Loughborough Commons On Par with Most Development, Speaks Poorly of Our Standards
Today I’ve got a somewhat random collection of thoughts on the sprawl-centric Loughborough Commons development in south city. If you are tired of this subject, just stop reading now. Otherwise, here we go.
Loughborough Commons, for all its many faults, is on par with most newer development in the city and region. That is both reality and a sad statement of fact. What does this say about us as a region that we care so little about creating worthwhile public spaces, not just private developments with literal acres of asphalt with as much as a tree to break it up. Instead of being happy about a new grocery store we should be concerned, as tax payers, that our government has failed to deliver a project worthy of the incentives given.
The city has a Planning & Urban Design Agency but if they were involved in the project they failed miserably to guide the project to a point where they should not all be fired. If they were not consulted on such as massive project (30+ acres, $14 million in tax incentives) then I would wonder why Ald. Villa didn’t bring in their expertise. Either way something is wrong with how this got built.
The one difference in Loughborough Commons and all the other poorly planned projects is this: I personally spoke face-to-face with Ald. Matt Villa and engineer Dennice Kowelmann prior to starting construction and voiced my concerns about the design and pedestrian access. While I can (and likely will) criticize other projects such as the new 58-acre Dierberg’s development in Edwardville IL, I feel more connected to this one because I tried to make a difference before a single bit of dirt was moved.
This week’s Suburban Journal article on Loughborough Commons read more like a press release than a balanced article. Not addressed is the lack of pedestrian access from the entrance closest to neighboring houses, off Grand. Here is the headline, subheading and relevant quote:
Lowe’s to open in month at Loughborough Commons: Pedestrian access planned after Schnuck’s demolition.`
A spokesman for The DESCO Group, developer of the shopping center, said sidewalks will be added after the old Schnuck’s and its parking lot is torn down. The sidewalk will be where the old Schnuck’s entrance is.
“The development’s not finished yet,” Steve Houston said. “There will be a sidewalk for pedestrian access to that development.”
Sidewalk, singular. As I mentioned on a post on the 1st of the month, their site plan does show a sidewalk abutting the east side of the new entrance off Loughborough. This will be useful to those coming from the current bus stop (assuming it doesn’t get relocated, and those walking from the east side of I-55 along Loughborough. This will do little for those that live west of Loughborough Commons and nothing for those that live near the southwest corner of the project, arguably the greatest number of potential pedestrians. See the next segment for more on this issue.
The red section in the middle of the image at right is Loughborough Commons. The two green dots along the edge represent the two entrances to the site. The blue section in the upper left is the old public school greenhouse site that will soon be developed by Rolwes Homes and C.F. Vatterott and containing a total of 125 units. These will be comprised of 33 detached single family homes, 44 attached townhouses and 48 condos. I will do a review of this project at another time.
As we can see, four streets dead end at Loughborough Commons. Rather than connect to the adjacent neighborhood the projects turns it back to the neighborhood so that it can face the highway. Drivers speeding by at 70mph are seemingly more important than someone living a block away. With only two entrances into the 30+ acre site those walking from adjacent residences have limited choices. The DESCO Group and Ald. Matt Villa are doing damage control by saying they will have pedestrian access but that is only for half the entrance off Loughborough. Those near the south entrance off Grand get squat.
In the world of sprawl development a single token sidewalk is usually sufficient in the minds of the developer (and Ald. Villa in this case). It is clear that careful consideration was not given to bringing in pedestrians from the surrounding area. With the new development just two blocks away is it shameful they will not have direct access to the local grocery store via a short walk down Blow, Roswell or Robert.
It should be noted that Loughborough Commons is in the 11th Ward (Ald. Matt Villa) while the old greenhouse site is in the 12th Ward (Ald. Fred Heitert), Eugene Street is the dividing line. Aldermanic courtesy would have prevented Heitert from questioning the development in an adjacent ward even though it is only a block away from his ward.
This morning carts were completely blocking the sidewalk heading to the south toward Lowe’s. We could argue, I suppose, the Lowe’s is not yet open but there is parking in use in that direction. I’ve also seen workers from Lowe’s attempting to walk to the Schnuck’s having to navigate around the planned obstacles (planting areas) and unplanned obstacles (excess shopping carts). These carts are chained together and locked.
At other times I’ve the carts have been gone from the same area, most likely when the store is busier and more carts are needed. Still, pedestrian circulation within a project should not be dependent upon something like how many shopping carts are in use. This picture and the one above are both off the south entrance to the new store but the same situation is happening on the other side.
This morning a few carts were partially blocking the walkway that right now along connects to a number of accessible (ADA) parking spaces. This walk, however, will at some point be continued as part of The DESCO Group’s planned pedestrian access. So, it is fair to say this bit of sidewalk is part of the main and only planned pedestrian access point to get to the grocery store. And today it was being used for cart storage.
You might say these carts were simply left overs from those using the accessible parking. And such an argument may have some validity. However, this would demonstrate a lack of good planning to anticipate that those using these parking spaces would have carts and need a place to put them out of the way of the main pedestrian path to the nearest grocery store.
The other day, when the south walkway was open, the north walkway was completely blocked. Carts are cabled together and part of the chain is on the sidewalk creating a potential hazzard. Toward the end of the walk, more carts completely close off the end. I watched as a woman parked on the other side of the white van had to walk in the development’s main driveway to get to her vehicle.
Again, this little bit of sidewalk is part only planned pedestrian path from the public street (Loughborough) to the entrance of the Schnuck’s store. Ald. Villa and The DESCO Group can say “it’s not finished” all they want to but their actions speak volumes. Pedestrian movement, even those using ADA spaces, are given very little to no consideration.
One of the items cited as a reason for blighting for this project was the site of the Schnuck’s store, built as a National store, was used for industrial purposes. From the report:
The site of the Schnucks grocery store was previously utilized for decades for industrial uses. During the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s the site was occupied by the St. Louis Machine Tool Company. In the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s it was occupied by a paint manufacturing company. As a result, site remediation will be necessary.
That is interesting since immediately following the opening of the new store workers began removing the old asphalt and transferring tons of dirt from another area of the development site. the image at right was taken earlier today. The old parking lot lights, still working, are simply being buried. Was the contamination limited of this site limited to strictly where the current building is located? Did they manage to decontaminate overnight? Or was site contamination simply a smoke screen to get tax incentives. You can be assured that I will be requesting proof from various local agencies for documentation on the remediation efforts.
These pictures and a few more can all be viewed as larger images in a set on my Flickr account.
As stated at the beginning, Loughborough Commons is really no worse than most development in the city or balance of the region. This is quite unfortunate as we deserve better development, especially in areas where you have existing walkable environments that could greatly benefit from a locally owned grocery store an easy walk down the street. What we got, instead, was an expensive project where you are expected to drive even though you can see if from your front sidewalk. Such practices should not be permitted to continue.
When it comes to Loughborhough Commons, it figures that a critics like Urban Review would be way more critical of the project than your average mom or pop driving to the store for a week’s worth of groceries.
The TIF was probably necessary as a result of so much site remediation and demolition of the old buildings.
With environmental contamination and obsolete factory and retail buildings, the site obviously meets the test of blight.
As far as the design, the developer designed it. The developer owns it. It’s a far sight better than the previous use of the site.
If you polled area residents, I bet most would say they are thrilled with the new store.
Here’s an opposing viewpoint to much of the discussion on this website: Neighbors fear increased traffic, changed traffic patterns, etc that can come with commercial development.
Connecting the neighborhood streets to the development might have resulted in more cut through traffic to access the shopping center.
Then you’d have residents complaining because of cut through traffic.
Burying over certain types of old contamination with x feet of clean fill is an approved method of remediation.
Commercial and industrial redevelopment projects have different environmental remediation requirements than residential projects.
I’d be surprised if the developers and contractors were trying to get around remediation requirements contained in an engineer’s report.
Besides, the project lenders and attorneys would never go along with it.
There’s no need to cut corners if you have a sufficiently sourced development budget.
i bet you they’d be MORE thrilled if the site plan accommodated the neighborhood instead of the highway. i’m pretty sure if you gave the locals a CHOICE as to whether they wanted a giant parking lot and a view of the store’s ass, or a pedestrian-friendly site plan, they would have chosen the latter.
and how long is it going to take for people to realize that regardless of whether or not people WANT to drive everywhere, IT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE!
Welcome to STL Steve! Where virtually every development is designed with little attention to anything but autos and laziness.
If I was visiting STL from Mars I would have to report back that the earth is inhabited and ruled by cars. People act as their slaves, drive them wherever they want to go and spend their money and time on keeping them polished, maintained, displayed, etc.
But your most important points are how the local media is nothing more than their (developers and local elected leaders) ad agency and how you’re attempt to provide positive improvements in the initial planning stages is summarily dismissed.
Please be aware that these developments are designed to have low maintenance costs in order to speculate on the future value of real estate. Parking lots are cheaper and less costly to maintain than the investment needed to fund true urban design.
These problems are exacerbated by local elected leaders willing to hand out TIFs that are not well understood by the general public. Even recommendations of TIF Commissions are ignored by local elected leaders… now that’s a story!
While I agree that the design of Loughborough Commons is a tragedy and reflects poorly on the standards of St Louis, it is not an unusual design for such developments in any American city. You may think St. Louis is bad, but it could be much worse.
In Tampa, where I live now, everything looks like Loughborough Commons, or worse. I mean everything, including schools and libraries. Even trendy retail and fine dining establishments are in strip mall eyesores surrounded by a desert of parking. In a city like Tampa there is little reason to build anything attractive because everything is already pretty ugly.
What is so sad about St. Louis is that most of the city is beautiful, I think exceptionally beautiful for an American city. It’s sad that the architects of new developments in St. Louis don’t look around their immediate surroundings for some inspiration on what to build. This site bordering a fine city park and a traditional neighborhood would have been ideal for a traditional urban row of buildings that included simple things like the building fronts facing the street and the front doors accessible by sidewalks running along the street. This type of design would have increased property values as well. Throw in a couple small niche retail shops and cafes and this area could even become a trendy hot spot because it would actually be a pleasure to shop there. There would still be plenty of room for parking lots, behind the buildings, where they belong.