Kansas City Updating Old Zoning, Way Ahead of St. Louis in Effort

Via the Kansas City Star:

Kansas City is about to overhaul its zoning ordinance for the first time in half a century, with significant changes anticipated for landscaping, parking and housing throughout the city.

A consultant team and steering committee undertook a painstaking review and revision of the city’s zoning and subdivision regulations in the past 18 months. A draft ordinance should be ready for release on the city’s Web site by spring.

City officials say the public will have plenty of opportunity to comment. If all goes as planned, the City Council could vote on the new rules sometime in the summer or fall.

It’s high time for Kansas City to join other cities in moving past the suburban growth patterns and auto dependency that characterized the zoning approach of the 1950s and ’60s, says Chicago-based consultant Kirk Bishop, executive vice president of Duncan Associates.

“Those regulations have gotten out of date, out of sync with the diversity of today’s modern city,” he said.

Sound familiar?  Kansas City, like St. Louis, adopted a major city plan in 1947 but both city’s zoning codes have remained stuck in that period. It seems the leadership in KC has the political will to actually do something about their outdated zoning.  Meanwhile we have a hot shot urban planner on staff that is basically bound and gagged.

From the same article:

Planners recognize that Kansas City has sometimes had excessive parking requirements, promoting the proliferation of lots and hindering small retail development and street activity. New rules would lower the minimum number of parking spaces required downtown to encourage small retail development.

Bishop says the goal is to reduce inconsistencies, establishing minimum expectations for landscaping and parking that would be more fair and predictable.

At the urging of Kansas City’s bicycle clubs, Kansas City also would adopt certain requirements for bicycle parking, so cyclists have accessible places to lock their bikes.

Kansas City may not have won the World Leadership Award but it would appear they are taking important steps in the right direction.  Mayor Slay should have assembled a similar steering committee to work on St. Louis’ zoning following the 2005 adoption of the new Strategic Land Use Plan.   For the most part, our land use plan remains in limbo until the zoning is actually updated.

Loughborough Commons is Not Finished Yet

When I started writing about the failures of Loughborough Commons a few months ago I was reminded by Ald. Matt Villa (D-11th) that it is not finished yet. He is correct, work is still progressing even though the two main stores, Schnucks & Lowes, are open.

In addition to a number of possible out buildings and the need to finish an ADA accessible route to a public street it seems Desco is working to correct some of the poor planning on areas that were already finished. Yes, the not finished yet $40 million project is already getting fixes.

Above you can see a new black metal fence installed recently which blocks now former accessible parking spaces near the entrance. A similar parking arrangement on the other side of the entry remains.

From this angle you can see how the angle of the main entrance would make it a challenge to see oncoming cars if you were backing out of one of these spaces. Accessible spaces, such as these near an entrance, are ideal for many so they do not need to cross a main drive. Still, these must be designed and placed in such a manner that someone using them is able to easily navigate in and out of them. This is also an example of where the minimum sidewalk width required by law is just that, mimimum.

Before the change you can see how tight the space was. When extra shopping carts were stored in the area it completely blocked the sole planned walking route from Loughborough. Civil engineers are a critical part of any design team, they are necessary for a number of areas including water runoff concerns, accessing soil conditions, engineering curbs and other details on a given site. They are not, however, natural specialists in creating walkable & ADA accessible environments. Projects of this scale, especially those with over $14 million in public tax incentives, should have a consultant on board to ensure more than simple textbook minimum compliance. At this point I still question if they will be able to establish minimum compliance with respect to an accessible route.

Above is an earlier image between the Schnucks and the Lowe’s, but as of 1/1/07 nothing has changed here. Pedestrians, including those using walkers, mobility scooters or wheelchairs are directed into the pharmacy drive-thru exit! At this point these pedestrians have only a couple of choices, those who can will simply walk through the plantings/grass and those who cannot must either turn left and exit the drive-thru lane with the cars out into the main drive for the development or turn right and go head-on with the cars in the pharmacy lane for about 5ft (just outside of view in this image) until they get to what appears to be a drainage area which provides a break in the planter. In this direction someone will have to hope the cars leaving the pharmacy drive-thru lane see them. This second route would allow pedestrians to go down that direction but the slope is too steep for a return back to the Schnucks and out to Loughborough. And forget wheelchairs for a minute, what about young families pushing a stroller! We do want young families with kids in the area, right?

