New Nonprofit Formed Focusing On “(re)Connecting Cities” Through Pedestrian Networks
Metropolitan areas were once designed for pedestrians — compact with businesses accessed right off the public sidewalk. People lived and worked their entire lives in a very small area, there was no alternative. Streetcars and subways provided mobility allowing cities to expand in area, but people remained pedestrians when going to or leaving transit.
The private automobile changed things, requiring more and more space as more and more cars hit to the roads. As the car took hold land-use and buildings reflected this change. Tight grids of streets gave way to larger blocks without on-street parking in an effort to keep the cars moving.
Even then the street corner was still an important place. New department stores, such as the Southtown Famous-Barr, were built up to the sidewalk making the journey easy for pedestrians and motorists had plenty of parking as well. In the 1950s many still didn’t drive but since then new development began to forget about the pedestrian, making car ownership a necessity for the first time.
A Walgreens now sits on the same corner as the old Famous-Barr, its relationship with Kingshighway and Chippewa is radically different.
Despite what you may think, not everyone in society drives. I don’t know this elderly woman’s history — she may have driven in her younger days but she’s not walking now for the fun of it. She walks though planted areas, parking lots, etc because we’ve designed our built environment in such a way this is the reality for many to buy the necessities.
This is a long way of introducing my new nonprofit: (re)Connecting Cities. My idea is to advocate for all pedestrians, to work to make walking from the bus to the store and back not the undignified chore it is now.
(re)Connecting Cities will work to educate everyone on the benefits to society to connecting our buildings via sidewalks as well as we do for cars. Imagine if you had to drive through a muddy creek to get to the grocery store or over a pile of rocks — making a 4WD with high ground clearance a necessity? If you want milk & eggs you need a monster truck to do that.
We just expect roads, driveways and parking lots to be connected. Zoning makes sure there is an abundance of places to store vehicles yet in most cities/states nothing about being able to arrive on foot. Very unbalanced and unsustainable!
I don’t want to ban cars or have pedestrian-only streets, based on my research those rarely work in North America. I do want pedestrians to be given equal consideration when enacting zoning & building codes. I want architects, civil engineers and their clients to think about pedestrian arrival points, routes, and circulation, along with vehicular circulation. Communities often demand expensive traffic studies when a developer proposes a new project and nearby residents fear traffic congestion, yet a pedestrian access plan is never mentioned.
You’ll be hearing more about (re)Connecting Cities in the coming months and years.
— Steve Patterson
We need to make a city where everyone has the possibility to walk, bike, or ride public transit at any time of the day or night. By doing that I believe we need to make an auto free environment which stimulates outdoor sociability. Please read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/oct/29/car-free-cities-neighbourhoods
We already have “a city where everyone has the possibility to walk [or] bike . . . at any time of the day or night.” You just may not want to cover the distances necessary to get to where you want to be. What we don’t have is a 24/7 transit system. Whether it’s a supply or demand question depends on one’s perspective, but just adding more transit at more hours won’t do much to “stimulate outdoor sociability” (since most commuters on public transit aren’t very “sociable”). Most of us spend most of our waking hours working (or going to school) and commuting 4-5-6 days a week to get there. The only way we’ll see an “auto free environment”, around here, is when we co-locate good residential neighborhoods and good jobs. But that means giving up our private yards and reimagining how we work. It means bosses willing to live next to workers. It means good schools in an urban setting and dense, mixed-use projects. “Banning autos” may work in Europe, around here we have multiple social, economic and land use issues that present serious obstacles.
Worthy cause, confusing name. Plus, do we really need another group? Why not leverage the efforts of existing ones? Trailnet, CMT, MoBikeFed & East West Gateway are all already involved in the issue. Googling the issue – https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=pedestrian+advocacy+groups&oq=pedestrian+advocacy&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l2j0i30l8.1400.9513.1.12113.19.15.0.4.4.0.270.2274.0j13j2.15.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.5UBp488leYE&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=4c814b5607df3525&biw=1024&bih=467 – most successful groups appear to have a local focus. Is your intent to have a larger (national? international?) focus? Or, do you think that the St. Louis County model of multiple, fractured, small entities presents a more effective vehicle for addressing the problem?!
The intent is to become a national resource that just happens to be located in St. Louis. The other orgs aren’t focused on the same area.
The following groups already have a national perspective and a national presence:
http://www.walkableamerica.org/
http://www.apbp.org/
http://americawalks.org/
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/
http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/network/
http://www.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx
I’m not questioning your expertise, I’m just questioning your choice to do something new or separate from the existing efforts. My experience is that a unified voice backed by larger numbers is much more effective than multiple, fractured voices, all saying things that sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
None focus on getting from the public sidewalk to the front door — that will be our primary project initially. Many organizations partner with others.
