Home » Accessibility »Planning & Design »Politics/Policy »Suburban Sprawl » Currently Reading:

St. Louis’ Leaders Critical of New Urbanism while Supporting Sprawl Development in Old Urbanist Areas

A little bit more of suburbia is coming to the City of Saint Louis thanks to Ald. Phyllis Young. Rebuffed over the planned demolition of occupied homes on Bohemian Hill to the west of Soulard, she’s been working on a suburban scheme for the east edge of Soulard. And our city’s director of Planning & Urban Design, Rollin “Old Urbanism” Stanley? Well, he’s been too busy bashing the suburban Walgreen’s locations in St. Louis while traveling in other states and writing articles about the wonderful old urbanism he enjoys in Soulard — something not found in New Town at St. Charles. Hey Rollin — you know what else is not at New Town —- crap like this!!!! I say you need to step down off that high horse of yours and take a look in your own backyard. We’ve got suburbia breeding like rabbits all over the city — we need some real leadership from those on the payroll!

Of course this is really out of his hands — Stanley is only let out of his office for the big grandiose plans such as the failed riverfront and gateway mall. He is allowed, while out of state, to disparage the proliferation of suburban development but not in town to those actually making decisions. Clueless Young and spineless Stanley are two reasons why we are getting the development we are.

Case in point. The new auto-centric strip center on the very edge of Soulard.

7thstripmap

Above, the under construction strip center is the blue box on the right. Ald Young and planner Stanley both live in the 9xx block of Lami, shown on the map. As you can see, the neighborhood is quite dense relative to the industrial mess created to the east during another failed urban renewal project during the 1960s.

Stanley writes of his house & neighborhood in the October 2007 issue of Planning magazine:

I walk two blocks to a little grocery store, and there are several restaurants and bars nearby. A century-old farmers market is a few blocks further. The Ace Hardware store is a four-minute bike ride away in the industrial area where many residents used to work.

Is this “new” urbanism? Not at all. My neighborhood is the result of 140 years of urban evolution. It represents neighborhoods all over the U.S., North America, and the world.

He goes on to deride the corner store in New Town at St. Charles for not having the history of his building, a former bar now upscale residential.

For those of us who live in “old urbanist” communities, it’s painful to see our tax dollars fleeing to the hinterlands to pay for the roads the state so loves to build — just to serve all those new developments. The same dollars could go to create public transit, which would serve so many more people. Now that would be good urbanist policy.

Nice, very nice. The man can’t get good urban development blocks from his own house but he can take time to bad mouth in a national magazine the more urban development happening in the corn fields!!! Uh, something is wrong with this picture. Shouldn’t those of us in old urbanist areas be setting the bar for urban design?

OK, back to this blight under construction…

IMG_8998.JPG

Above you can see, in the early stages at right, a former office/warehouse building getting a make over. In the background, across 7th street (most often assumed to be Broadway) at Russell. With the exception of the two gas stations on the West side of 7th at Russell, the area to the West is compact, urban and walkable. But first a bit of history.
A 1960s urban renewal project cleared the Eastern section of Soulard and re-directed Broadway along 7th street. With the exception of a few buildings along the old Broadway, the entire area known as Kosciusko was razed. This new wider 7th street cut off Soulard from the commercial spine of Broadway. But it was a good excuse to raze a big area for industrial uses.

The problem is that now this industrial area where residences and businesses once stood, is itself getting a bit tired. One ugly block building at 7th & Russell sat vacant for some time with a for sale/lease sign. Someone came up with the concept to turn it into a strip center — change a few openings, tart up the facade facing Soulard/7th, at a free-standing Starbucks Drive-Thru and of course toss some parking out front. And in St. Louis logic, because the building was not occupied and not the final desired result — we are calling it “blighted.” Thus, the project qualifies for public subsidy.
IMG_8986.JPG

Above, looking SE along 7th you can see the old building being prepped for a new facade. In the foreground is the sidewalk removed to create an auto entrance for the new Starbucks Drive-Thru.

IMG_1466.JPG

See, a Drive-Thru. Not a neighborhood coffee house that happens to have a drive-thru. No, a Drive-Thru that will most likely lack an ADA-compliant access route from the public sidewalk to the accessible entrance of the building. Perhaps the city expects those in wheelchairs to wheel-thru to get their latte?

IMG_3548.JPG

So like I said, the Soulard side is being given a new stage set.

IMG_3550.JPG

The standard EIFS system provides the backdrop of the generic backlit signage seen on strip malls from coast to coast. In the foreground is one of the parking lot curbs already in place. None seem to indicate any provisions for accessing the site via foot.

IMG_3566.JPG

Above, the strip center on the right with soon to be parking out front. The future Starbucks Drive-Thru is in the background on the right. You can also make out the Arch if you look closely. Rather than encourage 7th street, at left, to build up as an urban corridor. The city’s 2005 “Strategic Land Use Plan” appropriately lists this area as “Neighborhood Commerce” which is defined as:

Areas where the development of new and the rehabilitation of existing commercial uses that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods should be encouraged. These areas include traditional commercial streets at relatively major intersections and along significant roadways where commercial uses serve multiple neighborhoods or where the development of new commercial uses serving adjacent neighborhoods is intended. Mixed use buildings with commercial at grade and a mix of uses on upper floors are an ideal type within these areas. These areas may include higher density mixed use residential and commercial and may initially include flexibility in design to allow ground floor uses to change over time e.g., ground floor space that can transition from residential to commercial use as the local demand for retail goods and services strengthens in the area.

Sounds good to me! So what happened? Well, the zoning remains J-Industrial. Translation, the Alderman and developer can do as they please and make changes on a case by case basis. The very last thing they want is anything remotely coming close to requiring, via zoning, the mixed-use neighborhood commercial described above.

IMG_3554.JPG

But instead we are getting a typical strip center with parking out front on what is clearly a major intersection adjacent to a very pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. These developers would likely put this in the center of Soulard if they could. To their suburban eyes this is a big improvement. To me this is one more reason why we will remain at 350,000 people. Our development standards could not be any lower.

Here are some quotes from the 17-page attachment to BB257 currently before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen:

The proposed land uses, zoning, public facilities and utility plans are appropriate and consistent with local objectives as defined by the General Plan of the City of St. Louis which includes the “Strategic Land Use Plan” (2005). Any specific proposal to the LCRA for development of the Area or any portion of the Area shall contain, among other things, adequate provisions for traffic, vehicular parking, safety from fire, adequate provisions for light and air, sound design and arrangement and improved employment opportunities.

Really? This plan is consistent with the land use plan I quoted above? I think they try to get around the neighborhood commerce issue by stating the area isn’t in a residential area.

4. PRESENT LAND USE AND DENSITY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIESThe properties surrounding the Area are primarily used for commercial and industrial uses.

Residential density for the surrounding neighborhoods is approximately 0 persons per acre.