What is more amazing than having such major projects built without a planning/access specialist on the design team is the idea that we leave it up to our elected aldermen to ensure the public’s interests are being considered. With our 28 mini-cities with a city mentality we get varying results from ward to ward. Some aldermen seem to know their limitations and consult the city’s Planning & Urban Design Agency. Others, like Lyda Krewson, have ideal developers like Joe Edwards so these issues are rare. But folks like Ald. Matt Villa, who assured me before construction started that pedestrians would be considered, are clearly incapable of distinquishing between token gestures toward access and good community design. Yes, he is certainly a “nice guy” but that only goes so far — not even remotely close in the case of Loughborough Commons. And just think, Loughborough Commons is not even finished.

Valet Parking on Washington Avenue in 6th Ward

My flight arrived a good hour late last night but despite being tired a group of friends were waiting for me at the Gelateria at Washington & 14th. So I stopped by downtown on the way home.  Where to park? Yes, Copia has the 1100 block nearly vacant. Lucas Park Grille has almost half of both sides of the 1200 block of Washington as well as several spaces on both sides of Washington in the 1300 block.

After circling the block and deciding I wasn’t going to pay $5 to park in the lot to the north of Washington Avenue for a 20 minute visit I moved a couple of illegally placed orange cones from the 1300 block of Washington Avenue. Looking around I could see that Lucas Park Grille’s valets had a good 10 spaces sitting empty at 9pm — plus the spaces in directly in front of the restaurant. I was already parked and on the sidewalk when the valet started running up to my car, “Don’t start with me” I said in a grumpy mood from traveling all day. He said something which I don’t recall exactly and I said, “Show me the permit, I’ll be in the gelato place.”

I returned about 30 minutes or so later to find a Saturn parked only inches from my rear bumper and another car in front equally close. They had purposefully blocked me in. OK, I was a smartass and perhaps deserving of such treatment? Fair enough. The valet comes over quickly when he sees me, with permit in hand. The other spaces, by the way, were still vacant.  He points to the address: 1301-19 Washington Ave. Indeed, they were given a permit to conduct valet parking at that location. However, they conveniently ignore the rest of the permit which indicates the area is only for the purpose of drop-off and pick-up — that cars must be moved to an off-site location immediately, and that cones or other items are prohibited in the public right of way. I should mention as a side note, in the 1100 & 1200 blocks they have begun using meter covers that indicate no parking, tow zone rather than the cones.

When I point out the conflicts on the permit the valet tells me he is simply doing what his boss tells him to do —- to keep all these spaces empty so if they get busy they can “stage” cars there. I’ve had others tell me the reason they want to take as many spaces as possible is it forces people to use the valet service so the valets can collect as many tips as they can. Of course, Lucas Park Grille is not the only establishment open in this area yet they certainly act like it. The reality is they simply take these spaces because the city’s street department willingly issues permits for seemingly as much space as the valet companies request.

The McGowan Brothers are the owners of Lucas Park Grille and have this to say on their development website:

We will continue to strive for the protection and safety of our streets and the development of adequate parking facilities for visitors and residents alike. McGowan Brothers Development Corp. will only recognize success when the Washington Avenue district is a thriving community where everyone who lives, works or visits can share in its rewards.

Their actions speak louder than their words. Their valet contractor, Midwest Valet, agressively takes away parking for visitors as the expense of the liveliness of the street. Having blocks of nearly vacant parking gives the appearance of nothing happening, not a good message to communicate to visitors be they from the county or from outside the region.

Contact information for the direct players involved in this caper, please contact them to share your thoughts:

• Lucas Park Grille
• McGowan Brothers Development
• Midwest Valet
• Todd Waeltermann (new director of Streets)

My headline included the 6th ward. Yes, I intend to make this a campaign issue. I’ve personally discussed the valet issue with 6th Ward alderman and candidate for the President of the Board of Aldermen, Lewis Reed. I’ve had more conversations with Lyda Krewson of the 28th Ward, who indicates they are proceeding on an ordinance to be introduced this session. Still, my requests to revoke all permits except those directly in front of an establishment have been ignored. I’d like to see a 3-space limit until the Board of Alderman pass a more comprehensive ordinance.

For those that don’t know, this stretch of Washington Avenue is not represented by one person, not even two, but three aldermen. The 1100 block and East is in the 7th Ward represented by Phyllis Young. The 1200 block, where Lucas Park Grille is located, is in the 5th Ward where April Ford-Griffin is the alderman. The 1300 block plus all the blocks to the West past Jefferson are in the 6th Ward. [Note: yes Richard, I double checked the ward boundaries]

As alderman in the 6th Ward Lewis Reed has not introduced any legislation to address the issue relative to valet parking. As a candidate for the President of the Board of Alderman will he now take a stand? Will current President of the Board of Alderman take a position or continue to remain silent on the subject?

