Auto-Centric Strip Mall in City Adds Pedestrian Access
Just a few weeks ago the curbs were in place for the auto drives/parking at the new auto-centric strip mall, located technically across the street from the Soulard neighborhood (see prior post). As of October 21st, no visible signs of any pedestrian access had been made — it was as if it was assumed everyone would simply drive to this location even if you could see the place from your home a block away.
From another angle we can see, below, the curbs all in place and simply ready for the asphalt.
Myself and others objected to the suburban design, no doubt. But lacking a single sidewalk connection was just too much — people in the city do in fact walk.
Today, above, we see that a short section of sidewalk was added between the public sidewalk and the auto drive. The newly poured curbs were cut out and replaced with accessible ramps. Although I have not checked the ramps for precise compliance at first glance they appear to comply. See there, it wasn’t so hard was it?
Does this new accessible entrance make this project urban? Hardly. Does it make the project minimally tolerable until it can be razed for something worthy of being in our city? Yes! Why something so simply as a few feet of concrete and assumption that people will in fact seek out a walkable environment (although this is not technically a good walkable environment) it not required from day one is beyond me. This is not difficult and for a subsidized project this should be the very minimal that is acceptable.
Thank you to everyone that express their outrage over this lack of pedestrian access and the overall suburban nature of this design. Hopefully we’ll make enough developers come back and modify their designs to add pedestrian access that at some point they’ll just ask for it up front! Of course, you’d think their architects and engineers would just include it to begin with —- it is a federal requirement after all.
As of this time the Starbuck’s, a separate structure at the far end, still does not seem to comply with the ADA standards for accessibility.
Every little bit helps. Thanks for bringing up the issue!
We are issuing subsidy yet we ask nothing in return. We should demand urban design, but that really is dependent on the clout of the aldermen because our zoning codes promote suburban design. Strings should be attached. They will still build here in order to access our market. We should demand better design and planning, however until either aldermen realize the benefit and issue variances, or the code is all together changed, we won’t see much.
Even small victories are worth celebrating.
This is urbanreviewstl as STL architecture hall of shame, and not a minute too late! When things like accessible routes and pedestrian access are left out, it goes back to Architects and Engineers (“the designers”) who deserve most of the blame. This is something they have the unique ability and obligation to plan for and persuade the owner to include. C’mon designers, look alive! That said, the pedestrian path is just making the old corpse smell a little better on this one.
Any word on bike racks?
ADA (and pedestrian) accessibility were always in the plans for this development(and very important to the tenant)…the timing of the developer’s GC(and his coordination of the sidewalks and curbcuts) simply confused you. The development you’re talking about here proves only that due diligence identified that providing easy access for parents who drive cars filled with kids will create more sales for the tenant…and this development will generate much more revenue and neighborhood stability than DBs Sports bar or 1860’s – both of which operate in buildings with numerous code violations(Why are we not talking about ADA access at those loactions?) The posts for this developement have been based mostly on premature assumptions and a lack of patience. I think this development will be great for the neighborhood and will bring more to the area than another bar, liquor store or thrift shop. We will never get our great city to continue its growth without developments just like this.
“#PT” -that must stand for “part-time” urban dweller.
This is not an isolated incident – the new (open 10 days) Lion’s Choice on Chippewa (next to the new Starbuck’s) has no designated pedestrian connection to their entrance either. And no, topography is not an issue (the site is flat enough and aligns with the existing public sidewalk), but making sure that the drive-thru and three curb cuts happened apparently was a bigger priority. Bottom line, until either the city decides to respect and protect the needs of ALL of its citizens or these developers and tenants get hauled into court by advocates for the disabled and pedestrian communities, the status quo will remain – it’s simply easier and cheaper to ignore the needs of customers without cars . . .
You gotta be kidding (but I know you aren’t) . . .
The one advantage for the immediate neighbors of having the menu boards’ intercoms on the front is it keeps that noise away from the residences across the alley. It also puts the pick-up windows on the west sides, also away from the residences. It sure ain’t pretty or urban, but it does address one livability issue for the immediate neighbors.
As for the two businesses sharing one structure, I’m not sure how you’d do the drive-thru’s. Having two smaller structures surrounded by pavement isn’t any better visually than one larger one surrounded by parking. Fundamentally you can thank our existing zoning – a Starbucks and a Lions Choice replace a Taco Bell and (as I understand it) a Steak and Shake – no net gain for urbanism, just new businesses generating “new” sales taxes . . . I wonder how long the Arby’s a block away will stay open?!
The two fundamental questions are did Mr. Stanley do all he could have given the constraints of the current zoning (and no change in use) and why does accessibility remain a missing component in the city’s plan review and approval process? On the former, I think Rollin pushed it as far as he could (which obviously isn’t very far). If enough parking is provided for the square feet in the structure and the curb cuts meet city requirements, he can’t legally require much else (until we voters convince our aldermen to put more teeth into the current zoning). As for the latter, pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities and the AARP obviously don’t constitute a big enough constituency to get the city’s attention. Again, until we can convince our aldermen to enact regulations that recognize the need to provide accessibilty for everyone, especially on new construction, we’ll continue to get these token, ineffective “solutions”, or none at all.
The “let them eat cake” explanation is not indicative of democracy but rather the other extreme. Just because a set of constituents isn’t “big enough” doesn’t mean new construction and permits should be allowed to ignore those individuals. To do so reflects poorly on leadership AND all constituents.