Zero persons per acre? Did you see the map above? This is one of the oldest areas in the city and one that is naturally more dense than 20th century areas. But as you might expect they found a reason to blight what was an ugly but sound building.

6. FINDING OF BLIGHT

The property within the Area is unoccupied and in poor condition (as defined in Section A(2) above). The existence of deteriorated property constitutes both an economic liability to the City of St. Louis and presents a hazard to the health and well-being of its citizens. These conditions, therefore, qualify the Area as blighted within the meaning of Section 99.300 et seq. of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2000, as amended (the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law).

Wow, who knew that a vacant commercial building was hazardous to our health? Maybe someday I’ll get to vote on the legislation that declares this new project blighted because it is so effing suburban in nature. Of course in 17 pages amended to the bill they talk about all sorts of requirements:

The Area shall be subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations and codes, including but not limited to, the City Building Code, Zoning District Regulations, and stipulations of the Planning and Urban Design Agency (“PDA”) of the City. The population densities, land coverage, and building intensities of redevelopment shall be governed by the Zoning Code. No changes in the building codes or ordinances are required.

All federal laws? Like the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires an ADA-compliant access route from a public sidewalk? Naw, the city will give them the tax abatement anyway because they don’t care about pedestrians. Still, the above seems pretty general. Do they get anymore specific? Yep!

Rehabilitation shall respect the original exterior in terms of design and materials. Window and door shapes and detailing shall be compatible with the original design

New construction shall be compatible in design with the surrounding neighborhood, if any, in terms of scale, materials, set back, profile and site layout.

Respect original exterior? You mean the brutal concrete block original? Gee, the site layout certainly isn’t compatible with Soulard or even the urban storefronts along Broadway in the same block. Damn that boiler plate language. Anything else?

Canvas awnings with signs are permitted, provided they are compatible with the overall design and architectural details of the building upon which they are to be placed and are placed neatly within the window or door opening. Signage on awnings may be located on the sloping portion of the canvas awning, on the front of a canopy or on the awning valance. In no case shall signage be allowed on both an awning and a building for the same business. Logos and graphic elements may be up to ten (10) sq. ft. in size (depending on the size of the awning), while names or brand copy shall be in proportion to the size of the awning, but in no case shall lettering be more than twelve inches (12”) high.

Wow, that is a lot to absorb and it is only a portion of the sign section. What about landscaping?

The property shall be well-landscaped. Perimeter street trees of a minimum caliper of 2-1/2 inches and generally 30-35 feet on center, depending upon tree type, utilities, curb cuts, etc., shall be provided along all public or private streets – preferably in tree lawns along the curb. If necessary, sidewalks shall be notched to accommodate the trees.

Ornamental or shade trees should be provided in the front lawns along with evergreen accent shrubs.

Existing, healthy trees shall be retained, if feasible.

Man, they seem to cover everything. What about fencing?

Fencing in the front yards and facing side street shall be limited to ornamental metal with a black matte finish. Fencing behind the building line and not facing a street may be chain link with a black matter finish, or a good quality, privacy fence provided it is not wood stockade style. Fencing facing a side street may be ornamental metal or a good quality board fence up to six (6) feet in height provided landscaping is provided between the fence and the sidewalk.

Of course all this is required to meet the “Urban Design Objectives;”

The property shall be developed so it is an attractive residential asset to the surrounding neighborhood.

Hmm, I must have missed the part where the get to the items that make this “an attractive residential asset to the surrounding neighborhood.” Ah, here we go — parking regulations:

Parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable zoning and building code requirements of the City, including PDA standards. This will provide adequate vehicular parking for the Area.

Surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line. Surface parking along public streets shall be buffered by a continuous evergreen hedge at least two and one-half (2-1/2) feet high on planting and maintained at three and onehalf (3-1/2) feet high at maturity. Three percent (3%) of the interior of all parking lots containing more than twenty-five (25) spaces shall be landscaped with trees, at least two and one-half (2-1/2) inch caliper in size on planting. The trees shall be planted on islands, the largest dimension of which shall be at least five (5) feet, planted with low lying ground cover or other plant material.

I highlighted one sentence from the above — “surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line.” It would certainly appear to me that all of the parking is beyond the building line — by the very nature of being in front of the building!!! And sorry, an evergreen hedge is a poor buffer in such an urban context. The detailed addendum to the bill even covers discrimination and minority participation:

A Redeveloper shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation or physical handicap in the construction and operation of any project in the Area and shall take such affirmative action as may be appropriate to afford opportunities to everyone in all activities of the project, including enforcement, contracting, operating and purchasing.

So what is missing? The part about the city allegedly being “old urbanism” and provisions so that say the city’s top urban planner can walk a few blocks on a sidewalk to get to this new residential asset!!! Or perhaps, in exchange for granting tax abatement, we require say a bike rack for parking of something besides cars! You’d think, in 17 pages, with all the talk of types of fencing, heights of shrubs and diameter of trees they could squeeze in a few words that mandate a simple sidewalk to get you from the public sidewalk to the front door of each business! Is that so difficult for this city to comprehend? We’ve got people that are living in homes that can see this strip mall out their windows and yet provisions to walk to a business is not even a requirement for 10-year tax abatement? This city is a joke and Rollin Stanley’s words about “old urbanism” fall flat when we see what is permitted under his watch.
Despite the project nearing completion the legislation to grand the tax abatement was just introduced on 9/21/2007 and is still pending before the “Neighborhood Development” committee of the Board of Aldermen. I’m sure they’ll all bring their official rubber stamps.


 

Currently there are "51 comments" on this Article:

  1. margie says:

    A likely explanation for Rollin Stanley’s seeming contradictions: Perhaps he is not so much on a high horse, as pragmatically positioning himself for his next job, where he might have more opportunity to impact change. I’m sure it’s quite frustrating to be in his shoes, preaching good planning and development to city officials who think parking garages equal progress.

     
  2. Adam says:

    WHY IS IT SO F**KING HARD TO PUT THE PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS!!!???

     
  3. Adam says:

    just sent phyllis an email about this. not a happy one. everyone else please do the same. let her know you will not shop at this pile of SH*T.

     
  4. soulardx says:

    imagine how hard it’s going to be to park in that tiny lot as well. At most, there will be a single row of spots–15 spots total? Drivers will have to wait on Russell, idling, blocking traffic, waiting for a patron to leave to get a spot. As a resident if the neighborhood, I’m also intimidated to have to walk across 7th to simply get to the Bread Co. People are going to get hurt crossing the street.

     
  5. Curtis says:

    Right on Adam. They managed to do that on South Grand and The Loop (yes, I know The Loop is mostly in U. City), so why do they have to screw up Soulard? I’m liking my Macklind Business District more everyday!