We have three candidates running for Reed’s seat in the 6th Ward, what are their positions on valet parking specifically and the rejuvenation of the western length of Washington Avenue in general. With 19th Ward Alderman Mike McMillan about to take the oath of office to become License Collector a significate portion of St. Louis’ downtown and mid-town will be in the hands of new legislators. Quite a bit is at stake and we certainly don’t need aldermen in these two wards that will play games that keep out good urban development. Neither are, to my knowledge, has a comprehensive plan.

One last note on the valet parking. They said last night that the police ticketed my car, yet I had no ticket. The valet indicated it will be mailed to me. I love the concept of a city that will ticket a citizen for parking in one of 10 or so empty spaces being held hostage by a single business while patronizing another business. You’d think someone like the St. Louis Downtown Partnership would step in to help manage the overall parking in in the downtown area. But, if you knew how the organization was managed you would not have such expectations. Let the Partnership CEO Jim Cloar know what you think of their hands-off approach to valet parking downtown.

Remaking Urban Streetscapes – A Look At St. Louis’ Euclid Ave

Planning work is well underway to remake three blocks of Euclid Ave, from Lindell Blvd on the north to Forest Park Parkway on the South. Monday evening the design team made another of several public presentations on the issues and proposed options. Interestingly, one of the stated goals was to make the street accessible to all yet the meeting was held in a meeting room at the hotel on Lindell that is reached by stairs, no elevator. Luckily, an advocate for the disabled was present to give feedback on behalf of those that couldn’t reach the meeting.

The group behind this makeover is the Central West End-Midtown Development Corporation. Sorry, no link as they don’t yet have a website. I know, almost 2007 and no website to communicate their plans for redeveloping an area…

They are spending a whopping $400,000 on the planning and engineering for three city blocks of a single street. These funds, as I understand it, came from an increase in the taxes on the property where we have the new Park East Tower high-rise. A diverse group of stakeholders were involved at the start of the project on November 9th.

The development team, headed by Denver-based Civitas, is huge. The list of consultants is close to 10, I think. Too many cooks in the kitchen, in my view. I guess the local development group wants to make sure all $400K gets spent.

This stretch of Euclid was redone probably 30 years ago or so. That is when Euclid, and cross streets Laclede & West Pine, gained the now-dated “lollipop” light fixtures (their description, not mine). The sidewalks and such were redone in the latest style for the time, it was up to date and hip. And that my friends, was the problem. The focus was on the horizontal surfaces of the sidewalk or things like street lamps.

Sure, it probably worked for a while. Anytime you infuse some new cash into an area it will attract some attention which brings new business and customers. Sustaining this influx of investment and users, however, is the trick. Height of fashion streetscapes become dated at some point and keeping up the interest level becomes harder and harder when that happens. I know of no such street that has a long-term sustainable record.

“Washington Avenue,” you proclaim. Well, we are only into the streetscape a few years. It is showing some signs of wear and it will be interesting to see if the city is going to keep up with maintenance or simply move on to areas like Ballpark Village. The outrageously expensive light fixtures do a poor job of lighting the street — you get blinding hot spots and and dark areas otherwise. However, as more businesses open and have lit signage this has become less of an issue. Still, the two blocks from Tucker to 14th are all tricked out like a cheap whore screaming for attention. This is what happens when you let good designers go crazy.

The design team will be back next week presenting to the stakeholders and then to the public on the 16th of January.

You see the design community has the nagging problem, the portfolio. The portfolio or gallery is where they show off their projects to their peers and prospective clients. It takes the really flashy stuff to show up well in photographs. A well-designed streetscape (or building) that is reasonable conventional but part of a dynamic urban context will look far too boring in a designer’s portfolio. Often they want projects that look exciting when empty, hard to accomplish unless you go all out.

You can put the most interesting of brick paving in front of a Wal-Mart and it is still a Wal-Mart. You will not want to spend anymore time out front simply because of the pattern created or some token sculpture. Sure, it might make your passing through a bit more interesting but you will not return because of it. And eventually the novelty of that paving pattern will wear off. The world’s great streets are not about the paving. Nor are they entirely about the architecture. Before going any further with this rant I want to break for some reality of the actual proposals for Euclid. The rant will continue post-proposals.

Civitas was kind enough to share with me the two proposals presented at the meeting. Basically, the two plans involve some of the same items: removal of all existing sidewalks, curbs, trees, and paving. Both involve starting over from scratch.

The first concept, shown below, is what is being described as a “polish” project — clean up what they have. Major changes from today involve the bump-outs at the intersections — those extended curbs that make it shorter to cross a street. They are also suggesting using pervious paving under the on-street parking so that some rain water can be absorbed into the soil rather than adding to the load on the sewer system. The other major difference is raised intersections at Laclede & West Pine. These are used as traffic-calming devices — basically the crosswalks and the center of the intersection are at the same level as the sidewalks. As you drive you’ll go up a slope at you get to the crosswalk and back down the other side as you cross.

Option A — click image above to view in Flickr and to see larger size in detail.

This first option calls for two 7ft parking lanes as well as 22ft in the center for two travel lanes. In the 60ft right-of-way this leaves 12ft for sidewalk on each side of the street. I think they could narrow the curb-to-curb width a bit to 34ft for the two travel and parking lanes, giving more room to pedestrians.

On-street parking would remain at the same number of spaces, roughly 48 per their estimates. These spaces would be redistributed a bit as current all are in the two blocks between Laclade and Lindell. In both revised plans some on-street parking is included in the block between Forest Park Parkway and Laclede. Some at the meeting argued in favor of eliminating on-street parking completely, suggesting the cars are eyesores. Eliminating on-street parking on these three blocks would pretty much kill this street. Yes, quite a bit of parking is available on side streets and in parking structures nearby but that is not the point. On-street parking does a number of things beneficial to the pedestrian — namely helping to slow traffic in the travel lanes as well as providing a big buffer between sidewalk and moving vehicles. Using the curb bump outs and other techniques it is possible to acheive a good balance in this mix.

“But how would eliminating parking kill the street,” you ask? Simple, we do not have the density required to keep the sidewalks busy at all times. Sure, we have a number of pedestrians now that make the street look lively but take away the cars and those same number of pedestrians now looks pathetic. We’d need considerably more pedestrians on the sidewalks to make up for the loss of perceived activity contributed by the parked cars. You might argue that removing parked cars from the street would increase pedestrian traffic but such a cause-effect is only wishful thinking. Density is what increases pedestrian traffic, not the absense of parked cars. Without parked cars the street would look vacant and as it looked vacant you’d have less and less pedestrians because they would not feel as safe on the street. Eventually we’d see less stores as a result. The street would die a slow death. On-street parking can only be eliminated in very special circumstances and none of those exist, or are likely to ever exist, in the St. Louis region. We all need to accept on-street parking as part of the activity of the street.

Moving on to Option B, seen here:

What to say about Option B? WTF!?! Let me explain. Someone on the design team, or from the client, got this bright idea to make a “statement” with the street, specifically water runoff. Never ever advocate making a statement with paving and especially not how that paving is designed to channel storm water. I’m as “green” as the next guy but a 3ft wide covered drainage channel down the middle of the street ending a “planters” at the intersections. Again, WTF? Streets for centuries have been crowned — raised in the center causing water to run to either side, along the gutter/curb and into a drain (ok, the drains have not been around for centuries but you get the idea). We don’t need to re-invent the wheel here. We are talking about three blocks of a narrow right of way. Giving more space to the roadway takes away space from the sidewalks, counter intuitive if you are seeking a pedestrian-friendly environment.

Ald. Joe Roddy spoke last night and was there for all but the last bit of the meeting. He spoke very upbeat about this being the most vibrant street in St. Louis in the future. Again, pretty pavement patterns does not equal vibrant. Issues that can have a sustainable impact on the vibrancy of this street now and in the future are land use, zoning and new construction. The Park East Tower is going to add many new residents but its oppressive street-level design doesn’t help matters. They parking structure that creates the bad situation will have 160 public spaces. I personally would have preferred they do without the public spaces and given us a better street treatment. I hear a bank may be going in the retail space, that will really pack the sidewalks on a Saturday evening.

Roddy and the development group should have taken a big chuck of this $400K they are spending and invested that in some good design guidlines for the area. Along the way look at taxing the hell out of surface parking lots like the one at the corner of Euclid and Lindell to the point where the owner is forced to sell or develop it.

Here are some miscellanous issues that came up at the meeting and my thoughts on them:

• Old trolley tracks may still exist under the street. Here is a crazy idea, do a trolley up and down Euclid to connect the MetroLink stop in the medical complex with the urbanized neighborhoods to the north? Run up to Delmar or Fountain Park?
• A “pedestrian refuge” is planned at Forest Park Parkway. This is very much needed. They team also plans to bump out curbs at the ends of the parking lanes to reduce the width of the crossings. They had some nice before and “after” images.
• It was suggested new structures be required to have public parking. I say that is unnecssary, more than enough parking exists now. Eliminate parking requirements completely and let the developer determine how much parking they need to provide to meet the market demand.
• The team showed a kitchen garden in the presentation. I love kitchen gardens with herbs and such — but not in my public streets. I do not want to eat at a local restaurant and worry that my basil was fertilized by the neighbor’s poodle.
• Some feel some monuments need to be placed at each end to mark the entrance to the area. Again, it is only three blocks long. The area needs to become an extension of Euclid to the North of Lindell. They would do well to copy the same feel so that people naturally flow back and forth across Lindell.
• The development group will be applying for a federal grant from East-West Gateway. Their early estimates are somewhere between $1.8 and $3.0 million dollars. For three blocks!

City streetscapes do not need to be fancy. They need good paving, concrete is a perfectly fine material. They need to be lined with good-sized street trees (spend a bit more on bigger trees). Streets need attractive and quality lighting, nothing too fancy or garish. In short, streets need to just be streets. Zoning, signing and things like opening windows to restaurants are the factors that make for an exciting street. People need places to sit or lock up their bikes. Public clocks are a nice touch. Markers in the pavement to indicate the cross street name helps with way-finding as does the address in the paving. Subtle details are far more important than the hit you over the head so cool and trendy things designers want to experiment with. They need to work on the basics first and branch out from there, not the other way around.

Update 12/12/06 at 8:30pm — I forgot to pass along a link to a December 6 article on this subject from the West End Word.

St. Louis Should Look to Boston as We Study Parking Meters

A regular reader of Urban Review sent me a link to an article in Monday’s Boston Globe over their new Pay-n-Display parking meters:

Boston’s new high-tech parking meters along a four-block stretch of Newbury Street are keeping pace with their high-rent surroundings: They are generating at least 34 percent more money per space than their predecessors.

The article raises many of the issues raised here, people don’t like not being able to piggyback on the previous persons time and having to buy more time than you need if using a credit card.

Boston’s new meters are from one of the two companies that are providing meters in St. Louis, Parkeon. Their units, however, are different from those being tested here. The main difference is theirs accept dollar bills. Here is what they have found since installing the new machines mid-October:

The preferred method of payment has been dollar bills (45 percent), followed by coins (40 percent), and plastic (15 percent).

There the rates are double what they are on Grand ($2hr two hours in Boston vs $1 for two hours on Grand). Those using a dollar bill in Boston automatically get 30 minutes on the meter — no change if you want only 15 minutes. Using a credit card in Boston gets you two hours, the same as here — this is to offset fees charged by credit card companies.

I’m concerned the lack of dollar bill acceptors in the test machines in St. Louis will prove them to be less advantageous over the existing meters. This is especially true given the costs of the new devices, which is another difference.

The Suburban Journal reported on November 2nd:

The Parkeon meter costs about $12,000 and the Duncan meter about $5,000. By contrast, 10 regular meters cost about $5,000.

But the Boston Globe article shows them getting better pricing:

Under a contract with the manufacturer, Parkeon of Moorestown, N.J., Boston has the option of buying 1,000 meters over the next three years, which could effectively replace all of the city’s existing 6,600 single-space meters. The first 25 meters cost $7,219 apiece; after that the price rises to $10,000 apiece, for a total of nearly $10 million.

So we are getting quoted $12,000 each for units that don’t accept bills but they can pay $8,000-$10,000 for ones that do? The only explanation I can come up with is the $12,000 price is a one-off price and that under a contract similar to Boston’s we’d get a similar deal. Boston is showing an increase of over $3 per space per day compared to last year. If multiplied out by their total number of spaces the new meters could pay for themselves in just over a year from increases in revenue alone. Again, their biggest revenue (45%) are coming from bills followed by coins and lastly by credit/debit cards.

Back to South Grand were testing is ongoing. For grins I tried to put in money into the Pay-n-display machine after the required parking one evening and it was smart enough to refuse the money and indicate on the screen that parking was free at that time. This is nice for visitors that are never sure how late to feed the meters. What I have not yet tested is if you park at say 7:45am for an hour long breakfast or meeting — will the machines let you deposit money before the official time begins at 8am or must you run back out at 8am and pay?

Before the St. Louis Treasurer, who oversees parking in St. Louis, draws any conclusions and signs any contracts I’d like to know more about which cities have these systems, how extensive are they (CBD, commercial district or city-wide), and how many of them use bill acceptors.