Home » Big Box »Downtown »Parking »Planning & Design »Politics/Policy »Retail »Suburban Sprawl » Currently Reading:

More Sprawl Planned Adjacent to Soulard Neighborhood in 7th Ward

A Walgreen’s and attached strip center next to Bohemian Hill and across from City Hospital is not enough. Nor is the under construction strip center at 7th and Russell. The latest in Phyllis Young’s plan to surround Soulard with all the beauty of O’Fallon (Missouri or Illinois — they look the same) is on the former parking lot of Nooter, at Broadway and Park (map). Mere blocks from The Lasalle Park neighborhood, the rebirth of the Chouteau’s Landing area, Soulard Farmers’ Market and other establishments between this site and downtown.


Site is located to the right in the above image. On another day I’ll have to deal with the bike lane suddenly ending at Park with the Bike St. Louis sign pointing you to the left — like somehow you are supposed to get into the left turn lane, across two lanes of traffic, from the bike lane at the intersection.


Closer up you see the nearly four and a half acre parking lot which is to become this:
IMG_4088.JPG copy

Is this the future of St. Louis? Filling in every vacant area with generic strip malls fronted by a sea of asphalt parking lots? While I hope not I am afraid this is the best we can hope for given our politically crippled planning department and inept leadership at city hall. Of course the sketches are pretty honest, they never show an ADA-compliant access route for pedestrians from the main public sidewalk. Bike racks, who needs those? Plenty of “free” auto parking? You bet!!! While the above image is from the sign posted in front of the property it could be anywhere in the region. There is nothing about this that says it is blocks from the river in one of the oldest areas of town.

For years cities had massive change forced upon them in the way of urban renewal — interstate highways ripped through established neighborhoods and high-rise public housing projects wiped out more neighborhoods. These areas really stood no chance of survival with such a large scale approach. Today we cannot afford to come in and reconnect areas on such an equally large scale — nor would we want to. The bigger the scale the more watered down the solution. What we need is to methodically and incrementally piece our city back together again.

While this incremental construction would take place over many years, on many parcels and via many different builders/developers the planning must be done upfront and on the bigger scale. This does not mean we design every building. No, what is means is that we set out a community vision — what will we expect of the building types once built. Will they be multi-story and built up to the street with any parking below or behind the structure? Cities such as Seattle, Portland and Denver are seeing great success through the use of districts-scaled plans with the power of zoning. The goal is not to control uses but forms of new buildings, relationships to the street and the disposition of parking. Slowly but surly the vision will come together — getting increasingly urban and dense with each passing project. Biking and walking from place to place will become better and friendlier over time. This approach takes the long view on rebuilding a walkable city that also happens to accommodate motorists along the way.

I have no problems with generic chain stores in this location. What I do have a problem with is the form in which they are proposed. Even smart suburban areas in the US aren’t allowing this sort of lowest common denominator of development anymore. Yes, this is probably better than a vacant parking lot but when we have no standards at all we get development that is a reflection of that lack of vision.

If you share my perspective on this the people you need to talk to are long-time 7th Ward Alderman Phyllis Young, “Planning” and [Sub]Urban Design Director Rollin Stanley and Deputy Mayor Barb Geisman via Mayor Slay.


Currently there are "79 comments" on this Article:

  1. Chris says:

    I think what Broadway needs, particularly this stretch, is on-street metered parking and retail at the sidewalks. And even perhaps a lower speed limit. I believe this would help generate human activity and would provide a nice “edge” to Soulard, as you transition into the industrial areas beyond. So…how do I go about getting Rollin Stanley’s job? 🙂

  2. M says:

    Before Jim Z. chimes in with his typical “people vote with their feet/money/whatever” and that people want this type of retail experience, etc., I must say that this same type of retail development, with the same generic stores and same blandness as far as retail goes can indeed be designed and built in a way that fits the neighborhood, and at very little additional cost. The cost can be justified by the fact that it will be more successful in an urban environement (especially one that is up and coming) than this type of crap will ever be.

    We need people to think on a larger scale and with just a little more creativity in this city. We need people like ourselves to stand up and become the ones making the decisions for a change. I am indeed considering what my role in this city should be, since I have made the choice to stay here and help continue the upward swing we are currently in.

    This type of anti-pedestrian project could actually kill the more urban-minded one being planned up the street for the Chouteau’s Landing area, with little parking and historic structures.

  3. DeBaliviere says:

    Our suburban communities are building better projects than this garbage. The Market at McKnight is more urban than this.

  4. WWSPD says:


    This stretch of Broadway does not need metered parking, yet.

  5. Rob says:

    Ironically, the developers are probably selling this retail space to chains based on demographic figures and market segment data of Soulard and Benton Park residents — people who want to be able to walk places. The developers’ lack of understanding of the market is as much to blame as any planner.

  6. Matt B says:

    DeBaliviere beat me to it. The trend toward more urban style developments in the suburbs emphasizes the fact that this is just lazy on both the developer and the city/alderman’s part. M is also correct in that studies have shown that a better designed retail shopping center results in better sales.

    Even though our zoning lacks the teeth to enforce a more urban design, it would be very easy to make TIF and other development subsidies contingent on a more urban design for retail developments.

    Has anyone contacted Rollin Stanley about this directly? He lacks the power to enforce anything, but I would hope he has the ability to influence someone to improve this design.

  7. Samuel says:

    Never fear, the city will come out and soothe our aching hearts with some nonsense about how it won’t happen unless we build it this way. They still have the old ’80s mind set of we are desperate, just build something please.

    Personally, I think the biggest problem is the complete lack of any sort of competitive bidding process for developing on city land. Until that changes, this is all we will ever get.

  8. john says:

    More strip mall heaven thanks to the Centene-BPV plans? Seeing once again that abrupt and dangerous end point to one of those rare and poorly designed StL bike lanes reminds me of how prehistoric our streets are designed. Like most StL projects, these cookie-cutter strip mall designs are unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. However they do favor the auto-dependent by screaming “look we have parking and you don’t need to walk far to our stores”. Considerate, open-minded and inclusive cities like Portland even have bike-thru services but we get offensive front yard parking lots? Auto-dependency tend to create poor designs.

  9. Oh god. Is there any stopping this? Is this a done deal? This design boarders on criminal. Any chance that Phyllis Young can be recalled or impeached? This is so wrong.