     
  6. Ben H says:

    My guess is that by “reusing” a shell of the existing building, the developer was able to weasel permission to put the parking in front since the established building line was already so far from the street. Its a case of following the letter of zoning but not the intent. Strip mall developers NEVER like to deal with existing buildings, so thats my guess as to why they kept this one.
    As for starbucks, they used to make creative reuse of old bank buildings and such. Now theyve adopted the walgreens formula, where only new cookie cutter freestanding drive thru locations will do. Its part Starbucks’s transition from innovative company to suburban ubiquity. The effect of that on the urban fabric is sinister. Im trying to stop going there, i wouldnt go at all if the people at the 7th and Pine location werent so dern nice.

     
  7. Jim Zavist says:

    So they’re taking vacant warehouse buildings (that had surface parking) on a major thoroughfare and converting them to retail (using the essentially same surface parking) – I don’t see a major problem, other than the fact that the original warehouse project wasn’t “urban” 40-50 years ago. This is a very “green” solution – reuse, don’t demolish. It will generate some more sales taxes, hopefully from commuters and not from neighboring businesses. And it will improve the look of some “tired, industrial buildings”. While putting high-paying industrial jobs into existing industrial buildings would actually be a better solution, that doesn’t seem likely at all (in today’s economy).

    Yeah, I know, in a perfect world, we’d tear the industrial down and revert to higher-density mixed-use development. Get a clue kids, we don’t live in a perfect world! This is a step in the right direction. It keeps an area viable. It can, and likely will, be replaced by something more appropriate in 20-40 years WHEN THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT IT! Yeah, even a Walgreen’s would be appropriate here. And better redoing the crap here than tearing the “good” stuff down west of Broadway and doing it there . . .

    [SLPThis is not some 40-50 year old industrial area — it was created through wholesale demolition of a vast area in the 1960s with many building not being built until the 70s.  People’s homes were forcibly taken from them in the interest of the public good and when that failed we simply justify sprawl.

    The original building they are starting with did not have any parking out front and the area where the Starbucks is being built was vacant land.  The curb cut on 7th is new.  Parking was via on-street and through a small dock area in the rear of the property.  This is not at all a green solution.  Only a few walls and the roof structure remained — it has been entirely new from that point — even the block addition to expand the footprint.  

    This is not a step in the right direction.  This is yet another step toward suburbanizing our old urban areas.   On Grand we saw the former parking surrounded Shoney’s be razed and the urban Compton Gate condos go up in its place — incrementally moving back toward a more urban form is the only step we should be taking.  This strip center will not create new sales tax — it will simply rob that tax from elsewhere in the city such as the Breadco & Starbucks at Loughborough Commons.

    But say I go along with your argument — they can at least include a effin sidewalk to get me to the door of the place!!!]

     
  8. Hilary says:

    In an ironic twist, Rollin has bragged that he got new drive-thrus *banned* in Toronto …

     
  9. john says:

    Take a deep breath, relax, and remember that economic desperation defines policy in the StL region! Cars come first and people, well they’re further down the list. Blight is being used to secure the opportunity to buy overpriced coffee and I bet that the drive-thru will be appreciated by all those new employees at Centenne. Only a ten year tax abatement … isn’t it much longer and larger for Centenne? Do you really think that local leadership will discourage investment even if it’s auto-centric?

    [SLP — Breathing….  Yes, it is foolish for to expect our leaders and even “hot-shot” urban planner Rollin Stanley to require anything even remotely urban.  Still, it would be nice to see them require a token gesture by requiring an ADA access route rather than forcing those in wheelchairs to use the auto driveways.  Please tell me that asking for a few feet of sidewalk is not asking too much.]

     
  10. sidewalk says:

    Most pedestrians in this area are walking on the west side of 7th Street. Traffic fronting along the east side of 7th street moves like an expressway, making the area very pedestrian unfriendly. Even though its outside of Soulard proper, are Soulardians opposed to this proejct? We know Alderman Young and Planning Chief Stanley are in support. Given the lack of rumbling about this project as it chugged its way through the planning process, its doubtful many people care. It’s low on my list of concerns. The end result will be a vast improvement over what was there previously.

    [SLP — False logic.  Why are most pedestrians on the west side of 7th?  Because the city razed a vast swath of the city in the 1960s to create the wide roadway we know as 7th!!!  This separated the remaining residential area from the commercial area along Broadway.  These actions and the subsequent construction deters people from venturing Eastward.  By building something more urban on this nearly 1.5 acre site and making the use of the existing on-street parking would have a big impact on the perception of the area.  This “improvement” will take a good 20 years to erase and make it more difficult to do good design along this corridor.]

     
  11. egg... says:

    meet chicken. What Steve calls “false logic” is based on reality. The reality is that in the 60s, the industrial area east of 7th was created. In the year 2007, the site is being redeveloped as strip retail. No one proposed an urbanist form. Should the city have turned away the development? Legally, it probably had no basis. As Steve points out, the use conforms to current zoning.

     
  12. Adam says:

    “Given the lack of rumbling about this project as it chugged its way through the planning process, its doubtful many people care.”
    .
    OR MAYBE nobody knew about the plans because phyllis made no attempts to inform the community or get any input. i explicitly asked phyllis in my email whether any alternative plans were presented in a public forum, and if she does have majority support from the community to please provide those numbers. i don’t expect to get a “yes” or any numbers.
    .
    “It’s low on my list of concerns.”
    .
    that’s you.
    .
    “The end result will be a vast improvement over what was there previously.”
    .
    your opinion. guess we’ll see how it looks in 5 – 10 years. hmmm … i can think of a few comparisons.

     
  13. Adam says:

    “No one proposed an urbanist form.”
    .
    ah, yes, ‘no one’ being the one developer that phyllis dealt with, in this cae, without public forum.
    .
    “Should the city have turned away the development?”
    .
    the “city” (i.e. the alderwoman) should have weighed multiple options WITH public input. and turned down this development.
    .
    the anit-spam word is “recall” …

     
  14. GMichaud says:

    The ultimate solution is to elect new representatives. It is puzzling that while Stanley and Young enjoy Soulard they don’t have the moxie to encourage St. Louis in a new direction. Visionaries they are not. I see the “it’s better than nothing crowd” is out too.
    Stanley is most troubling, either he doesn’t believe what he says, or he is biding his time while he looks for a new job, or he doesn’t care. Whether or not he has the power to do anything in government I can’t imagine why he would hang around a city that ignores the very essence of what has made Soulard and other old city neighborhoods so desirable.
    In fact if someone was going to develop a strategy on ways to make Soulard and the city unattractive, this project is a good example of such an approach.
    The introduction of a project here would have been a perfect chance for a vigorous leadership to create a new special urban zone that extends the fabric of Soulard.
    I am surprised Soulard Restoration Group wouldn’t object to this.
    Perhaps they have become mere extensions of government policy.

     
  15. Thor Randelson says:

    The more of this crap Ald. Young continues to approve makes you wonder how things will set up for her come reelection. I can’t imagine that most of her constituents, given that they include Soulard, downtown, and Lafayette’s Square, want to put up with this crap.