Exactly. No, I actually think this is a great idea Steve. It is a part of ‘walkability’ or connectivity that often gets overlooked. Keep us posted! If you plan a trip down to OKC soon, let’s chat. 🙂
But the strongest – NRA, AARP, AAA, etc – speak as, and are viewed as, the sole experts in their chosen, broad subject area(s). That may be one reason why pedestrians are so often overlooked – between the disabled pushing accessibility issues, trail users pushing for more trails, bike users pushing for both infrastructure and respect, and urbanists pushing their agendas, there is no cohesive argument or direction.
I think it’s a great idea! Not sure why there is so much negativity and hostility regarding YOUR idea and endeavor but I’m in full support! Excited to see where things go from here!
I would think that getting this woman’s “story” would be an important first step in determining the hows and whys. Making guesses based on someone else’s expererience or expertise is no better than throwing darts in the dark.
I see others like her all the time and I know my own struggles with access.
I see them too, and I’m not dismissing your struggles. But to get concensous all the bases have to be covered. you present a presentation like this and I guarantee a car-oriented panel member (assuming you present to some type of leadership panel) and you’re going to get those types of questions as well as what pedestrian layout is just outside of the picture you took. Telling them to google it for an arieal view isn’t going to cut the mustard.
If your just talking pictures I’ve got others from right before and right after as well as many from Chippewa and all over the city. Only 1-2% of my pics get posted here.
Focus on Pedestrians and the urban framework they need to succeed could be real interesting. I disagree though that pedestrian-only streets could not work. I think as attitudes change and just as importantly a better understanding of what types of surroundings are needed to support pedestrian-only streets that they could work in St. Louis.
The 14th Street Mall in North St. Louis is a case in point. It was a pedestrian mall but the wrong idea at the wrong time for many reasons. In the end it killed a successful commercial street and lead to the final decline of the area.
In London they close down streets for a day in various locations and times to stage markets.
It offers an experimental way research pedestrian-only locations. Although London keeps these markets operating on a regular schedule, closing the street in question either weekly, monthly or other time frames.
Another comparison would be the downtown sculpture garden. It is a pedestrian only location. In fact do plazas fit the definition of pedestrian-only streets?. St. Louis aside, plazas are are often successful pedestrian spaces around the world.
In fact are purpose built pedestrian-only spaces like public squares preferable over pedestrian only streets?
So yes, a focus on advocating for pedestrians I think is a good approach. Good luck with it.
It’s definitely not hostility, and what you view as negativity is viewed by others as reality. Whether you like it or not, we live in an autocentric society. If parking is provided (as it usually is), then, by default, the door(s) closest to the parking becomes the “front” door(s) or primary entrance. It doesn’t matter (much) what an architect, engineer or designer designs, or how the structure is oriented toward the public sidewalk, most people are not going to walk any further than they have to to enter any building, and the tenants / actual users will be the final deciders. It’s not an ant-urban conspiracy, it’s simple human nature! And, for better or for worse, outside of a few dense urban areas, the vast majority will arrive by private vehicles, and not on foot, by bus or on their bikes. I can provide multiple examples of doors designed to be front doors (with great connections to the public sidewalk) that now sit locked and unusable to potential visitors. Unless and until we are going to REQUIRE that all street-level doors remain open and accessible to the public, during all business hours, then the other reality of urban living (crime and security) will dictate limited access to those few points that see the greatest use! And the underlying issue remains how far should the government go in making these kinds of design decisions. Do the government, advocates or “experts” always “know best”? Or, should private property owners be free to succeed or fail, by making their own choices?!
The city is an art in the public interest and should not be controlled by developer and land owners. It would be impossible to develop a successful transit system without the integration of city planning decisions.
To take your far right argument one step further, I guess private property owners should be allowed to succeed or fail by building cheaply and hope that building doesn’t fall down, and if it does, oh well the private property owner was free to succeed or fail by making their own choices.
Nor do government, advocates or experts always “know best”. There should be public processes of discussion, of which there are few now.
In short you are not talking reality, but rather presenting a self serving agenda that puts your interests ahead of the general welfare of the people.
It’s a question of degree. The government has a duty to protect the public’s health and safety. Flimsy / inadequate buildings are dangerous and need to be (and are) prohibited. Where the front door is located is a convenience issue, and the question is who gets to decide. Yes, it IS more inconvenient (and potentially dangerous) for a pedestrian to cross thru a parking lot. But if a large majority (90-95%) of your customers whose safety and convenience are a bigger priority. Yes, we should provide some sort of safe path between the front door (wherever) it may be and the public sidewalk, but there is no way to force anyone to use it. The woman Steve uses to illustrate his point made a choice to walk thru the mulch. There are other options here that don’t involve walking thru the mulch, but they involve longer travel distances. It’s called choices. The only other alternative is to pave everything, just in case someone decides to wander that particular direction!