  10. I am going to be honest, I’ll move away. Why spend my life fighting such a backwards mentality when I can get a job in another city and advocate there? At least it is not like throwing my head up against a brick wall. There are many cities as Steve pointed out which are extremely progressive and understand that cities must be unique to compete with each other and their suburbs. We cannot replicate suburbia if we are to compete! That isn’t how it works. Cities must establish a niche, or comparative advantage, because this niche can’t be emulated even by new urbanist developments in suburbia. If we are going to follow the vote with your feet method, then we must have something worth paying extra for.

  11. Thor Randolphson says:

    Thanks to Phyllis Young’s hard work, maybe the 7th Ward race will be more interesting in 2009. I can’t imagine that 7th Ward residents are really fond of the crap she is putting out there and the rest of the ward is growing quickly enough that simply relying on support from Soulard, the key to past victories, may no longer be enough.

  12. Jim Zavist says:

    Blaming the politicians (and the developer) misses the point – this is a private development that meets all city requirements AND will likely be receiving city subsidies, as well. WE elect the people who make these laws and regulations (and apparently “bless” the projects, as well). IF our elected officials thought that better design would get them reelected, trust me, they’d be pushing for it. But, my guess, is that better design is not an issue most voters either understand or really even care about. The “average” voter wants more police, less crime, better schools, lower taxes and their trash picked up. And if the adlerman can get them a new Walgreen’s, Starbucks, grocery store or Applebee’s, so much the better – it just means they won’t have to drive as far to spend their paychecks.

    Rollin Stanley “gets it”. He’d love to have his finger in multiple, quality developments. But guess what? This is what lands on his and his staff’s desk, much like how it ends up in the alderman’s office. It’s essentially “take it or leave it”. As a city, at every level and likely with good reason, we’re running scared – we don’t want to scare off “reinvestment” (even if it’s schlock), because we all know what the alternative looks like. Add in the pressure to fund city services, and retail (specifically “new” sales taxes) creates a huge siren song for our elected officials. Do I “like” it? No! Do I condone it? Not really. But I do understand it. We live in a region with a fragmented governmental structure where developers play communities and wards off against each other, to their own short-term profit. We also have little financial clout when it comes to “just saying no”. The bottom line is the bottom line, neighborhood residents can’t spend more than they make, and we get the investments that will likely make a profit. If we all made 50% more (and were willing to spend it locally and not out at the mall or on Michigan Avenue), guess what, we’d see higher-quality retail in our neighborhoods.

  13. Sam says:

    If that’s all we can get, then let the project pass on. Don’t build it.

    And the alderperson does have an influence.

    Funny how quickly that South Grand McDonalds went away when the people around it stood up and forced Jennifer Florida’s hand. They put her up for a recall, and then the project went away. Not only that, but they shut down probably the worst McDonalds in the city. Somehow, the city survives. The city will be there in the end, and that parcel of land isn’t going anywhere. We can afford to wait for something better.

  14. mike says:

    Why not incorporate the Urbanreview development corp and take on a project or two?

  15. soulardx says:

    I emailed Alderwoman young nearly two weeks ago regarding this abymsal project. I urge you all to do the same. Please. I didn’t buy my house in Soulard to be surrounded by strip malls.

  16. LisaS says:

    The more of these that go up the more I wonder why I put up with all of the hassles about living in the City (schools, taxes, etc). If it looks just like O’Fallon/Chesterfield etc why bother? What our politicians are missing is that the people willing to move here like urban environments–and bright, young, creative people like Doug can and will vote with their feet right out of the region.

  17. South Side Red says:

    Just emailed the appropriate officials – I remain astonished at the low level of vision and, frankly, balls on the part of our city officials.

    Douglas Duckworth, I agree with your position in every particular. But please, enough with the “I’ll leave, I mean it, I will, just you watch” stuff. It’s petulant and aggravating. Some of us live here because St. Louis is our home, not because we’re searching for a pet urbanism project.

  18. Goldie "Progress" Wilson says:

    I think Steve puts his finger on it when he asks for better zoning. Rob and Matt B. can blame the developer if they want, but likely the developer did their homework, and the project will be successful (from a business standpoint) as concieved. Yes, residents in Soulard and Benton Park are probably more open to walking than the average suburbanite…but their lives are busy too, and most trips more than a block or two are still made via auto, and the developers know this. No developer is going to voluntarily put their building up to the street without zoning that calls for other developers to do the same; otherwise, 5 years down the line someone else comes in and builds a crap strip mall next door and ruins the upscale “urban” aesthetic (and likely outperforms them).
    I also find it uphelpful to blame Phyllis Young. The people who oppose this type of development tend to be a vocal minority, the majority of voters just want services brought into their neighborood, and she is responding to them just as a politician is supposed to. It’s not her job to be an urban designer…that’s why St. Louis has an urban planning and design department. I suggest people put the blame on the power structure of the city, which hands design decisions over to developers and alderman, both of whom rarely have much stake or education in “good” design. Even if the city is too paralyzed to overhaul the area’s zoning, requiring some minimum gestures like ADA access from the sidewalks and bike racks doesn’t seem like it would be too hard.

  19. Nick Kasoff says:

    What I have never understood about such developments is, you could build the exact same thing, but put the parking behind it, with entrances on both the street and parking side, and actually make a pedestrian friendly development. Seems like that wouldn’t affect the cost by one cent, but the effect on the neighborhood would be priceless. Can somebody explain why developers don’t do this?

    Out here in Ferguson, one of our city’s prime movers and shakers just built his second large building on Florissant Road. He demolished a horrible, decrepit little grocery store with a huge parking lot in front of it, and built a block of street level retail, with two stories of residential above it. New construction, but it looks like it belongs there, on an arterial street, in a historic walkable community. The demographics of Florissant at Suburban pale in comparison to Soulard’s – if we can do it, so can you.

  20. john says:

    The explanation is simple and obvious: auto-dependency rules in StL and the car is king whether you’re in the city or not. Parking lots are placed in the front in order to appeal to this dependent and oil-addictive majority.

  21. Julia says:

    This (http://www.ccimentor.com/files/Chamblee_GA.pdf) isn’t that difficult and is a much better prototype than what’s depicted above. i.e, If you must have Walmart or its ilk, they’re much more palatable when they take the pedestrian into account, sit on a parking garage, don’t front the street, and have discreet signage. Wasn’t the development on the old Famous Barr location at Kingshighway and Chippewa a lesson to anyone?

  22. Matt B says:

    “It’s essentially take it or leave it”

    Has anyone ever asked? That is the problem. Someone needs to standup.

    Sure its your property and it conforms to zoning, but you know what if you want us to foot 25% of the bill with TIF, build it to the curb. Where else are you going to go?

    This IS about the developer being lazy. The only reason they are doing it this way is because it is the same way they have done it a dozen times, and no one asks any more of them, so they are going to keep doing it. Nothing says parking in the front makes for better sales; especially in an urban environment uniquely designed retail developments out-sell generic developments. Huge parking lots visible from the street and suburban design do not guarantee high retail sales, Southtown proves that.

    All the defeatest commenters above make some points that can’t be argued, but many of those same points could be made about Ferguson and Rock Hill. The voters really don’t care about design, the project will be successful either way, they are just desperate for some retail development in their city limits and the taxes they generate. But, someone asked for something better and got it.

    Steve knows I defend many of the city’s development efforts, but crap like this really has to stop.

  23. Ben H says:

    Based on the rendering, there will be a mulch mound and 7 trees in lieu of a sidewalk.
    Looks like a cut-and-paste job with the rendering, probably it was originally done for some nowhere along Manchester/Telegraph Rd/Route 94. You know its really lowest denominator retail slum development when you cant even get your own rendering. Does anyone know if this is a city approved design, or is the sign just to drum up some leasing?
    What is amazing to me is the City’s design review process is set up to harass homeowners who put up retaining walls or white vinyl windows, and then this stuff gets through without anyone noticing until the sign is up, which of course means its “too far along to change”. As bad as vinyl windows and gravity block look, this scale of crap development really negates most of the positive impact were getting from the cultural resource board.

  24. Goldie "Progress" Wilson says:

    “The only reason they [the developers] are doing it this way is because it is the same way they have done it a dozen times, and no one asks any more of them, so they are going to keep doing it.”
    This is essentially the same point I’m making. Someone (i.e. the city) needs to require them to do it differently through zoning, or else they’re going to rely on the model that’s proven successful in the past – parking in front. For every southtown there’s probably 20 strip developments that are successful. Again, why would a developer take a chance on something “different” if there’s no zoning in place to guarantee someone building next door won’t do the same? The Furgeson example either sounds like there was a benevolent developer or the city demanded more. Relying on the occasional benovolent developer or enlightened alderperson doesn’t sound like a very good strategy to me, so again…I think the fault lies with the City.
    And please, enough with the “defeatist” bs, most commenters here are doing a fairly good job of suggesting alternatives to the status quo. All the parties involved are looking out for their interests – the developers for their return on investment and Ald. Young for the majority of her constituents. If we want consistent “good” design the City needs to require it through zoning, only then will developers feel that their “investment” is protected.

  25. Patrick says:

    “In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation… even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine.” – Great Law of the Iroquios

    We need leadership with a better vision for the built environment. One hundred years ago city leaders turned their back on this area and let nuisance trades and industrial polluters take over. Now, after all this time the land is available again and the cyle will just begin again. Talking in the blogosphere by itself will not change things, we need to act together for this change.

    Don’t forget to e-mail Darlene Green and Lewis Reed, as they make up the rest of the Board of Apportionment. Now, might be a good time for this change if politically Slay is on the hot seat.

  26. dude says:

    bravo Steve. Yike it’s ugly.

  27. Matt B says:

    Comprehensive zoning change, especially with design based codes will not happen in the near term.
    What can happen very easily is for alderman and city officials to hold developers to a higher standard when they are asking for development subsidies. It called the carrot and stick, if you are trying to get a mule to move forward you don’t stuff the carrot in its mouth.

  28. Thor Randolphson says:

    Sorry Goldie, but your response belies a fundamental misunderstanding of who is responsible for this development. Given the St. Louis system of rubber stamping any development “approved” by the alderman for ward where the development is proposed, Alderman Young plays a critical role in the approvals process, far more so than the City Planning Department and Rollin Stanley.

    Stanley can bellow till he is blue in the face about the need to change the zoning in the area, to make approval conditioned on a better site design, and the fundamental benefits to the neighborhood and City of better deciding. Yet, Stanley is only a professional, with no veto power over development. The Alderman in St. Louis hold the power and until the Alderman are responsive and receptive to the arguments of Stanley it will not mater what he says.

    Steve, I will say again that I think a good blog entry for this site would be a basic explanation of the City’s governmental structure and how development is approved in the City.

  29. Jim Zavist says:

    Matt – Amen! Zoning sets the minimum standard, design review raises the ante. And, unfortunately, most developers will build to whatever minimum a community requires – in most cases, it truly is all about the bottom line.

  30. Thor Randolphson says:

    One more thin Goldie,

    Every municipality approves developments in a similar way, whether it be a BOA Committee in St. Louis City, the Maplewood Planning Board, or the Clayton Zoning Board. All require appointed or elected residents to review and approve or deny development applications. All require “Citizen planners” who’s role is to consider the development against the requirements and recommendations of the zoning, land use ordinance, and the Master Plan. Alderman Young, by being an Alderman, agreed to take on the role of a citizen planner and so far has clearly abdicated that role. The City may have a planning departments, but Alderman Young is the one with the voting power.

  31. Patrick says:

    Dido on the request for a civics lesson. STL is a unique governmental entity in its power sharing structure. Understanding it is key to making a difference and the only way people out of power can make a difference in our ward-based politics. See: St. Louis Politics: The Triumph of Tradition by Lana Stein

  32. Brandon says:

    We absolutely have to stop this kind of crap. People have spent endless amounts of money and time revitalizing Soulard to make it what it is. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring a home to proper historic standards when you potentially have this kind of out-of-the-box development across the street? What’s next? Best Buy and Home Depot in Lafayette Square? I’m completely in support of taking the necessary actions to prevent this and future developments of this nature.

  33. Goldie "Progress" Wilson says:

    I understand that the alderperson ultimately has power over what gets built in their ward, and don’t think I implied otherwise. But again trusting the aldperperson to make enlightened decisions (or having to organize a protest each time, call for the alderperson’s head etc.) doesn’t seem like the best strategy. As pointed out above, this project will meet all current city requirements, and will be considered an improvement by many if not most constituents…so how is alderperson Young abdicating her role as “citizen planner”? Is there a master plan somewhere for South Broadway that she’s not following? Again, it comes back to the city itself making some minimum requirements for projects receiving subsidies – ADA access from the public sidewalks and bike racks at the very least, and form-based zoning for specific corridors if people want an urban streetscape. Zoning and regulations that are “set in stone” and applied across the board to all developments seem a better way to effect specific change in a ward than lobbying to an all-powerful alderperson for each individual development.
    I don’t, and never did, blame the planning dept. for this problem…only the power structure in the city that puts design decisions into the hands of developers and aldermen.

  34. Adam says:

    “I don’t, and never did, blame the planning dept. for this problem…only the power structure in the city that puts design decisions into the hands of developers and aldermen.”
    using the recall IS a way to effect such a change. i can think of no better way to change the power structure than to RECALL EVERY DAMN ALDERMAN WHO OVERSTEPS THEIR BOUNDS like this. after enough recalls the aldermen will realize they can’t do whatever the hell they want. despite her mandate (the one we want to change), it is INFURIATING that PHYLLIS thinks she has either the right or the qualifications to “negotiate” (i.e. take the first offer) and OK a development that will have LONG TERM effects on the city WITH NO INPUT FROM HER CONSTITUENTS! she clearly does not give a sh*t about actually representing the people in her ward or else she would have met with them BEFORE a plan had ever been drawn up – much less a developer selected – to hear their opinions, concerns, and ideas! now with TWO strip malls in the works SHE NEEDS TO BE GOTTEN RID OF!!!

  35. GMichaud says:

    One possible solution is to limit aldermen to two terms. It would be a attainable task through petitions and a vote. While not perfect it would help to break the monopoly of the political machine. The usual argument is that there are elections every four years, but the stranglehold of the corporate/political establishment is so severe that other approaches are needed. After all it is good enough for the Office of the President.
    Nor is it possible to argue that experience in the job is important when St. Louis has faltered for over 50 years and continues to do so in many ways.

  36. shocked and in awe says:

    Jim and duckworthless have the most ridiculous comments on this board. Jim believes, and rightly so, that the project meets all requirements and can move right along. You are the epitomy of mediocrity. Duck occaisionally talks about leaving this backwards town. Doug, move out of here! If you aren’t doing things to change the current climate for the better then go.

    We can talk a good talk but I don’t see many citizens doing much action other than Steve, Mike Allen, urbanstl and a few others. Elections are coming up, run for office! Trust me, I’m thinking about it. I see the Soulard strip mall signs daily and it really pisses me off. So, if you want change, run for office. I’m sure Steve will post election info in the future.

    Oddly enough, the security word is “alderman”.

  37. shocked and in awe says:

    If you want to see citizens doing good work all you have to do is look at Benton Park West. Chad Johnson and Bill Byrd are really turning that place around. Bet you that if that Soulard strip mall was proposed they would have the whole area in protest!

    Does anyone here live in Soulard? What do you think about this project?

  38. Matt says:

    “I emailed Alderwoman young nearly two weeks ago regarding this abymsal project. I urge you all to do the same. Please. I didn’t buy my house in Soulard to be surrounded by strip malls. ”

    Did she respond?

    I urge all 7th Ward residents to email AND call Young if this project has revolted you as much as the rest of us. This will go straight from her rubberstamp to groundbreaking if you don’t let her know you’re a constituent and you’re not happy.

    I am going to register my opinion with her even though I now live in New Orleans. I would advise Ward 6 appreciators (aka non-residents) to do the same even though she’ll likely shrug you off.

  39. Jim Zavist says:

    I’ve been involved in these battles for twenty-some years, both as an architect and as a neighborhood activist, so it’s not surprising that I’m more pragmatic than idealistic. This particular case illustrates several critical points. One, this is but one “battle” in a larger “war”, to use a well-worn cliche. It’s no better or no worse than 80% of what’s being built around the country. Two, government has to be “fair”. It can’t impose unilateral restrictions on property without a compelling public interest and (hopefully) a public process – individual landowners and the evil developers still have both “rights” and lawyers. Three, developers don’t really enjoy conflict, they just want to make money. On one hand, they want to be told what they can and cannot do on a particular site, and they will make a financial decision to move forward, or not. The last thing they want are “last-minute” changes. On the other hand, developers aren’t stupid – if they “see the writing on the wall”, a.k.a. growing community opposition, they have and will walk away.

    Where does this leave us? How do we improve things? Three big areas. One, we need to elect and influence leaders who “get it”. Without the clout of government, especially at the local level, there’s little any one person or group can do to change things. Two, we need to focus on the rules and regulations – there are many examples around the country of better ways to shape urban design locally. Three, we need to have plans and a comprehensive vision in place BEFORE development gets rolling. And that vision can and should include incentives for better solutions (and should withold incentives for uninspired ones).

    The developer here is playing fairly – they’re “improving” an underused parking lot in full compliance with existing city regulations. Their biggest offense is mediocrity and a lack of imagination (otherwise known as “playing it safe”). Rock Hill and many other places are getting a street edge simply because it’s been a requirement from the start. It doesn’t cost much more, but it needs to be a part of the original thinking. Expecting this developer to go back to the drawing board now is a pipe dream, at best.

    I know, I know, this isn’t my neighborhood, so I’m not “invested”. Guilty as charged. I am, however, a resident of the city and I want to see better solutions citywide. The only way this is going to happen is to impose higher standards on a citywide basis. If it’s attempted ward by ward, all it will do is steer development away from those with more restrictions. This site remains but a symptom . . .

  40. dude says:

    It seems like everyone is against the proposed project, which is great and all. Just playing devils advocate here but are we missing anything by not looking at it from another direction like what good may come? Who wouldn’t want to shop for cheap cheesey Halloween costumes at 3 am or wait for their Prozac refil on the metal chairs by all the condoms? What if you have to get those bachelor party pictures developed right away? May be the population of Soulard is aging and they have to get meds now on a regular basis. May be it’ll help bring the elderly into the city.

  41. worth repeating says:

    We need to have plans and a comprehensive vision in place BEFORE development gets rolling.

  42. Jim Zavist says:

    Broadway/7th is a dividing line in more ways than one. It separates two distinct geographies, the flats on the east and the bluffs on the west. It separates the newer industrial architecture on the east from the historic architecture on the west. It’s a psychological barrier to cyclists and pedestrians as well as timid auto drivers. It separates two types of zoning. Soulardians may want to claim it as a part of their world, but it is and has been a different animal for many, many years.

    [SLP — And thus it shall always remain as such?  Stand at Park and Broadway and you can see houses on Park just West of the highway (a much bigger barrier).  You do an urban building on the site the former Burger King and all of a sudden you’ve got a good connection happening.  And at this point in the geography there is no “bluff” at all.  You know as well as I do that incrementally, project by project, this can be sewn back together like it was prior to the massive urban renewal project that tore it all apart.]

  43. Soulardx says:

    Alderwoman Young did not respond to my email regarding this project. Nor did she respond to a friend’s.

    I drive by the Bread Co strip mall many times a day. And, each time, I get angrier and angrier realizing what an incredible opportunity we missed.

  44. neighbor says:

    The problem is your “incremental” return to good urbanism does not necessarily fit with my “incremental” desire to make money. And I’ll define how I want to make a profit, thank you very much!

  45. Adam says:

    neighbor, sarcasm? if not …
    a) why should we give a damn about your profits?
    b) actually, you don’t get to define how you make profits. you work within the law, which we can change.
    i ALSO emailed phyllis about the 7th and russell strip mall a couple of weeks ago and … NO RESPONSE! SURPRISE!

  46. Howard says:

    The best time for a Soulardian to get personal time with Phyllis is when she’s playing and working activities. If you’re active in the neighborhood, then you know the what and when of these personal and community activities.

    As a general rule, if you email an elected official and don’t provide a physical addy showing that you are a constituent, and/or if your email goes on and on an on from one issue to another to another, and/or your email was written in other than a civil tone or your previous communication was in other than a civil tone, you will be ignored by the elected official.

  47. neighbor says:


    (Playing the devil’s advocate/greedy developer role here…understand this ain’t nothing personal Adam…so here goes…)

    “You shouldn’t give a damn about my profits, but I do. And I’m betting if I build my suburban crap strip center I’ll do just fine. I’ll probably get some of the business from the closed Burger King and the other fast food joints up the street. I’ll get business from A-B and other people driving on Broadway. I’ll probably get some business from Soulard residents looking for more convenient shopping choices. I might even open a Blockbuster video store. And I’ll be cashing rent checks from tenants for the next 20 years. And I’ll probably move to Florida, and keep cashing rent checks. And Phyllis Young might move to the condo next to me on the beach. Bottom line? I don’t give a damn what you think, and if you don’t shop in my shopping center, I don’t care, ’cause the next guy will. And I know they will because I’ve built a hundred of these kinds of projects all over the country.”

  48. WWSPD says:

    Just a quick update. I received a reply to my e-mail message to Phyllis Young. This project is in the earliest (purely speculative) stages. I would encourage everyone to continue to let the Alderwoman know your feelings. Please clearly identify yourself, be civil, and take the time to clearly articulate your reasons why this style of development is wrong for this area, the nearby neighborhoods, its residents, and the city as a whole.

    And please, if you know anyone that lives near there, let them know and encourage them to speak with her.

  49. South Side Red says:

    neighbor: Your property rights are not absolute. You can’t run a crackhouse on that property. You can’t bury nuclear waste there. You probably can’t open a strip club there. In some communities you can’t even erect a sign above a certain height. And if the citizens change the laws to prevent your strip mall, you won’t be building that there, either.

    Nobody has an absolute unlimited right to do whatever will make them money, at least not under our system of government.

    Besides, I’d think a smart businessperson would look at what has worked in recent city development and what hasn’t. A certain vast, empty, money-losing strip mall in a densely-populated, heavily-trafficked area of Southtown comes to mind. I wouldn’t put the down payment on that beachfront condo in Florida just yet.

  50. LisaS says:

    understanding that neighbor is playing the other side … the question I would ask is, okay then, profit is an important motive … but why should we–the citizens of the City–choose to increase your profits by providing subsidies (tax abatements, etc) for a project that doesn’t meet the values that brought most of us to the City?
    Bottom line: we have got to change the zoning codes so that development in the City comes at least to the same standard of urbanity as is currently being constructed in the suburbs. Urbanist slate for City electoral offices, anybody?

  51. neighbor says:


    We don’t know that this project is getting tax abatement. It might be. In fact, it’s possible that this property’s been blighted with a redevelopment plan on the books for years, and is just now getting a project/developer. (Easy enough to find out. The info is public record tied to address/locator/parcel number information). However, if it is so blighted, then all the developer needs to do is develop the property according to the redevelopment plan and the project qualifies for tax abatement.

    On the other hand, it would seem that Soulard should have turned the corner far enough so that blighting and tax abatement is no longer necessary. Sort of hard to say, and there is no hard and fast rule/test for this. Some say it’s the so-called “but for” test. But that’s a pretty low standard. Land cost figures into “but for” feasibility banalyses. If you’re paying $10-$15 per square foot or more for land, it’s hard to now justify tax abatement/but for analysis.

    Indeed, maybe that’s the test right there. Once land prices exceed $X/SF, developments no longer qualify for tax abatement. Otherwise, we, the public, are essentially subsidizing higher prices being paid for private property to ensure X return rates to end-user developers and land sellers.

    Sort of a round the mulberry bush reply…sorry about that. Here’s another way to look at this…

    Maybe we *should* be giving incentives to encourage the kind of development we want, but not so for generic, basic work. It’s a tough balance, and when you’re trying to generate investment, shopping dollars, jobs, and so on, there’s not as much time spent on the wonkish exercise to figure out the degree of elasticity in the development economics/process.

    One reason, most developers don’t have the time or patience to endure such drawn out, academic conversations.

    If we as a community want such planning, feasibility analyses going into our development activities, then we will have to make it happen.

    And while blog comments are interesting to read discussions, they don’t do much to change government policies at 1200 Market or 1015 Locust.

    Aside….it’s funny how Steve’s spam detector so often seems to work like an internet “8 ball” game or ouige (sp) board. The anti-spam word for this post is “publicpolicy”.

  52. john says:

    Blighting and tax abatement are used all over the StL area no matter where or no matter what recent trends may be (even in Clayton, where $7.4 million was offered per acre, blighting was used to coerce owners). The lack of knowledge by the public has always been a key to understanding how misinformation is distributed and becomes an “everyone knows…” in StL.
    You don’t have to be pretend to be “a greedy developer” to understand that virtually every major development in the StL area is designed for profit and that MEANS CATERING to the auto-dependent. No area in StL (besides in Clayton) has the population, income levels, density, and/or sidewalk traffic of sufficient size to convince developers that parking lots are not needed.
    The Koman Group is known for its CityPlace (no joke) development in Creve Coeur on Olive Blvd near 270. It looks like the future of StL will be determined by suburban entities, whether downtown or on the north side, and they are strong supporters of large parking lots!
    Changing zoning alone will not prevent “ugly” developments. Both the political structure and the level of auto dependency needs to be changed first, and I see little hope for either one.

  53. Adam says:


    yes, yes, i understand why the DEVELOPER gives a damn about his/her profits. it doesn’t matter though because a few thousand signatures and enough bad publicity can send this project to hell where it belongs.

  54. Scott O. says:

    I got a response from Alderwoman Young, which was brief, but at least let me know she read my email and gave me a chance to further elaborate and answer a question she asked. I empasized that people in this neighborhood intentionally choose to live in a place that does not have this kind of dev. and that other Midwest cities, lets say Chicago and Minneapolis, would never, at this point, allow something this suburban right on the edge of one of their great historic districts.

  55. “Doug, move out of here! If you aren’t doing things to change the current climate for the better then go.” Yes, I have done nothing and my bags are packed. I am simply an armchair critic who didn’t walk door to door for months in our wonderful summer weather in order to stop a suburban drive-thru and recall a certain Alderwoman who so understands the utility of urban design and planning. I didn’t do this because individuals in the surrounding community work multiple jobs and have ailing family members, thus didn’t have the time to be politically active. Yeah, I mostly spent that summer playing X-Box while blissfully sitting at my parents house in Paul McKee’s backyard blogging about how St. Louis is so damn ugly.
    The political culture in this City is severely stifling and alienates progressive thought as such innovation is a challenge to political turf and also the actual ability of those in office. These ideas are anathema to them because it undermines their utility as a legislator. What I am saying is that 1) other cities, even those of similar populations, have far more progressive land use policies thus already have established or steadily progressing urbanity 2) it is a lot easier to leave and have those benefits now, rather than fight for years in order to *maybe* achieve something similar here 3) the fact that it is easier to leave rather than lobby means St. Louis is at a disadvantage 4) if St. Louis wants an advantage it needs a fundamental change in its political culture. 5) Either the aldermen can see that there needs to be a change thus make it own their own, or they can become further entrenched and fight progressive reform thus loose policy entrepreneurs to other cities.
    Yet, if many of what Peirce calls “citizen-leaders” leave, then a coalition capable of bringing about a fundamental change in political culture will not assemble. However, even the most dedicated activist can become worn out and it may seem more effective to simply leave. Finally, the current political culture and resulting built environment certainly deters urbanists who want density and a walkable diverse lifestyle. It even puts us at a disadvantage with New Urbanist projects, when we naturally have an advantage because our urbanity is authentic!!! When we destroy our urbanity we simply throw our advantages out the window thus limit our future growth.

  56. LisaS says:

    neighbor, how I wish it weren’t so, but this project will almost certainly get tax abatement–I’ll buy everyone who commented on this post thus far and Phyllis Young an ale at Dressel’s if it doesn’t. (How’s that for certainty?) The City still gives huge tax incentives to projects in the Central West End, for heaven’s sake, how much more established can a neighborhood be?
    So far as auto-dependency … that’s definitely so, but why not at least build up to the street, put have a nicer than average but definitely back face to the street (think the Boulevard) and the parking behind the building like is being done in enlightened places like Rock Hill, Richmond Heights, and Chesterfield? Can’t we at least pretend to be urban in a few locations in the City? Really, it wouldn’t take much more than that to shut most of us up ….

  57. john says:

    FYI, I agree that parking in the rear is preferred but using the Boulevard is proof of failure, not “enlightenment”. Steve knows this, has filmed the development, and the businesses here have closed their doors, claimed bankruptcy and/or have left in this short period (C&B and the restaurants remain). Walkways to the Boulevard from surrounding neighborhoods were eliminated by MetroLink and now MoDOT. Pace/leaders/citizen leaders in the community made the area unfriendly to pedestrians-cyclists and more auto-dependent.
    In the beginning, the President of Pace Properties (amusingly) convinced the Richmond Heights City Council that “the Boulevard will be the Michigan Ave of StL”. Does anyone think that the Boulevard reminds them of being on the Gold Coast? Low standards in StL typically lead to poor results and the political structure supports it.
    Pace promised new town homes and condos, but is no longer building the residential units. The leadership has let them out of their obligations. This story is a perfect example of Doug’s points written above, right Steve?

  58. Jim Zavist says:

    If this “project is in the earliest (purely speculative) stages”, it would make more sense to contact the developer directly, especially if the desired changes are low or no cost ones. While the alderman apparently has somewhat of the final say, they’d much rather have a win-win situation where concerned Soulardians and the developer walk into her office, hand-in-hand, singing Kumbaya . . .

  59. Jim Zavist says:

    Denver struggled with many of these same issues. The result is a new zoning classification, “Main Street Zoning” (http://www.denvergov.org/Default.aspx?alias=www.denvergov.org/MS). Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it an improvement? YES! The biggest remaining challenge is convincing landowners to support the rezoning of their land, and this is being done by offering “no cost” incentives like requiring less parking which allows more square footage to be built. By crafting a win-win solution (more profit for developers, more tax revenues to the city AND a better urban fabric), acrimony is reduced and better results are achieved. This beats the St. Louis “solution” of petty, inconsistent and erratic governmental review and approval, lack of neighborhood input and redirecting most new tax “revenues” to pay for “new” developments that will have little sustained staying power . . .

  60. john says:

    Good ideas in Denver but will they work in the auto-dependent society of StL? Some day perhaps but the culture, population, density, political structure ALL need to change.
    In the 1930s, civic leaders recognized that the river front was unattractive and needed major changes. A major force was unleashed to tear down the warehouses and elevated train tracks, to clean the city and make it friendlier and hospitable. This was the beginning of the Arch Grounds and this is why Steve’s chain of stories are all part of a larger picture.
    Trouble is the area next to the Arch was eventually taken over and designed by a culture-mindset that favored cars over people. This mindset and regional strategy/philosophy did not end at the Arch. Like the structure of our political units, it blossomed from that point on and became the divisive road-highway system that favored sprawl over directly tackling local problems.
    The leadership in the 1930s was open minded, knew major changes were needed and necessary. Does current leadership in the region see similar needs today? Which mindset and strategy is alive and well in the design of the New I64? Are we stil spending scarce resources to support more livable communities or do we continuing to spend these funds to support more auto-dependency? The answer is obvious…

    [SLP — Don’t kid yourself — the clearing of the riverfront goes back to 1904 and is the origins of our just clear it for new stuff — that has to be better than the old.  By the 1930s plans were already underway throughout the city for street widening and boulevards designed for motoring.  The leaders screwed up back then — they did not see the value in the urban city they had.  Of course, at that time they had plenty of urban city —- we’ve since deliberately razed huge portions to the tipping point where we are not longer a city but a collection of vacant land, suburban-ish areas and the rare urban street.  Sad, very sad…]

  61. neighbor says:

    SLP writes:

    “to the tipping point where we are not longer a city but a collection of vacant land, suburban-ish areas and the rare urban street. Sad, very sad”

    Steve, you’re way overstating things here. Yes, there are areas where there has been massive demolition. But there are also huge areas which are essentially the same as they have been since first built. This is true in both north and south city.

    To say that “we are no longer a city but a collection of vacant land, suburban-ish areas and the rare urban street” is simply not true.

    This hyerbolae, along with Duckworth’s tireworn urban competitiveness themes, fails to acknowledge one basic truth: We are St. Louis. We are unique in our own way. If you don’t like St. Louis for what it is, that’s up to you. There is no perfect place.

    We are what we are, created with over 200 years of history. Individuals have the freedom to work within or outside of the system and be part of our long term story. Or you have the freedom to live your life elsewhere.

    And remember, we are an organization town. If an individual wants to be effective, he/she will be much moreso by working within effective organizations.

    [SLP — Well, I see it differently than you.  To me we are at that threshold where it becomes hard to give a damn anymore.  Sure, St. Louis Hills looks much the same as it did decades ago as does places elsewhere in the city.  Yet, the new starbucks adjacent to St. Louis Hills is the same one they’d build off a highway interchange in a corn field.  Thanks but no thanks.  I care a lot about this city but for every step forward we seem to take a few backwards.  And you know what, if people don’t want to live an urban lifestyle in an urban core of a region they are free to live elsewhere —- I’m calling a turf war!!!!]

  62. neighbor says:

    One follow up point. Take someone like Jim Zavist. He’s obviously a development professional. If Jim were to become active as a volunteer on the board of a St. Louis CDC, he would increase the capacity of that organization, and his ideas would be given more weight because they would have the organization and its full membership behind them. Implied in this structure is the weeks, months, and years of work it would require of Zavist to participate in the organization and get his ideas institutionalized within the CDC. Further, his ideas might be more accepted in say Soulard than St. Louis Hills. The point is, it’s cheap talk to urban plan the blogosphere till Kingdom come. It’s much more real, and on the front lines of progressive change, to pursue an urbanist vision within the organization culture of St. Louis. And for everyone getting ready to shoot the messenger with the whole, “been there, done that” objection about working within the St. Louis organizational culture, fire away, but understand, the organization culture is the place where things get done in this town.

    [SLP — CDC’s in my experience spit out development professionals routinely.  Often you get the types that don’t want any renters, everything must be single family and so on.  Sure, you get the rare CDC such as Old North that seeks to make their area more urban as well as save the existing fabric while embracing the idea of new construction.  They are the exception, not the rule.  

    But maybe you are right.  Everybody run out and become in involved in your local group.  Run for office, get involved.  I’m certainly involved way beyond sitting behind a keyboard.  In larger numbers we can bring about change throughout the city.]

  63. john says:

    Thanks Steve for confirming the major point that auto-dependency is a tradition here and in many ways becoming worse. Other cities are growing and striving by emphasizing livable communities while StL leadership does the opposite. My reference to the 1930s had to do with the Arch grounds and yes Forest Park property was taken in the 1930s to create highway 40. However, to say “don’t kid yourself” is definitely my main point. Don’t kid yourself or others that auto-dependencies aren’t self-destructive, growing, and largely explains the parking-lot strategies all around the region.
    “Cars proved to be the bane of downtown’s existence. We were so eager to make the city car-friendly that whenever a building would become obsolete, St. Louis would build a surface parking lot” says Eric Sandweiss of Indiana University, author of StL: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape and former director of the MO Historical Society.

    [SLP — I think we are on the same page, although I wasn’t even thinking about Forest Park.  All over the city major streets were widened for the auto — Olive, Jefferson, Natural Bridge, etc…  These were our early day highways — once pleasant commercial streets made unbearably wide.  This street work often led to the removal of the streetcar lines as well.  

    We can certainly agree that auto-dependency, which is different than having and using a car, is quite destructive.]

  64. Slingen says:

    If it’s KOMAN (and it is according to the sign) there will be NO bike racks just as there are NO bike racks at CityPlace in Creve Couer. KOMAN believes everyone should drive!

  65. neighbor says:

    “CDC’s in my experience spit out development professionals routinely.” In my experience CDCs are always looking for qualified people to join their boards, increasing their capacity with a good mix of neighborhood residents, people with professional experience in related fields, and most of all, assembling a dedicated group of talented people capable of attracting a broad array of support and partners for the organization. Hence, working with an effective organization is so much more productive than going it alone.

  66. I am suprised that Koman didn’t demolish Nooter for a Walgreens but it may be too soon to call that one.

    Check out this sexy development:
    We need more of that!

  67. Jim Zavist says:

    Clarification – I’m an architect with some 30 years in the profession. The bulk of my clients have been commercial building owners, trying to put tenants into existing buildings. In my “spare” time, starting in the late ’80’s, I became increasingly active in neighborhood politics in Denver, working on issues as diverse as parks, water rates, transit and yes, zoning. I had the opportunity to interact with many developers (as well as many “normal” citizens and government officials and staff) on a range of issues, everything overheight fences to McMansions to rebuilding a grocery store in my neighborhood to language changes to Dever’s Zoning Ordinance to serving on the steering committee updating their comprehensive plan. So, yes, I do have a fair amount of experience. I would also classify myself either as “battle hardened” or “war weary” (to use a couple of well-worn cliches), depending on what day it is. In some ways, I’m may be technically a “development professional”. I’ve never done any greenfield development, and I haven’t done that much brownfield redevelopment. I’ve primarily been involved with remodelling existing buildings for new uses, and as such, I’ve had to work with (and around) existing zoning on many occassions. And yes, I’ve worked with (and respect) those “evil developers”, as well as helping neighborhood folks opposing other projects. That’s why I’m more focused on both consensus-building and on respecting both sides’ positions than I am on outright opposition. In way too many cases, people assume that what they’ve seen for years will never change. In other cases, it’s been scary (as a “design professional”) to dig into existing regulations and to see what is actually possible on many parcels. Ignorance is no one’s friend, especially in the built environment. But, the hard reality remains that investment and reinvestment IS a good thing – it sustains the city and provides jobs, and certainly beats the alternative. The form much of it takes may be questionable, but the dollars they bring in are usually a positive. Bottom line, before everyone starts lining up to shoot down developments they “don’t like”, we all need to understand what the ground rules are (and I’m still trying to figure how things happen politically around here), and if and when we don’t like them, change them, or, in Doug’s case, be prepared to move to “friendlier” surroundings. And, as more than one person has pointed out, Get InvolvedI It’s one thing to bitch. It’s much more productive to find solutions, however small, and work toward positive change!

  68. Adam says:

    “I am suprised that Koman didn’t demolish Nooter for a Walgreens but it may be too soon to call that one.
    Check out this sexy development:
    We need more of that!”
    i threw up in my mouth a little. a lot.

  69. Jim Zavist says:

    Intersting . . . I checked out the SLDC (http://stlouis.missouri.org/sldc/SLDCAnnualReport2007.pdf) and, not surprisingly, it’s more focused on attracting and sustaining business than it is on design issues. And, not surprisingly, it seems to be made up of people already in other governmental positions . . .

  70. john says:

    Businesses (even with large and front facing parking lots) are desperately needed to address the city’s rapidly growing gap between projected revenues and unfunded liabilities (which are growing much faster). Financial issues are likely to dominate personal taste, it’s that easy.

  71. South Side Red says:

    I’m sick to the very top of my guts of the “Financial issues are likely to dominate personal taste” canard. Urban design and profitability are NOT in opposition. That’s lazy, outdated thinking that does not recognize reality (the economic decline of suburban strip developments in urban settings vs. the continuing success of the Loop and the skyrocketing investment in downtown).

    Urban design is not an issue of “personal taste”. It’s the only way to organize high-density city living that makes social AND ECONOMIC sense. Every strip mall in the city just digs the city’s financial hole that much deeper. Or maybe I just overlooked all those new tenants at the spectacularly successful Southtowne Centre.

  72. john says:

    Agreed that outdated thinking should not govern policy but this is still the conservative and auto-dependent StL. Urban design is about personal tastes of a community. I urge everyone to spend some time to learn about the StL finances at http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/budget08/. The new reporting requirements of municipal finances are forcing elected leaders to reveal data they use to keep secret.

  73. M says:

    I am also sick of the phrase “conservative and auto-dependent Saint Louis”, which has been used more than once in this thread alone. While indeed the city government in general and possibly much of the suburban region can be described as this, I hardly feel that a majority of the city residents can be labeled as such. People here want something different, and has been said many times before, urban-minded design and profitability are not opposites in reality. They are just considered opposites when the developers don’t have experience in that type of development. People (especially developers of this kind) do not like change.

  74. Jim Zavist says:

    You may be “sick of the phrase ‘conservative and auto-dependent Saint Louis’”, but do you have a better one to describe our current reality? Compared to the other ten metropolitan areas our size (2-3 million), only the Tampa area and Puerto Rico have made/maintained smaller investments in public transit than we have. Compared to places like metro Pittsburgh, Cleveland and yes, Denver, each having public-transit bus fleets numbering ±1,000, Metro and Madison County Transit, combined, count less than half that number. Without the option of a viable public transit system, we are, by default, auto-dependent.

  75. “Doug’s case, be prepared to move to “friendlier” surroundings”

    The “ground rules,” as I stated above, need to change. I am not necessarily going to be leaving any time soon. My point was that if the City continues its present course many will be given an incentive to leave. I moved here to get away from the suburbs, not to have them follow me. I don’t think Steve moved here from Oklahoma for a suburban built environment. And nor did Michael Allen. People moved here for a sustainable pedestrian centric urban built environment with regionally unique architecture. Developers are not evil, however when they are given free reign they often do what they perceive the market wants. Unfortunately they don’t really understand what market they are in. The design requirements of the City of St. Louis and St. Charles are different, however many suburban developers don’t understand that. Obviously when our aldermen do not either it is clear the difference needs to be enumerated in zoning and possibly neighborhood design guidelines. People want urban design as a commodity. When this commodity isn’t available, or it is destroyed, many will simply leave for where it is supplied. We need to prevent that in St. Louis if we want a true and long lasting renaissance.

  76. Adam says:

    “Developers are not evil, however when they are given free reign they often do what they perceive the market wants. Unfortunately they don’t really understand what market they are in.”
    i think they understand just fine. they understand they can build cheap crap here and get away with it because neither the citizens nor the government demand better. they really don’t care what the market WANTS, only what the market will settle for. so long as we spend our dollars at these sh*t-heap developments, developers and their pocket-alderpeople will continue to plan and build them behind our backs.

  77. Jillian says:

    I’m not quite sure if the strip mall at Kingshighway & Chippewa was tax subsidized, although it would be very surprising if it was not since this city just loves to give about ever new business a tax break, but I do know that the Walgreens there charges 1% more sales tax than other stores. I’ll shop where it’s cheaper even though it will mean a savings of just a few cents. It’s a matter of principle. As far as parking lots, look at the Walgreens at Grand & Gravois. They booted people out of their homes so they could have this massive parking lot & over 50% of it is never used. This city is full of half empty parking lots and half empty strip malls. You think our aldermen would learn from their mistakes. But when you’re spending someone else’s money, who cares.

  78. Jim Zavist says:

    Now the Starbucks here (? – 2000 S 7th) is scheduled for closure . . .

  79. john says:

    The 600 SBUX closures include 100 the company announced at the beginning of this year and 500 it announced earlier this month. The Lou will have 5 closed at the following spots: Union St., Manchester-Sappington, Telegraph-ERB, Euclid-Laclede, and Russel-7th. Others will be closed in Dardenne Prairie (you know the place where Great Rivers believes bike paths are more needed than in the Lou), Chesterfield, O’Fallon, St Chuck, Weldon Springs and on Lockwood in Webster Groves.


Comment on this Article: