ULI Announces Winner of Hines Competition

Earlier today the Urban Land Institute completed the 2006 Urban Design Competition with presentations and selection of the grand prize winner. The event was held at Dubough Hall on the main campus of St. Louis University. I reviewed the finalists earlier this month (read review).

The four finalist teams drew numbers to determine the order in which they’d. It was Harvard (#4110), Harvard (#1015), UC-Berkeley and Columbia. Each team was given 25 minutes for presentation with another 20 minutes of questions from the jury. While a team was presenting the other teams that had not yet gone were not permitted in the room. This makes sense so that a later team does not benefit from seeing the types of questions the jury might ask.

Among the audience members were Marjorie Melton of the Board of Public Service and Planning and Urban Design Director Rollin Stanley.

Each team submitted additional boards today with greater detail on their phase one planning & financials. Nothing in the presentations altered my views. I saw the two Harvard proposals as quite strong, the Berkeley as my overall favorite and the Columbia proposal as a sad reincarnation of 1960’s urban renewal thinking.

All of the teams did an excellent and highly professional job of verbally communicating their ideas. Some individuals were stronger than others but that was to be expected.

The jury took a few minutes to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of all four:

Harvard (4110 — Aurora):

Pro: A bold & confident plan that stresses streets can be positive, good clarity of plan.

Con: Lacks good integration between streets and greenway space. Jury not convinced of connection.

Harvard (1015 — Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing):

Pro: Took program literally and viewed greenway as an economic driver to bring people to area. Clever approach by “pinching” at Grand (focusing users on area). Entertainment & retail along Grand a good idea.

Con: Cortex area with green roofs not so compelling in terms of site plan, wanted to see more green in the Cortex area. Boardwalk area in NE quadrant may not work and unsure about viability of high rise along Grand at MetroLink.

Columbia:

Pro: Extremely bold moves with walkway system. Very close to one requirement of competition — leaving the bridge design intact.

Con: Economic development required to pay for the infrastructure may not be possible in this location.

Berkeley:

Pro: Does more to establish a neighborhood with a strong grid, magnet school, integration of green with “fingers” in the development.

Con: MetroLink not as fully engaged as it could be. Boardwalk creates barrier.

The three non-winning finalists teams each get $10,000.

The winning team, Harvard #1015 Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing, won $50,000. While this was not my favorite I think is a very strong proposal. I saw nothing in their concepts that I would argue against. I had argued in January for just such a proposal to create a strong element out of Grand. They did an excellent job of recognizing the TOD (transit oriented development) potential of the site and worked to maximize the existing MetroLink stop. And maximizing transit is exactly what St. Louis needs to do — and quickly.

Congratulations to team members Thomas Hussey, Christina Cambruzzi, Oliver Corlette, Patrick Curran and Tyler Meyr. Congrats as well to faculty advisor Rick Peiser. The additional boards detailing the phase one for each team will be uploaded to the ULI Competition website next week.

– Steve

SLU Claims Ownership of Grand Sidewalk

Today I attended the ULI Competition presentations at Saint Louis University. Being such a nice day (although windy) I decided to take my scooter. Plus, I knew parking would be an issue so why not ease the issue with the compact scooter?

During the lunch break I walked to Nadoz at the Coronado. Finally at nearly 3pm it was time to leave (I’ll tell you the winner in a separate post). What do I find on my scooter? An orange “tow warning” from SLU’s Parking and Card Services which read:

“You have parked on Saint Louis University property and violated the Parking Policies and Procedures Regulation as checked below:”

Within the “other” section they wrote in “parking on sidewalk.”

While inside I had chained my scooter to the sign post at the curb — the only place I could find in the vicinity of Dubourg Hall on Grand. I went inside for hours knowing my scooter was most likely safe from theft as well as not blocking the public sidewalk.

But is it really a “public” sidewalk. I called the phone number on the card, 314-977-2957. The woman on the end said that the sidwalk along Grand is SLU property and they control it. As such, I was not permitted to park my tiny little 49cc scooter on their sidewalk. instead, I am supposed to get a visitor parking permit and parking in a regular parking space in one of their numerous garages or surface lots.

In reviewing SLU’s parking information online a couple of things become clear:

But who exactly has authority over the sidewalk? If I had parked my scooter within the inner campus I’d certainly see where they have control. But the sidewalk along a public street — Grand Blvd?

Is this sidewalk truly public?

– Steve

Soulard Residents’ Statement on Mardi Gras

Last night some residents of the Soulard neighborhood located south of downtown made the following statement at a Mardi Gras forum:

Introduction:

A group of concerned long time Soulard residents have gotten together and formed an ad hoc committee to address the problems associated with Mardi Gras. Our general feeling is that Mardi Gras, Inc. has over promoted the event to the point that it has become dangerous and destructive to our residential neighborhood.

The following is a basic statement concerning our position and supportive points that Mardi Gras, Inc. and the people at City Hall need to address before the 2007 event takes place.

Statement:

Mardi Gras has outgrown Soulard, our residential neighborhood, and must move to another location.

1. Mardi Gras is unsafe. Mardi Gras, Inc. over promotes the event which is held in our residential neighborhood. There are too many visitors who exhibit drunken, aggressive, and dangerous behavior. The crowd is getting younger and drunker. There is unsafe crowding. There is excessive demand on and use of the city’s police force. There is residual broken glass and trash. There is public urination.

2. Mardi Gras causes the destruction of private property. The event is over promoted, too large, and an open invitation far and wide for attendees to come to Soulard. There is constant and extreme destruction to our homes, yards and businesses.

3. Mardi Gras does not benefit the Soulard neighborhood. It puts money into the pockets of a select few and the residents are left to deal with the repercussions of this event, leading up to it, on the day of the event and throughout the year.

4. Mardi Gras is branding Soulard as a “year-round party place.” It is detracting from the interests of Soulard as a residential neighborhood noted for its historic architecture and charm. It threatens Soulard’s viability and the continued ability to attract and keep families and other potential residents and businesses to the area to ensure the legacy of a stable and diverse urban neighborhood.

Not much to disagree with here. The Soulard residents have done an excellent job of summarizing their views. Let’s look at each point.

Safety:

Yes, each year it appears the group is younger and drunker. I don’t have a problem with younger but the drunker part is an issue. A good beer buzz is one thing but falling down drunk is quite another. Squeezing many people into a small area and then an increasing number drunk it a bad overall formula. The potential of a small scale riot is quite feasible.

Destruction of Property:

With drunks comes property destruction. The neighborhood is fragile with many windows at the street. Old fences and other property is in close proximity to being damaged.

Benefit:

This is a tough one. I think, to a degree, the residents have benefited from Mardi Gras in that it has helped increase property values from the area being considered a hot spot. But, otherwise I see no direct benefit to local residents. The bars & restaurants do a good business but do other local businesses benefit?

The Big Picture:

Gaslight Square went downhill partly due to be overdone. The focus became too much on entertainment and partying. Few want to live in the middle of an entertainment district. I think it is a fair concern for the residents to raise that Soulard may be branded as a party place. If so, it could potentially lose its appeal as a nice neighborhood with local restaurants and bars. Crossing the line from neighborhood to entertainment district is not something we want to cross.

I’m happy to see such a rational discussion of the points and hopefully something can be determined so that we have a Mardi Gras in some form for years to come. However, I just can’t imagine it feeling right on Market in front of the post office.

– Steve

CNU’s Norquist uses St. Aloysius in Presentation on Urbanism

This evening, at the APA Workshop in Kirkwood, CNU President and CEO John Norquist used a picture of St. Aloysius as a good example of how a building can terminate a vista. He had pulled the image from my site resulting from a Google search.

By a stroke of luck Norquist sat next to me on the bus trip from Kirkwood to New Town at St. Charles. On the bus ride out and back we had a chance to talk about New Urbanism, St. Louis, Milwaukee (where he served as Mayor), parking, highway construction and, one of my favorite topics, the Apple Macintosh.

Speaking with Norquist on the bus and as we walked around New Town I found him to be someone private and reserved. As we hit it off he would make observations to me about things he saw. For example, across from the sales center was a building along an alley that lacked windows on the alley side, a no-no in New Urban terms. He seemed pleased to find something to tease planner Andres Duany about. New Town’s Tim Busse acknowledged they have made a few mistakes but have quickly learned from. Norquist was clearly impressed by what he saw. I will have a full review of New Town in April.

Norquist’s opening presentation to the workshop was very inspiring, funny and spot-on. He changed from a tall but quiet man to a very outspoken speaker. He took shots at our current foreign policy as well as clearly showing the distinctions between the old sprawl patterns of old vs. the new patterns of urbanism.

Norquist related a story of a street in Milwaukee where a developer built a horrible little strip center set back from the street just after he was elected Mayor. He knew the developer and asked him why he built the building so far back from the street. The developers answer? It was what his city’s code required. From that moment he set out to change his city’s zoning to allow for urbanism.

I was so impressed by his presentation that I bought his book, The Wealth of Cities: Revitalizing the Centers of American Life. After his presentation I informed Norquist that St. Aloysius will be razed, he was shocked and miffed. “Tell them I used it in my presentation.”

– Steve

PubDef Endorses Downs & Jones w/Video!

PubDef Weekly has endorsed school board candidates Peter Downs and Donna Jones. Publisher Antonio French has also put up a brief video of Peter Downs explaining why should vote for him. Click here to read what French has to say and to watch the video.

The election is Tuesday!

– Steve