I actually agree with your premise but the problem we have now is that we have subsidized auto use so much now, that we are forced to subside the corrections. If auto users had to actually pay for the cost of the road repairs, engineering, etc., many fewer people would drive. There is a whole list of government interventions that have contributed to the distortion of traditional urban planning principles. The kind that have existed far longer than St. Louis has been around.
Until those who drive and cash in on tax subsidies for owning single-family homes in the suburbs give them up, I don’t see another solution. The vast, vast majority of the world’s population will live in cities from here on out and there certainly isn’t enough room in them for everyone to own and drive a car everywhere. So we need to be building places that promote alternatives.
If one building owner doesn’t orient correctly, what harm is in that? But if 100 owners within a couple blocks do the same thing, this suddenly shifts from a property rights issue and becomes one of complete destruction of use of existing infrastructure. In this case, the externalities of auto-centric design have changed the very usefulness, or sustainability, of the city. Further destroying taxpayer funded infrastructure and general livability.
I appreciate a healthy discussion about property rights from time to time. It is in fact one that I wish more urbanists would bring up. The facts simply show that the rights most abused, are on those who have paid taxes but haven’t chosen to purchase a car or use one for every trip. The public right-of-way has absolutely nothing to do with cars and everything to do with allowing free people to move about and buy goods and services, worship, socialize, et al. A drivers license should be privilege and should be regulated so that it doesn’t 1) practically limit the free travel of others and 2) doesn’t overly burden public infrastructure.
Sorry for the long reply. I guess I will end with I appreciate your perspective. I really do. I also really appreciate how Steve is trying to rectify a wrong that is enormous and complex. Cheers to you both.
Well said!
We do pay for the costs of roads. Everytime we fill up at the pump. If one building owner doesn’t orient correctly (and who’s version of correction is that by the way?), what harm is that? But if 100 owners within a couple of blocks do the same thing all you will have is 100 desserted buildings. Matter of fact one can just go out to Chesterfield Commons to see how well they embrace pedestrianism over the car. Oh, this is about inner-city, urban? great, then there will be another reason for peole with cars not to return to the city.
Moe, I wont do the research for you. Just consult Google. The fuel tax doesn’t even come close to paying for the total cost of auto-centric design, construction and maintenance of the public right-of-way.
First off….don’t be so condesending. Secondly…I never said our fuel tax pays ALL the costs associated with roads. But that’s ok…just ignore the main point of my comment. I can see Chesterfield (and the like) embracing your pedestrianism fully.
Sid…first off there is no need to be condesending. Secondly….I never said our fuel tax pays for all the costs associated with roads. But go ahead and ignore the motives for success out in Chesterfield….see how well they (and the other suburban communities) embrace pedestrianism then.
Taxes, of all kinds, are, at their core, all about redistributing wealth. The mechanism that decides how they’re spent, the government, supposedly represents the interests of all of its citizens. At the state and local levels (but unfortunately not at the federal level), the need to live within a balanced budget every year means not everybody’s desires will ever be completely met, but it does mean that the totality of services provided – everything from streets and emergency services to parks and trails, museums and zoos, public transit and social services, all come out of that magic pot of money called taxes. Add in the reality that we all pay too many taxes, and we all pay for stuff that we will rarely or never use, and that whole taxation system is inherently both implicitly “fair” and “unfair” at the same time. That said, we’ll never agree on whether the soccer mom in Cottleville is getting a better “deal” than college student who who lives in Section 8 housing and uses Metrolink to get to their classes at UMSL.
My points, however, are not aimed at the economics, they’re aimed at trying to find workable solutions. I’ve seen people, with the best of intentions, try to start new “groups” to advocate a slightly different take on what some other group is already doing. This diffuses both groups’ efforts and tends to marginalize everyone’s efforts. Plus, if Steve wants “to spread the word”, I think that he’d do a lot better as an independent consultant / expert than as a part of a minor non-profit group.
