Residents Demand Better Design from Alderwoman & Developer
Local residents took over a section of sidewalk along South Grand today to protest a plan to allow a McDonald’s with drive-thru to relocate to an area that forbids drive-thrus.
Citizens carried signs and chanted sayings like, “I’m not lovin’ it.” At issue is the Keystone Place development that was granted tax breaks in the late 90s but has been virtually abandoned by the developer Pyramid Companies. It has only been recently, now that they want something, that they’ve started building houses again. The 42,000sf site had a two-story Sears store but it was razed as part of this development. The redevelopment plan for the area specifically prohibits, by ordinance, drive-thru establishments. A variance has also been granted by the city.
Gravois Park residents filed an appeal on the variance. That appeal will be heard this Wednesday April 19, 2006 at 1:30pm in Room 208 of St. Louis City Hall. A variance is one thing but a conflicting ordinance is quite another.
So how do politicos get around an ordinance which prohibits something they want to do? Simple, amend the ordinance! I’m told the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) will take up the issue of amending the redevelopment ordinance for the area to permit drive-thru establishments. That meeting will be at 3pm on Tuesday April, 25, 2006 at 1015 Locust, 12th floor.
For more photos see my Flickr account and PubDef.
– Steve
Outside of the blog world, there hasn’t been much attention paid to this contrrovery, or the St. Al’s demolition.
Maybe they be discussed on upcoming Wire shows.
Meanwhile, there has been lots of coverage of the Grantwood Village area project on Gravois Road.
[REPLY – Actually, we had good coverage with Fox2, Suburban Journals, RFT, Arch City Chronicle, and PubDef all reporting. The fact remains that the big guys prefer to focus on shootings & car thefts in the city rather than on citizens taking a stand. – SLP]
A few questions/comments:
1. Not that I’m in favor of McD’s, but let’s just play devil’s advocate for a second: what if, rather than McD’s, this were a Ted Drewe’s?
2. How, exactly, does McD’s guarantee lower property values? Is this supported by hard data, e.g., is property in the Tower Grove area that’s closer to Grand worth less than a comparable home a block off Grand?
3. Is the McD’s actually tax abated?
4. Why wouldn’t Pyramid or Keystone or whoever wants to build the senior center simply build where they want to move the McDonalds?
[REPLY – Good questions!
1) Everyone in the area has been expecting a fairly urban infill project. That would mean a two-story structure built up to the curb with some parking behind the building. Think of the buildings just up the street at Arsenal but with a second floor for office or residential. For many of us it is about the urban form, not the end user.
2) Houses closer to Grand in Tower Grove, like yours, can be worth more than those further away from a virbrant and pedestrian-friendly district. That is an asset. However, if you had a fast-food establishment at the corner of Hartford & Arsenal where the City Diner & such are now those houses to the West would be far less appealing. The value issue is not proximity to the major street but how urban is the major street.
3) I have not been able to confirm the tax abatement for the McDonald’s but I believe the original redevelopment ordinance for that parcel provides for tax abatement. If I had to venture a guess I’d say, if built, it will have tax abatement.
4) I would love to know why Pyramid doesn’t just build the senior housing on the site they already own. Nobody seems to be able to answer that one. The site in question is actually larger than the current McDonald’s. Again, if I had to guess I’d say they want to expand the McDonald’s site to the West by taking additional properties.
– SLP]
CJC,
I strongly believe that construction of any drive-thru restaurants along this stretch of Grand will hurt the continued redevelopment of this area.
The neighborhood ordinances that were set up for the Keystone Place development specifically forbade the construction of drive-thru restaurants. They’re of course scheduled to amend that ordinace so that we can enjoy this new McDonalds!
I am sure there are a few residents that would enjoy a McDonalds as a neighbor, but most would find the trash and noise unsettling. Because of that fact, the property value would be hurt.
On tax abatement, I was told by multiple residents that any construction on this site was eligible for tax abatement. The only one that has said otherwise is Ald. Florida. I have to admit at this point that I don’t trust her and that I believe that if this passes, she will later give us a “Gee Whiz, this really was tax abated” comment.
Pyramid development wants the site of the current McDonalds for their senior development and McDoanlds wants new site for their restaurant that is more easily built upon. They’re convinced that if they have a normal drive thru lane that there business will be better run and generate less health department violations!
We need to demand better development and call for a stop to quick short-sighted construction.
Thanks for the followups to the questions. So, am I correct in understanding that a McD’s built such that it blends with the urban landscape rather than being a cookie-cutter McDs would, in general, find more favor? It sounds like Travis is pretty much against it b/c it’s McD’s b/c of the potential trash and noise. I take it, then, Travis, that you would be similarly against a Ted Drewes in that location b/c of the same issues?
It should be noted that I sent an email against this development to Mayor Slay, Barb Geissman and Ald. Florida yesterday. I received a very quick response from Jennifer and she told me in that response that there was no tax abatement for the McD’s development, which is consistent with what Travis said. In a reply, though, I asked why Pyramid wouldn’t just build the senior center in the currently vacant space, but I’ve not yet received a response.
Why not build the senior housing on the vacant lot with a walk-in McDonald’s on the first floor?
FYI, regarding the Ted Drews comment…I worked at Ted Drews during my sophomore year in high school and they are very religious about cleaning up the neighborhood on a nightly basis. Every evening, 1-2 employees would scour a 2 block radius around the building, picking up ALL trash along the way. Not just Ted Drews trash, but everything. Ted Drews also provided up to $1500.00 per year towards an employees college education, assuming you had worked for the company a minimum of 1,000 hours and were available to work at least three days a week.
In addition to the anti-urban design of the building, the other issue is the engagement of the property owner. From what I have read, sounds like this McD’s owner is a real piece of work. Corporations like McDonalds rarely help improve the community they are located within…when was the last time you saw a McDonalds worker out picking up trash?
Sorry for my oversight on the Ted Drewes question. Ted Drewes isn’t a drive-thru business. It’s also one of the best run businesses in the area! I have never had a bad experience there and I go a lot!
Since we already have the Ted Drewes just south of Meramec, I’m afraid that another would be overkill.
I would support an urban friendly, well-run, non drive-thru establishment at this site.