    If the City has any hope of seeing an intelligent advocate of good urban design be an alderman, it seems like Ald. Young’s ward would be the logical ward to vote for such a person.

    So please Ald. Young, bulldoze some great buildings, build some strip malls, ignore pressing parking and park issues, so that the City might be treated to a better Alderman come reelection.

    [SLP — The next chance to replace Ald Young is March 2009 unless someone gets her recalled sooner.]

     
  16. Ott says:

    I don’t think many people consider the industrial area across 7th Street as Soulard, even though it might have been at one point (perhaps there’s a Hudlin Park parallel here).

    I’ve always liked this industrial area. It’s gritty and relatively urban, and there’s a variety of businesses in the area. There are some vacant storefronts, but the same is true for Soulard. There’s also some things that wouldn’t work in Soulard, like the diner and doughnut shop, both of which are open all night (and where you’ll find many a Soulardian at 3 in the morning). In a way, it’s Soulard’s own East Side.

    Nonetheless, the intersection of 7th and Russell is one of the main gateways into Soulard, and it’s odd that the four corners consist of 2 gas stations, a parking lot, and soon a strip mall.

    [SLP — Correct, based on how a beaurocrat drew the neighborhood boundaries during the Schoemehl administration it is not in Soulard.  It is, however, adjacent to and facing Soulard.  The prior events were tragic in the way it tossed aside the narrow streets and buildings but we cannot continue the mistakes of 40 years ago and expect anything other than the population decline of 40 years ago. We’ve only managed up to this point to stop the outward flow of people and that was only because we hit bottom.  We have a seriously long road ahead to rebuild our population and this project is an example of why we will never get there.  We should be working incrementally to reconnect the gritty Broadway back together with Soulard.]

     
  17. ecology says:

    A study of population and demographics would show likely a population increase in Soulard in the past 25 years, and most definitely a major growth in household income. Property values have skyrocketed. When seeking to make the case of the city’s inevitable return to the abyss, best to look at a different neighborhood. Everything in Soulard is going up Up UP! I know I can’t afford to live there in the kind of house I’d want to. Can you? Soulard is gentrified out, and a drive-through Starbucks seems to be a perfect fit.

    [SLP — Yes an academic study of Soulard would show a gentrified and increasingly expensive neighorhood — counter to the point Rollin was making in Planning magazine — that it is economically diverse.  But why do you think this is?  Did people repopulate Soulard in the hopes that in the future they’d get a drive-thru on the edge of their neighborhood boundary?  Hell no!  Tell me the logic of a suburban style strip center with a drive-thru being a fit for a dense, urban and gentrified neighborhood.  If anything, the demographics of Soulard are more inclined to be supportive of a mixed-use plan that is reachable by foot with any necessary auto parking stuck behind it.]

     
  18. Adam says:

    “When seeking to make the case of the city’s inevitable return to the abyss, best to look at a different neighborhood. Everything in Soulard is going up Up UP!”
    .
    yep. and until now this has all happened WITHOUT ANY STRIP MALLS.
    .
    “Soulard is gentrified out, and a drive-through Starbucks seems to be a perfect fit.”
    .
    wow, that makes no sense.

    [SLP — You commented just as I was adding my comments onto the end of the last illogical comment.  Right, people have repopulated Soulard and Lafayette Square without any strip malls or drive-thrus so far and now all of a sudden this becomes a good idea?  This type of development makes sense only where you have zero expectation of anyone walking and with a popular bus line and bike lanes along 7th and a dense and upper income population just blocks away we can have some reasonable expectation of pedestrians if and only if we make the design welcoming to pedestrians.  If it cannot be done here then our city is indeed in a very sad state of being.]

     
  19. Jim Zavist says:

    Steve – both you and I are getting older. The ’60’s WERE ±40 years ago . . . hard to believe, ain’t it?!

    Listen, I don’t condone taking anyone’s home by force, but I a) wasn’t here and b) still in grade school back then, so don’t blame me or my generation for the sins of our elders.

    I’m a pragmatist. I’d love it if the market would support mixed use here. The reality is that this is what the current real estate market supports. These buildings have been vacant and/or underused for as long as I’ve been here. Mixed-use developers have had every opportunity to make a deal on the property and “work their magic” and make a pile of money (as in Compton Gate), but for very pragmatic reasons (as in they didn’t want to lose their shirts) have chosen NOT TO!

    Strip malls are place holders. Higher up the food chain than self-storage facilities and used-car lots, but not much. They’re shutting down a drive-in theatre outside Denver to build mixed use next to a new light rail station. Here, we’re not going to see a change in Broadway and we’re not going to see light rail. What we do have are three captive audiences – Soulard residents, A-B workers and some commuters into downtown. Except for Mardi Gras, Broadway is both a physical and a psychological barrier for Soulard types. That leaves two autocentric groups, A-B workers and commuters. Starbucks WILL do well here. It will attract Soulard residents who actually have to or choose to drive to their jobs every day. It may not be PC, but it will be profitable . . .

    [SLP — I appreciate your pragmatism but I’m not sure it is founded.  Did another developer try to do something more urban only to get turned away from the alderman for not making the appropriate contributions?  That sorta shit does happen in St. Louis you know.  Furthermore, who’s to say it could not support a more dense development?  The demand for housing in this area is great — a good project could actually get suburban coffee drinkers in their SUVs, some additional residential units and be friendly to anyone walking in the area.  At the very least we should expect an ADA-compliant sidewalk from the public sidewalk to the the accessible entrance of each and every busy given that we are granting 10-year tax abatement.  This is, without a doubt, a reasonable minimul expectation.]

     
  20. Ben H says:

    Jim, youre talking about the commuters/residents who actually drive to their jobs AND find that its too much to actually park and get out of the car to get a cup. That may be some but not most. I dont think starbucks business would suffer any business if they built an urban building that focussed on the sidewalk and offered plenty of parking in the rear and on the street.
    A strip mall is really just an unimaginative urban building set too far from the street. I think that this project COULD improve the streetscape and be urban, and it wouldnt betray “reality”. Its basically moving the pieces around on the site that is the issue here, its been discussed over and again on this site. Lets not pretend like whats happening there is the only economic way to do things. Its happening because an entrenched mindset

     
  21. Howard says:

    This Starbucks is going to serve people in cars, people commuting down 7th/Broadway to and from work. It’s not in Soulard. It’s the industrial tract named Kosciusko, population 0.

    Very few Soulardians are going to walk across 7th to get a cup of overpriced coffee. There’s lots of other convenient places to go on foot to get coffee in Soulard but, mostly, you make it home or you pick up cheap coffee from one of the three kwiki marts on the ends of Soulard’s man drag of Russell as you head out to work.

    As for a coffee house, a place to sit around drinking coffee, there’s already the Coffee Garden, which doesn’t exist on coffee revenue and has a liquor license. I don’t see much need for another coffee place in Soulard. A large percentage of the residents have a porch, deck or patio to hang out with friends; Soulard has great restaurants that expect you to linger after dining with a coffee or cocktail; and Soulard has great bars with live music. It’s not a sitting around drinking coffee being pretentious sort of place.