My other issue is trying to change fundamental human behavior through government micro-management. We already have the ADA that mandates providing exactly what Steve wants, a safe path of travel between the public sidewalk and the primary entrance. The “problem” is that it is only sporadically and unevenly enforced. The other issue is that there is rarely only one, single, best path that pedestrians will follow – we ultimately get the level of enforcement that balances the desire of true believers and the reality that government can’t be everywhere reviewing and enforcing every regulation ever created (see jaywalking, not stopping for pedestrians in marked crosswalks, speeding and throwing cigarette butts out of car windows). In the public realm, we already provide marked crosswalks and pedestrian crossing signals, yet, pedestrians continue to choose to ignore them (the two boys hit in Pagedale had a marked crossing a block away, yet chose to unsuccessfully cross a four-lane road at an uncontrolled, minor intersection simply because it was the shortest path between origin and destination). Steve has provided, over multiple posts, multiple examples of both bad and better design solutions. I can provide multiple examples of existing structures that offer the opportunity for tenants to provide better, direct connections to the public sidewalk, yet the tenants CHOSE, and continue to choose, not to use them.
The government already mandates and regulates the provision of emergency doors / fire exits, for very valid safety reasons. There are varying degrees of enforcement once the space is occupied – I see blocked and/or locked designated exits on a weekly basis. The government could require, through form-based zoning, the buildings built to the public sidewalk and the provision of street-level show windows and doors that urbanists see as THE solution, but until the government can and does REQUIRE that they actually be used as intended, all you’ll be doing is introducing another layer of complexity and expense to the building process WITHOUT DELIVERING THE INTENDED RESULTS!
Head west on Chippewa from the Walgreens in this example. On the north side, you’ll find a small structure with an AT&T store, a Clarkson Optical and a Qdoba. It was built several years ago, with “front” doors and show windows facing Chippewa and parking “in back”. The “front” doors for the first two tenants are the ones that face the “back”, the “real” front doors are now locked-from-the-outside emergency exits and the show windows are billboards aimed at passing drivers, not displays of the merchandise offered for sale inside. Go another block and there’s a brand new, stand-alone Jimmy John’s that has a marked, level crossing between the public sidewalk and front door, yet most pedestrians won’t use it because it’s a shorter path to cross the parking diagonally than it would be to use the perpendicular, designated path. In both cases, the government could have required something different / “better”, but/yet why should they? Government can’t solve every “problem”, no matter how small or trivial. The fact that an elderly woman “had to” walk through mulch to get to the bus stop is as much a result of government mandating landscaping as it is government not enforcing its mandate for a striped crosswalk!
@JZ…..very well said. And if I may add another point. When the goverment (no matter which) institutes such mandates…there is always grandfather clauses and implementation time frames, yet some people demand that such mandates be in place at every establishment immediately….regardless of either the goverment or property owner’s finances
And the underlying issue remains how far should the government go in making these kinds of design decisions. Do the government, advocates or “experts” always “know best”? Or,
should private property owners be free to succeed or fail, by making
their own choices?!
Your point would be correct, except that the government currently mandates zoning restrictions which make urban development unprofitable, for example minimum parking requirements. Remove these and we’ll see how well urbanism does. Likely better in many places.
There are no parking requirements for projects downtown, in the “I – Central Business District” zone district. And many projects do not reach the maximum densities allowed in zoning. In those cases where restrictions are a hurdle, most governments, especially around here, seem more than willing to “modify” their regulations to spur economic development. What makes development “unprofitable”, anywhere, is either too little demand, too much supply, or both. When it costs more to build (or buy and renovate) something than the completed project will generate in revenue, then most developers aren’t going to be stupid (or crazy) enough to start a money-losing effort. If you really want to see how well urbanism can do here, make our city more desirable, like around Wrigleyville and Lincoln Park in Chicago or the up and coming neighborhoods in DC or the Highlands or RiNo in Denver. These were all sketchy areas 40 years ago; now they’re attracting new investments, new residents and new businesses.
The two big reasons we see so much surface parking around here is not our zoning, it’s because our land is cheap and many chain users demand parking for their customers and employees. It doesn’t matter if it’s Walgreens or Wendy’s, CVS or Schnuck’s, Jimmy John’s or our city recreation department, we do it because we can.
I think my sentiments were misread. As a student studying cities, I am well aware of the challenges that exist. I am also well aware that many GREAT things that happen in our city come from the idea of one. So Steve, do your thing and who knows what will come of it — maybe it will be one of those great things!
Just wanted to call attention to the fact that the example you cite above is the result of local neighborhood organizations and residents organizing to successfully stop the construction of a new 100,000 s.f. big box store in favor of a more pedestrian friendly development. The organizations were successful in holding off the construction long enough that the big box store company eventually filed for bankruptcy. A walgreen’s is certainly a step up from a half finished big box store and the adjoining huge parking lot which was scheduled for that corner.
There is nothing pedestrian-friendly about what is now on that corner. I mean, one of the few sidewalks lands you squarely in the Starbucks drive-thru lane. And I can’t believe there haven’t been people killed walking in the entrance drive from Chippewa because there is no sidewalk access.