Examining the St. Louis MLS Stadium Site Plan, Part 1

Last week we finally saw the proposed site plan for the new Major League Soccer (MLS) stadium. It’ll be exactly where I suggested in February 2016, where I said it would be a month ago —  northwest corner of 20th & Market.

As I said last month, I thought of a smaller structure stopping at Pine on the north. But I see how more space is needed so it will go another block north, to Olive. This means razing a few buildings and relocating businesses. Understandably, one is refusing.

Many, including myself, thought they’d build south of Market Street like the prior MLS group proposed. However, the site I proposed in February 2016 makes much more sense. The MLS prefers urban settings and the location north of Market gives them instant urbanism on all sides — plus two blocks of frontage along Market. South of Market there is no urbanism. None.

Ok, for a brief moment on 20th Street you’ve got Union Station’s train shed with new Farris wheel on one side with the old railway YMCA, now a hotel & restaurant, on the other. But a new stadium south of Market couldn’t be close to this single spot.  Granted, if done right urbanism could build up around a new stadium south of Market.

Wisely, they’ve opted to fill the hole in the middle of existing buildings north of Market. The new stadium will be surrounded on all sides by multi-story structures. There’s enough surface parking that it isn’t ideal urbanism, but it’s significantly better than south of Market.

Today I want to begin to critically examine their site plan, discuss street grid changes, parking, and look at future development potential of the surroundings. The new stadium is square but one can argue the south side, facing Market, is the primary facade. The east side, facing 20th is a close second. Due to the amount of land area, we’ll start with the area south of the stadium.

I’ll admit in February 2016 I hadn’t considered practice fields. I saw the area south of Market being filled with offices, housing, etc.  The area devoted to practice fields is largely dead space, perhaps school groups could use them. This keeps the team owners from having practice fields and team offices elsewhere in the region  — as was the case with the Rams NFL team.

I like a number of things about this design. As I thought in 2016, the stadium will be an excellent terminus to the Gateway Mall. The site plan shows a new building facing Market across from the stadium, north of the practice fields. I assume this will hold a team store, offices, etc. If this is more than a single story in height it and the stadium will give this stretch of Market a feeling of urbanism — enclosure. Combined with the new hotel finishing up at 22nd Street this will do wonders for the area.

Replacing the two buildings and filling in the surface parking lots in the block bounded by Market, 20th, 21st, and Eugenia Street will not happen overnight — but I do think it will over time. It should at least.

As mentioned above, Clark Street will connect between 21st and 22nd — something it hasn’t done in decades. The site plan shows surface parking right now, a placeholder for future development. Hopefully this new Clark will be designed to permit on-street parking on both sides. Not sure what will get developed on the land between Clark and 40/64 — hopefully multi-story.

You’ll also notice 22nd street continuing south to the interstate. Changes have been in the works since Paul McKee first named the 22nd Interchange site as one of his four jobs centers. MoDot has been planning major changes to interstate entry exit points.

I love the new 22nd Street connection over the interstate! Hopefully it’ll also include pedestrian accommodations. It’s unclear from MoDot’s materials what will become of the state-owned land south of 40/64.

One of the benefits of developing the 22nd interchange site is the current hole makes underground parking significantly cheaper compared to excavating an area filled with dirt, foundations, utilities, etc. The MLS team plans to use the area under the two practice fields for team/staff parking. Just guessing before the first match we’ll learn that luxury box ticket holders will also get access to underground parking.

I suspect they’ll also have locker rooms, kitchens, etc under the MLS stadium itself. I also expect the area under the stadium will be connected to the parking under the practice fields. Given the area is totally open now this is a very easy proposition.

The connection won’t be the full width of what has existed for decades, perhaps a nice hallway for players, owners, and staff. A second service connection is likely for food service, rubbish removal, etc.

Part 2 of this series will explore another direction around the proposed MLS stadium.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: St. Louis’ New Gun Background Check Bill Good or Bad Legislation?

Friday the St. Louis Board of Aldermen sent a bill to Mayor Krewson, who’s expected to sign it.