    I’m not sure what wheelchair patrons of Starbuck’s you’re concerned about. Scottymobile isn’t going to be motoring down Russell and across 7th to blow his happy hour beer money on designer coffee. The wheelchair people who patronize the Market get there by car. These are people looking for produce bargains and I rarely see them with coffee, more often a giant soda. They have good coffee at Julia’s at the Market.

    Wheelchair people with cars commuting to work via 7th will go thru this Starbucks drive-thru just like nonwheelchair people. I sincerely doubt someone in a wheelchair is going to take the bus to get a cup of coffee that will require them to cross 7th for the coming or going.

    The pedestrian traffic patronizing the Dairy Queen is mostly kids from the former Lafayette Elementary now Roosevelt 9th Grade Center on Ann, Lift for Life Academy on S. Broadway, and schools from nabes to north and west.
    Soulardians walk or bike to the hardware, paint, and furniture stores in that vicinity only if they have a light load to take back. Walking or biking to the donut shop is most often unplanned, it happens when you’re making a trip to the hardware, paint, and furniture stores and cannot resist the allure of donuts. You wish you had driven when you make it into the donut shop just in time for the plea to take the box of everything remaining for a dollar.

    You go to Globe Drug to fill scripts, buy cheap crap, and I say cheap crap with the greatest respect, and liquor under a dollar. Many, if not most, of its patrons do not live in Soulard.

    I’m not sure what is the purpose of the post-office on S. Broadway. It’s got more security features than federal courthouse but is not a real post-office. When you place a hold on your mail to go on a trip, you have to pick it up at the Benton branch on S. Jefferson. You have to pick up sig required packages at Benton as well.

    Parking in the front makes a lot of sense to me from a security standpoint, more lighting, more eyes on it, a buffer during Mardi Gras.

    Still, Starbuck’s is willing to give it a go on that side of 7th and I say this is a good thing.

    Anyway, this development is not about providing a people watching place or a be seen place. It’s about taking advantage of the vehicle traffic market. Sidewalk coffee drinking to watch people going in and out of kwiki mart and big trucks? Come on. Get real. You want to watch people and be seen in Soulard, you go to where the architectural character and the characters that inhabit it are, you go into Soulard.

    It seems to me that if you believe this city is a joke, it means you are very unhappy and, for the sake of your happiness, should move to where you think you will be happier.

    It seems to me that if you think Ald. Young is recall-worthy, you have little idea of the good she has done for her ward and, in particular, the positive impact she has made on her home neighborhood.

    [SLP — Future development patterns should not be based on what people do today — to say that nobody walks across 7th now is likely correct.  To say, however, that nobody every would is false.  I moved to this city in my early 20s because I wanted to live in a real city — maybe I did pick the wrong place.  I know I’ve seen a long list of others leave for this same reason.  Any guesses on how long before we get to 325K, 300K?]

     
  22. The effort required to change this kind of entrenched suburban mentality is very high while other cities like Portland, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago and even OMAHA have very progressive urban and regional policies. They realize that for cities to compete with the suburbs they must be quite the opposite: dense. This gives them comparative advantage. Vancouver showed to the world that dense high rises can have a human scale and do attract the middle class. They proved this can and does work in North America, where the stigma against cities rains supreme and the idealism of the single family home is pervasive. In fact there are more middle class Vancouverians in the City proper than the surrounding suburbs. Today I read about Omaha doing a City wide urban design and zoning reform incentive and all of the elected officials are for, not against, the plan. Why should urbanists remain in St. Louis when so many other cities figured this out. Starting with Jane Jacobs and her anti-planning message, some actually began to realize this in the 60’s. Vancouver is the prime example.

    So what has St. Louis learned even with an advocate for urbanity, hailing from Toronto a global city with more skyscrapers than Chicago, in the Planning and Urban Design Agency? We have learned nothing because the Board of Aldermen and Mayor are out of touch. Meanwhile that Planner has taken the position of a neutral public servant rather than an advocate. He is doing nothing to change the status quo or even reach out to the citizen experts. Rather we are given the plan and criticized for giving our opinion. He should be trying to incorporate us as this would show the Mayor that his ideas, and he does share them, have merit through popular support. We are more than 20 years behind and I am realizing every day that we need leaders to constantly push for change, but it is also a lot easier to move where it’s already done. Many will because most people don’t want to give 20 years of their life to the civic realm. If we are to have a renaissance, it is better to include than to marginalize. Yet the road chosen is predetermined by the planner and his political environment and whether he seeks to reform it through persuasion. Unfortunately he has taken the unfortunate path. At least we have certain dedicated individuals and I hope they stay.

     
  23. GMichaud says:

    It is possible to maintain a drive thru and include a more urban design. Design, or the lack of it, is the problem. The lack of creative thinking is amazing. The purpose should be to tame the auto and bring it in line with other values that include walking, dense historic urban neighborhoods etc.
    If there was real leadership, there would be questioning of the premise of strip malls, and how to redefine the same urban space. There are numerous examples of new development in the region that have maintained an urban feel and accommodated automobile usage, it is not an either/or situation.
    The question becomes that if next door to this intact and attractive historic district we do not begin to explore alternates, just where and when will these explorations occur?
    The governance of this city is very weak concerning design issues. The population will pay the price in weak real estate prices, areas becoming less desirable over time, and perhaps even abandonment of some historic areas.
    A well designed project is an economically positive force. Look at how the Frank Gehry designed Museum in Bilbao Spain has transformed what was a poor industrial city into a economically progressive city. One major, well designed building had this affect.
    This little strip mall will not have that impact, but design is so important, and it is cumulative, as Alderwoman Young will discover if she keeps encouraging projects such as this. I have to agree that I find it hard to imagine that her educated constituents are not up in arms about a project that devalues the considerable investment in their homes and businesses. It sets a low standard for other development in the area.

     
  24. dude says:

    Good post Steve, and good pics. I think the point is drive thru starbucks are ugly, even if they are in an ugly suburb, but in a city that’s advertising it’s trying to rediscover it’s urbanism, it’s completely fubar. I like ecology’s take on it. Tragically hip? I’m holding my breath a starbucks never pops up in dogtown.

     
  25. Soulardx says:

    Soulard Coffee Garden closes at 4 p.m. daily. Therefore, there will be many times I will want to walk to either Bread Co. or Starbucks. Additionally, I can’t think of one place in the neighborhood that sells fresh bread on weekdays. Many Soulardians will be frequenting these places. I will. So, that intersection has to be improved for pedestrian traffic.

     
  26. Maurice says:

    I remember back in the 80’s when I lived in Soulard. Many parts of it were very unsafe. Fast foward to 2000 when I returned to St. Louis and I found that the same houses that were boarded up then were still boarded up now. Why? Greed on the part of absent landlords is my take on it. (How much more can I get if I just hold it for a few more years?)

