro-smoking lobby was counting on the court to tell a municipality they could not create stricter laws than the state.  Comments on earlier posts reflected this viewpoint.  From April 17th:

The Missouri courts are about to strike down all municipal bar/restaurant smoking ordinances in the state. The state says that bars, taverns, restaurants that seat less than 50 people, bowling alleys, and billiard parlors “are not considered a public place” for the purposes of smoking regulation as long as they post signs saying “Nonsmoking Areas are Unavailable.” Cities can’t redesignate those places as “public places” and ban smoking in them completely.

And from a different person on June 2nd:

Steve, I’d be glad to bet you or anyone else 100 dollars that the Ballwin smoking ban will be gone by the end of this summer.

A state can tell counties and municipalities when they are not permitted to enact stricter laws but in the absence of such a limit these entities are free to do so.  So sorry guys, do your smoking at home.  Nice timing from the court too.  Following on the heals of a new federal law regulating tobacco products and just days hearings on a bill to create a smoke-free St. Louis, BB46, is heard in committee at the Board of Aldermen (June 30th).

- Steve Patterson

• Smoke Free
• Comments(11)

Written By Kevin J. McGuire II June 23rd, 2009

Missouri Highway 364, more commonly known as the Page Extension, does not lay within the St Louis city limits. Just a few miles of it are even in St. Louis county. And yet it stands as a prime example of state and federal policies that is working against urban renewal in the city. Before I go much further, let me state that I am an avid user of the highway and the associated bridge.

The highway was originally planned back in the 80’s and a history of the project can be seen here along with an overview here. At that time there were three bridges connecting St Charles Co. to St Louis, I-70, US 40, and the Rock Road. Of the three only I-70 was a high speed travel corridor. US 40 had traffic signal intersections and the Rock Road dumped into the City of St Charles. Since then the Rock Road bridge has been torn down, I-64 has been extended along 40, and 370 & 364 have been added. This gives drivers four high-speed choices to cross the Missouri river, for a combined sixteen lanes of traffic. Upon completion of the Page extension project, it will extend almost to the 70-40 interchange in Wentzville. Drivers originating in Wentzville and beyond will have four different ways to get into St Louis Co without a single traffic signal.

What purpose does this road serve? Anyone who has driven on it can easily answer that question. It gets workers living in St Charles Co to their jobs in St Louis City and Co. The morning rush hour has a large flow of vehicles into St Louis with barely a trickle going the opposite way. It is reversed for the evening rush hour. On the weekend it is used so sparsely, I doubt most drivers would notice if the bridge was not there. Therefore, almost the entire purpose of this road is to make it easier to work in St Louis and live in St Charles.

All major projects need funding. The first phase was funded partially by Congress in the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992. The second phase, currently under construction, is getting a large chunk of funding from the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This money was added to the pot of cash already provided for by the state to make this new artery possible. And this is where the project becomes a policy debate. Lawmakers in Jefferson City and Washington deemed it necessary to spend state and federal dollars to make it easier to not live in St Louis if a person has a job there.

People were migrating to St Chuck as part of white flight before all the new concrete was laid the last two decades. How many would continue to move out there if it was not so convenient? This convenience will hamper any efforts to revitalize the city, like the planned Northside development. For that development to work it needs to attract a large population of people living in the suburbs. Relocating people already living in the city would be zero growth and no new tax base.

So we have a government working against the city. Until that changes it seems liked the deck is stacked against urban renewal. That does not mean it will not happen, just that until there is a policy change it is going to be harder than it should. The solution to the problem leads to a conflict of interest. Lawmakers would need to make it inconvenient to live in the far flung suburbs. Their constituents probably would no longer support them and no lawmaker wants to work themselves out of office. I have no idea how to get lawmakers to do what is better in the long term as opposed to what will get them re-elected. And I do believe increasing the number of quality urban walkable neighborhoods is better in the long term.

- Kevin McGuire

• Highways, Bridges & Roads , STL Region , Suburban Sprawl
• Comments(13)