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen passed a bill that requires licensed gun dealers to tell police if someone trying to purchase a gun fails a federal background check.

Bill 106 is a public safety legislation for failed background checks for firearm purchases. According to the Board of Aldermen, the City of St. Louis has become the first city in the U.S. to pass such a law.

The bill, sponsored by President Lewis Reed, will establish reporting requirements for licensed firearm dealers. The legislation requires the dealer to report when a firearm purchase is denied from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. The new law will prohibit people who attempt to buy guns and fail the background check from creating a serious public safety threat. (KSDK)

Board Bill 106, introduced on September 13th, can be found here.

To come up with today’s poll question I read lots of comments on  articles about this posted on news site Facebook pages. Yes, the poll question isn’t the same as the headline.

As always, this poll will close at 8pm tonight. My thoughts, still unclear to me at this point, and the results Wednesday morning.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills Week 21 of 2019-2020 Session

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen meet at 10am today, their 21st meeting of the 2019-2020 session. As previously noted, they have the first two meetings labeled as Week #1, so they list this as week/meeting 20.

Today’s agenda includes five (5) new bills.

• B.B.#141 – J. Boyd – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment making a supplemental appropriation to the Annual Budget Ordinance 70963 for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2019, and ending June 30, 2020, amounting to the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00), and containing an Emergency Clause.
• B.B. #142 – Ingrassia – An ordinance approving a blighting study and Redevelopment Plan for the 2633-35 Allen Ave. Redevelopment Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2016, as amended (“RSMo”), (the “Statute” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive), finding that there shall be available five (5) year tax abatement based on 50% of the assessed value of the incremental improvements; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen.
• B.B. #143 – Todd – An ordinance amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Washington/Vandeventer/Enright/Pendleton Redevelopment Area (“Area”) approved by Ordinance # 69519 dated July 24, 2013 (Exhibit 1 attached) by extending the implementation schedule now calling for projects to be completed by May 1, 2029.
• B.B. #144 – Todd – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3765 Lindell Blvd. Area.
• B.B. #145 – Todd – An ordinance amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Vandeventer/Finney/Washington/Taylor Redevelopment Area (“Area”) approved by Ordinance #69410 dated February 21, 2013 (Exhibit 1 attached) by extending the implementation schedule now calling for projects to be completed by May 1, 2029.

The meeting begins at 10am, past meetings and a live broadcast can be watched online here. See list of all board bills for the 2019-2020 session — the new bills listed above may not be online right away.

— Steve Patterson

15th Anniversary of UrbanReviewSTL.com; Future Uncertain Due To Cancer Diagnosis

I don’t normally post on a Thursday, but today is not just any Thursday.

It was 15 years ago today, Halloween 2004, when I registered the domain UrbanReviewSTL.com and began posting my thoughts on urban planning and architecture in the St. Louis region.

I initially began this blog to distract myself from my father’s recovery from a heart attack on the first of October ’04. I had no plan for longevity, I just needed something else to focus my attention on at the moment.

Within a few months I was the first openly-LGBT candidate for the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. I lost, but the experience was great and it increased attention to this blog. I was motivated to make a difference.

In 2006 my mom passed away, later that year St. Louis Magazine named me the 50th most powerful person in St. Louis. In these early years I posted about a variety of topics including buying/riding/parking a 50cc Hondas Metropolitan Scooter, valet parking, Loughborough Commons, etc.

In late November 2007 I moved into a loft in Downtown West, just as my father went into the hospital in Oklahoma City. On January 1, 2008 my father died. Within a couple of weeks I was driving a friend of a friend, and her two cats, to Providence Rhode Island. After a night there I spent a day & night in Boston, flying back to St. Louis from there. I didn’t know it at the time, but it would be my last walking/exploring trip.

On a cold & snowy Friday, February 1, 2008, I had a hemorrhagic stroke at home alone. It was 15-16 hours before a worried friend found me the next morning. After 3 months in 3 hospitals I retuned home on April 30, 2008. Read more on my post about the 10th anniversary of my stroke.

In the nearly 12 years since my stroke I’ve posted a lot about obstacles encountered while using my power wheelchair, my increased use of public transit, meeting & marrying my husband, etc.  I’ve been working out at the downtown Y (YMCA) and, between July 2018 and July 2019, managed to get below 200 pounds for the first time in decades — lost nearly 40 pounds in a year of working out. Felt so great to achieve that goal.

And now, the reason why the future of this blog is uncertain.

For a few years I’ve had an enlarged thyroid. Each year I’d go to the Center for Advanced Medicine (CAM) for a CT scan, once also getting a biopsy to test the tissue. Nothing.

The chest x-ray at my annual physical this year spots were seen that weren’t there last year.  My doctor thought it was cancer, so back to CAM for a CT. Yep, spots that weren’t there before. Next up was Barnes Hospital for a CT biopsy of my right lung. The results showed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) — kidney cancer that has spread to my lungs.  It might be another type of kidney cancer, but RCC is most common. Interestingly it’s unrelated to my enlarged thyroid.

I meet with an oncologist next week at Siteman Cancer Center to discuss diagnosis and her proposed treatment plan. My plan is to continue posting four days per week (Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), but I can’t predict how the cancer treatment will affect me. My research has shown a lot of drugs, combined with chemotherapy, have good success with advanced kidney cancer. I’m optimistic about my odds.

I’m still working out at The Y, still going about my life as usual. You’ll still see me out and about, but don’t be surprised if I begin crying — I have pseudobulbar affect as a result of my stroke. I greatly appreciate positive thoughts, well wishes, and such. However, please don’t tell me you’re praying to your deity on my behalf — that’s about you not me! When I was certain I was going to die while experiencing a stroke I didn’t suddenly cease being an atheist/humanist.

“Humanism rejects dependence on faith, the supernatural, divine texts, resurrection, reincarnation, or anything else for which we have no evidence. To put it another way, Humanists believe in life before death.”  ? Greg M. Epstein, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

Pray if you like, just please don’t think sharing that information with me will bring me comfort — it won’t.

So many blogs have come and gone over the last 15 years — it’s a lot of work so I understand why many ceased being published. I’ll post updates on my health on social media, and a post likely on Friday after Thanksgiving (11/29).

— Steve

Fifty Years Since the St. Louis Rent Strike of 1969 Ended

Yesterday was the 50th Anniversary of the end of the 1969 St. Louis Rent Strike. Upset by poorly built & maintained public housing, tenants refused to pay their rent.

Much was written about the rent strike, here’s the abstract from a 2013 academic paper titled The St. Louis Rent Strike of 1969: Transforming Black Activism and American Low-Income Housing:

In 1969, public housing tenants launched a rent strike that shaped federal legislation and helped make housing a central concern of the Black Freedom Struggle. In addition to providing a detailed narrative of the rent strike, this article follows the lives of the rent strike’s three primary leaders—Ivory Perry, the Rev. Buck Jones, and Jean King. Following the rent strike, Ivory Perry worked to curb lead poisoning while Buck Jones sought to reform welfare in Missouri. Later, Jones labored to improve living conditions in East St. Louis, Illinois. Jean King worked with private developers following the rent strike, helping remake the architecture and management of low-income housing. By focusing on how these individuals aided the rent strike, and by following their subsequent life careers, this article demonstrates that the St. Louis rent strike influenced developments central to American low-income housing and black activism in the St. Louis metropolitan area.

Strikes are an effective way to force change. Still, some would like to end unions and strikes. In the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll there was more responses than usual, but the pattern didn’t change.

Q: Agree or disagree: To reduce economic disruption strikes should be limited by law

• Strongly agree: 2 [2.7%]
• Agree: 0 [0%]
• Somewhat agree: 0 [0%]
• Neither agree or disagree: 1 [1.35%]
• Somewhat disagree: 0 [0%]
• Disagree: 5 [6.76%]
• Strongly disagree: 65 [87.84%]
• Unsure/No Answer: 1  [1.35%]

We must be diligent to protect the right to strike.

— Steve Patterson