    The east side of 7th was never user friendly. Mostly warehouses that were dead on the weekends. Unfortunately , there really isn’t a view of the river from this spot (and thank God they closed the rendering plant on the East side with it’s lovely odor when the wind was just right).

    Starbucks has an excellent marketing plan. Make no mistake and say what you want, but you have to admit their plan works. Just like the american auto manufactures, they are able to convince simpleton America that they need that $4.00 coffee.

    The Breadco was there at one time, but closed as well. Not for lack of traffic, but for lack of a cooporative landlord that would take care of the building.

    Time will tell I guess

     
  27. awb says:

    The Starbucks marketing does work. And likely it would work if they were forced to comply simply with ADA. They don’t do that much. And with do-nothings like Ald Young, they don’t have to do anything else, like put parking behind the building line. They can build a disposable building to be abandoned before the tax subsidies are paid off.

    Wake up Rollin and Phyllis. Starbucks will do the least they can do, and you ask nothing more of them. On behalf of all the homeowners who live in the city for its urban density and our hope for a better future, you suck.

    P.S. to Rollin Stanley: Move on so we can get someone in there who will improve our urban landscape. Many of us had such high hopes when you came to St. Louis. So grow a backbone or get out.

     
  28. Observer says:

    After watching your last several posts Steve, it seems like you are intent on hammering on Soulard and specifically the 7th Ward. Can we expect more of the same before you announce or what is the agenda here?

     
  29. shocked and in awe says:

    Steve you said, “This “improvement” will take a good 20 years to erase and make it more difficult to do good design along this corridor.” – I believe this to be true. Go north along 7th and follow 4th street. Just to the south of Broadway and I-55 is a sign for another Retail Center – a strip mall!

    I certainly hope Soulard is not headed in this direction of planning.

    Rollin Stanley strikes me as a hardworking and intelligent guy. I’ve met him on different occasions. It is unfair to blame this new starbucks strip mall project on him. How much “power” does Rollin really have? Look at Chief George – he tried to make a change – a stance. Where did that get him!?

     
  30. awb says:

    I think Rollin Stanley should be earning his salary by doing more than cowering when an alderman or the mayor wants something. If he gets fired, maybe that will look good on his resume for a job in a real city where what he preaches is appreciated and he can actually do what he claims to love–improve urban areas. As things stand, he lets the mayor use his reputation to the detriment of Rollin himself.

    I’ve heard him talk and read interviews of him and he has some good ideas. But what good are his ideas if he doesn’t fight for good urbanism in the City, where he is the head of planning?

    He has not taken a stand on any controversial issue, as far as I remember. The street grid deteriorates. Strip malls continue to multiply like rabbits. Pedestrians and bicyclists are put in danger to give more subsidies to cars. We could hire a high school drop-out to be the mayor’s yes man for a lot less money. Instead, we get the guy with the reputation for progress, but he sits back and watches the damage as it’s planned. Meanwhile, the mayor gets to brag about his progressive planner. And the taxpayers don’t even get breakfast!

     
  31. Josh says:

    I would estimate that about 90% (a conservative estimate) of the issues discussed on this website point to poor leadership in this city. Obviously, a lot of residents believe in good urban design and planning. I can’t say that I’ve seen many people passionate about strip malls and big box developments. I don’t find that there are many people out there blogging about how exciting it would be if a developer decided to build a Starbucks on their corner or even in their neighborhood at all. To be quite honest, Starbucks coffee is awful and I don’t know a single person that drinks it! I don’t know how they survive at all… but I digress. If I’m not mistaken, shouldn’t leaders be representing their constituents? How do they get away with things like this? How are they able to act without public involvement? If we have this many people that feel this way, isn’t there a process of removing these people from office? All this discussion is great, but let’s put a stop to it before we have a Starbucks on every corner!

     
  32. Thor Randelson says:

    I don’t think Ald. Young is likely to see a recall effort at the moment. However, if she pushes through strip centers, poorly planned shopping centers that require eminent domain, and crappy auto-centric design throughout her upper-class urban ward, I do think she is setting herself up as a target for a more progressive candidate, particularly as her ward’s population balance has changed (ie. the more people moving into downtown east of Tucker, the less pull a Soulard-only message will get her).

     
  33. Kara says:

    I have recently returned to St. Louis and am looking for a neighborhood to call home. I realize now that I should not consider Soulard if this is what its future holds. I agree that this ugly area east of Soulard proper is actually prime real estate, perfect for a dense mixed use development. The fact that it’s on the other side of unfriendly 7th is a poor excuse. 7th hasn’t been designed with pedestrians in mind, but that could change as well. Re-designing 7th as a “complete street”, making it a grand blvd, a delight to visit, and building a walkable neighborhood to the east would only enable the prosperity of Soulard to spread. Settling for strip malls full of chains and drive-thrus will do little for Soulard and nothing for the city.

     
  34. Bill says:

    What neighborhood leadership has to do is to set their heels in and understand that what is right takes work.

    Unfortunately, working with many alderman is a political game. There are many good alderman in the City.

    But, once an alderman understands that the neighborhood leadership is there to stay. They will come around to their thinking. It doesn’t happen over night, but it can happen.

    And of course the last thing that neighborhood leadership can do to/for an alderman is for each individual to support or not support a particular person in an election. The neighborhood organizations can’t support any particular candidate, but the neighborhood organization is made up of voters.

    A bit farther south and to the east you’ll find a cluster of neighborhoods in the Benton Park/Benton Park West area. This leadership understands that residents MUST be involved and the development and movement can’t be left to people who don’t even live in the area nor seemingly care what happens to the area past “getting money into” the area. What normally happens, there is investment in the area, but all of the money ends up getting sucked out when national companies come in. These companies will stay there until their profit margin dips below what someone in NY or California think it should be. The store(s) close and a vacant building exists.

    It takes investment by all…residents, local business and elected/appointed representatives who CARE about what it takes to re-build a city leveraging what was built 100 years ago.

     
  35. Jim Zavist says:

    Starbucks WAS a big deal when it arrived on Chippewa in SW city (with a drive-thru) earlier this year. The Alderwomen were very supportive and viewed it as a “win”, as do many local residents. So, Josh, while you “don’t know a single person that drinks it”, you’re obviously not hanging around with the “right” crowd.

    Sidelight – my wife and I both patronize the Chippewa location. My preference is to park and walk in. Her preference is to use the drive-thru. Starbucks wants both of our dollars, so they offer both options. Sure, they can and do build urban locations without drive-thru’s. But, as with many fast-food type operations, they’ve realized that their individual store sales increase when a drive-thru is included, so their current preference is to meet that market demand.

    Getting back to democracy, if the majority of St. Louis’ residents/voters/alderman believe that drive-thru’s are detrimental to our health, safety and/or welfare, it should be easy to legislate them out of existence (other cities have done so). My guess is, however, that the anti-drive-thru forces represent a distinct minority here, so the best we can hope for is intelligent design and minimal impacts on adjacent properties and streets. So, yes, Steve, they need to provide appropriate pedestrian access here. The trick is finding a city administrator willing to push the issue . . .

     
  36. Adam says:

    “My preference is to park and walk in. Her preference is to use the drive-thru.”
    .
    so you’re saying if they DIDN’T have a drive-through she would lose her taste for their product and stop spending her dollars there? nonsense. the drive through is about making money, period. with a drive through they can process more consumers (i.e. grab more money) in less time. they are not concerned with consumer convenience.

     
  37. Bill says:

    Just a comment on Starbucks.

    I was just in New York three weeks ago. Seemingly everyother corner had a Starbucks. I’m definitely not against Starbucks when mixed in an environment of local owners.

    What I wish to speak to is the fact that none of these Starbucks had drive throughs. It is because they didn’t have to. The people of New York understand that you don’t have to get in your car and drive two blocks. Many of them walk farther than that to get to a subway station to ride 30 minutes or more to get to their job. However, in those 30 or so minutes, they’ve read the newspaper, or taken a 20 minute nap, or used the time to read a book, OR better yet, used the time to talk a fellow human about life and news.

    Each of these Starbucks did a wonderful business. It’s an education piece to the people of St. Louis. Stop driving when you don’t have to. If the store is four blocks away, take the walk for your health!

    Have you ever wondered why the average person in NY is not fat? It’s because they burn the calories in their everyday activity.

    Urbanism isn’t just about have a close knit community. It also extends to being “green” by not driving unless you have to and to being healthy.

    To not drive and be healthy means WE are walking more. As a society we must think about others rather than just ourselves. Think about how our actions affect those around us. Just because we’re in a hurry to get somewhere doesn’t mean they are. And do YOU really have to be in such a hurry?

     
  38. Adam says:

    “If I’m not mistaken, shouldn’t leaders be representing their constituents? How do they get away with things like this? How are they able to act without public involvement? If we have this many people that feel this way, isn’t there a process of removing these people from office?”
    .
    this is exactly the problem. so a candidate tells the voters what they want to hear. then after elected most voters pay little attention to what the official actually does. so the official is then free to cause damage until they get people’s attention – which in this town takes a LOT of damage – at which point a lengthy recall process ensues while the official continues building strip malls. and of course if you suggest that any decision be put to public vote you are met with cries of “that’s why we ELECTED them! we can’t put every little decision to a public vote!” meanwhile, by keeping the beaurocracy complicated and having WAY more elected officials than necessary, you limit the number of dissenters in each ward to a small minority of the total constituents, most of whom are apathetic and are never aware of alternatives. and don’t count on the officials providing the public with alternatives, because then they couldn’t make shady deals with developers who want to build cheap crap for fast profits! yay!

     
  39. Jim Zavist says:

    Adam – you point out a critical issue, the lack of communication between elections. Unfortunately, recall should not be viewed as the alternative. Perhaps we need both a commitment from candidates and a change in political culture where communication and consensus building are both valued and encouraged . . .

    [SLP — What lack of communication?  There is plenty.  The aldermen show up at boring and lengthy neighborhood meetings and says the same thing every month (you don’t understand, we are looking into that, we have no control over that, it is not in my ward, I’ll let you know when the deal is done, the deal is done now so it is too late, etc…).  You are supposed to show up at these meetings and/or political fundraisers in order order to be communicated at — not with.  Sadly until we start having multiple candidates, multiple parties and real debate the flawed recall process may be our best hope.]

     
  40. Adam says:

    “Perhaps we need both a commitment from candidates and a change in political culture where communication and consensus building are both valued and encouraged . . .”
    .
    agreed, but good luck convincing, say, young or florida. my point in bringing up recall was not that we should let loose with it wildly (although i have NO qualms with it being used – it’s a democratic process just like an election). the point i wanted to make was that the the AMOUNT OF TIME (not yelling just stressing) it takes to perform a recall, and the AMOUNT OF TIME between elections, is long enough to allow an official to cause substantial decades-long damage before they are ousted. and that’s a problem. combine that with a WILLFUL lack of communication between official and constituent and you have a recipe for corruption, as we are seeing.

     
  41. Jason says:

    Okay,

    So I am feeling particular ornery on this one. Chippewa has a drive through- big whoop. Guess what- its on historic Route 66 too right? Can you get any more autocentric? I will admit that the site layout leaves alot to be desired and the article is not about this facility anyway.
    I too like to go in when I can because I believe they pay more attention to the interior space and I like to see what they do with some of these places. There are times however when i dont go in. The last thing I want to do sometimes is drag kids out of a nice warm car in the middle of the winter and take them into a Starbucks where people are trying to study and have nice quiet conversations. Having an autocentric business is not the problem. Cars can be more efficient, even electric hopefully one day. If you want to spend $4 a gallon and idle in a drive up lane, thats great. Its all about choice. I think the probably selected the best site in soulard to have the blend of automotive access and walk up customers, as well as helping to redevelop a previously architecturally poor strip of bad industrial area. They didnt cause the problem, and may not be part of the solution, but they are doing what is best for themselves which just so happens to have neither a positive or negative impact on the urban-ness of the area. Had they put this in the middle of soulard- say a few blocks west there would really be a public outcry, but people for some reason don’t see this as part of Soulard.
    The comment you make about parking out front- “surface parking shall not extend beyond the established building line” Parking is allowed as long as it doesnt cross the established building line which from what I can determine from the aerial photo originally looked like it was about 10′ from the curb.
    I completely agree that they could have done a much better job with the implementation, but until the powers-that-be identify this area as needing special attention, you are going to get more of the same. Finally- I would like to point out that there are some nice little places back behind this area between it and the railroad tracks that do have more of an urban feel. There is a post office and a music store I think, but they are the exception, not the rule.

    [SLP — Building lines often involve that block only and basically nothing establishes a line closer to the street.  And this is not so neutral — the parking out front of the building where it was previously grass shifts the balance.  The new curb cut does too.  But you know what, if someone wants to build something auto centric and it meets codes & our old zoning then I’m reluctantly OK with it.  But when they hold out there hand for 10-year tax abatement is when things change.  Maybe the time is not right for a great urban building on this corner to set a higher bar for future development.  At the very least they can provide a sidewalk to the door of the freakin places.]

     
  42. Jim Zavist says:

    So, has/did the tax abatement bill pass(ed)? If it’s not a done deal yet, this would be a perfect opportunity to “just say no”! What’s the developer going to do? Walk away? Even without an abatement, he’s gonna make money – let’s return some sanity to our local real estate market!!!

    [SLP — That is one of the issues — the bill was just introduced.  I was under the impression we do tax abatement and such to induce projects but it would appear this project is well under way without the tax abatement.  Try to get tax abatement on your own home remodel 70% into the project.]

     
  43. Jim Zavist says:

    Based on Adam’s concerns about a lack of communication and my concerns about runaway subsidies and pervasive aldermanic courtesy, I’m going to communicate with my alderman about this issue. If everyone else did the same thing, maybe we can start to change attitudes down at city hall . . .

     
  44. Joe Frank says:

    This building used to be Van Sickle Industrial Electronics, a supplier of fuses, circuits etc. I remember coming here as a kid several times when we bought fuses for my mom’s 1970s vintage microwave.

    Anyway, I suppose reusing that building is a good thing. But I agree, putting parking in the front is unnecessary. This entire area already has plenty of surface parking.

    It is odd that it is zoned industrial, given that S. Broadway from Russell to Park has been a commercial district — predominantly consisting of buildings with traditional street frontage on S. Broadway and surface parking in the ‘rear’ along the busier street, S. 7th — since the Kosciusko redevelopment began in the mid-1950s.

    This district includes businesses such as Flanagan Paints & Wallpaper, Globe Drug, a US Post Office, Subway, Lucky Food Chinese buffet, etc. There also used to be a couple banks, now charter schools. Anyway, it’s an odd configuration to say the least, but of course in the 1950s city planners thought a shopping district would be better off with parking in the rear, making S. Broadway more of a pedestrian street (albeit fortunately not a pedestrian mall; those came later).

     
  45. 63104mom says:

    I live in the very bottom left hand corner of the google earth map. I will likely use this Starbucks- a lot. I will also likely use the drive through. One the other hand, I will make the walk occasionally when I do my “stroller pushing errands” to the post office, Vincent’s, Farmers Market, etc.

    As for the parking situation, I do not care whether the spaces are front or back but I am concerned with the intersection. I cross 7th street to access Lyon Park. I also walk/run from downtown CBD to home along 7th. 7th feels extremely dangerous- narrow sidewalks and the sense that a car could veer of course and hit you on the sidewalk. I would like to see major improvements in sidewalks/street at 7th and Russell.

    Finally, as for any argument that we need mixed use housing over there, that’s a stretch. Soulard needs to finish up infilling and rehabbing SOulard. We have a long way to go still, unlike our neighbor (and my old neighborhood) Lafayette Sq. which has very little rehabbing of its older structures left to do.

    I am sick of Soulard buildings that are boarded up and perfect for rehab, but stingy landlords who won’t sell or rehab. Case in point: about 1/2 of the entire north side of Sidney between 12th and 13th. I’m more likely to hold Phyllis accountable for that rather than the Starbucks.

    Finally, Steve, was that you yesterday on a scooter at Sidney/Jefferson/Gravois that was almost hit?

    [SLP — Thanks for your perspective and observations.  Yes, the sidewalks along 7th feel dangerous.  Having another curb cut and crossing will not help.  What would help is more parked cars along the street — something not likely with a building set back from the street fronted by a parking lot.  As for mixed use on that side — yeah it may be a stretch.  A new building placed near the street with a construction method capable of taking a future 2nd floor would have been the way to go for this subsidized project.  And no, that was not me yesterday.]

     
  46. Aaron says:

    THIS DRIVES ME CRAZY!
    put it behind the building. it will still be there! gaaaah!
    it kills me everytime I see this kind of thing in an urban context. Like walgreen’s, they’re designed like corner stores, but they refuse to actually put them on the damn corner! why why why!? We seriously need a law on the books about this and respecting the urban context…or at least have whatever it is that exists (that appears to say something like that) enforced. jeez.

     
  47. Jim Zavist says:

    The short answer (on both Walgreens and Starbucks) is the drive-thru – you want parking for walk-in customers at the front door and you want the drive-thru on the side or in back where the pharmacy or kitchen are (and to separate the drive-thru cars from pedestrians using the front door), so the “ideal” new building ends up floating in a sea of asphalt. Until you can convince the paying customers why they shouldn’t choose the drive-thru (ain’t gonna happen), the only alternative is to convince local politicians to ban ALL drive-thru’s, with no exceptions and no grand-fathering – you gotta treat all businesses equitably and fairly or you’ll be fighting a losing battle in court – remember the concept of “equal protection”?

    [SLP — Oh come on now — this is not an either or situation.  A building can be pushed up to the corner and still have a drive-thru somewhere.  Would it be their standard suburban model?  No!  Could they develop a standard urban model based on this premise?  Yes!]

     
  48. john says:

    A Starbucks drive-thru was built in Brentwood on Brentwood Blvd. It caused such problems (especially for drivers who wanted to turn left across the center line) that the city had to install barriers in the center of the road to prevent this and related traffic problems. Cars take up more than 100 square feet of space while individuals only require about 4 square feet.

     
  49. Jim Zavist says:

    True, this particular site is not an either/or situation – my response was what corporate America views as the ideal way to have “the best of both worlds” (and the few pedestrians from off-site can figure out how to wander in on their own). Yes, a “building can be pushed up to the corner and still have a drive-thru somewhere”, but in doing so you greatly complicate figuring out how to stack cars for a drive-thru while still maintaining the typical parking density of one car per 300 square feet (gross area).

    I don’t know this site well, but it appears that the basic concept was/is to use the existing shells and to put in parking and a drive-thru wherever it fits. I’m pretty sure that there weren’t any existing structures “pushed up to the corner” to start with, so it gets back to my original point – commercial retail development is constrained by the (large?) number of parking spaces required.

    As for “Could they develop a standard urban model based on this premise? Yes!” . . . but only if the city will accept less parking than they typically require OR the use is willing to buy more land. The typical suburban counter-clockwise drive-thru plan (with stacking wrapping around the building) is simply the most-efficient way to accomodate both the drive-thru and a the required parking on the smallest parcel of land. (The old McDonald’s [that closed] on S. Grand is a classic example of what happens when you need to “get creative” with the drive-thru loop.)

    Bottom line, drive-thru’s are much harder to make urbane than parking and parking lots. Parking spaces can and are fit into nooks and crannies on urban sites, and on-street parking continues to be an option. Drive-thru’s need, by definition, to be linear. Urban franchises, to be competitive, are more likely to give up some parking before they give up a drive-thru. Which gets back to my previous point, that we’re beyond the tipping point and drive-thru’s will continue to be viewed as a necessity for many, many retail uses. (See “curbside to go” as the latest expansion of this concept.) In my mind, the ONLY way we can curb them, especially around here, is to ban all new ones and to sunset all the existing ones (give owners 5-10 years to amortize their investment), including both fast food and banks. This will take both political will and convincing the majority of the voters of the wisdom of this position . . . .

     
  50. Chris says:

    Can anyone tell me why Phyllis Young is still in office? Maybe it’s time to take some of this outrage and channel it into a run against in the next election.

     
  51. ed hardy clothing says:

    We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
    of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
    ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
    ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
    ed hardy board shorts , don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
    ed hardy swimwearand more,
    ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
    cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.

    our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe