“You” Are Time’s Person of the Year

December 17, 2006 Media 5 Comments

Time Magazine has named “You” their 2006 Person of the Year. Time says they could have named many individuals from 2006 stories, and they go on to name a number of world-wide events, then write:

“But, look at 2006 through a different lens and you’ll see another story, one that isn’t about conflict or great men. It’s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It’s about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people’s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It’s not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it’s really a revolution.”

We’ve certainly seen this revolution here in St. Louis as this blog and others has changed the face of local politics and media. From Antonio French’s outstanding videos, some receiving national attention, to the Urban St. Louis discussion forum the community is coming together online to discuss ideas, expression visions and coordinate efforts.  The only folks not on board with the revolution are our leaders, the group desperately trying to freeze time or hope this whole internet communication thing blows over.  We are fully within the information age and it is about time St. Louis’ leadership begins to understand that.  After all, we are Time’s Person of the Year.

 

Ald. Roddy on the Euclid Streetscape Plan

Last Monday I attended a long public meeting on the Euclid Streetscape and wrote up my thoughts. Although I had a number of positive things to say it was mostly a critical take, offering criticism others may not know to suggest or be too afraid of offending someone. I, inevitably, offend people with my direct views. One such person was simply known as “CWE1”. This person suggested I was spreading misinformation.

My personal preference is not to rely on my notes for project details, opting instead to link to a website or perhaps a PDF document containing all the facts relevant to a project. That frees me up to talk about the design theory, the thought process (or often lack of), missing details and finally offering suggestings for improvement. Unfortunately, in the case of the proposed Euclid Streetscape no such basis exists — the public was not given any sort of fact sheet on the project nor is anything provided on the web for me to link to so that you, as the reader, can verify details for yourself. One such area where CWE1 says I am incorrect is how the study is funded, I wrote in my original piece:

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.

To which CWE1 replied:

The funds being used for the Euclid project do not come from an increase in taxes on the Park East Tower property.

I then responded with:

You misunderstood the taxes comment relative to the Park East. The money for the design fees and some other projects, roughly $500K, are from an incremental increase in the taxes in the area due to the Park East. The land was vacant and city-owned before so the taxes are all new — an increment higher than before. As I mentioned, the actual work would be done via a grant from East-West Gateway using Federal funds.

CWE1 once again insisted he/she was correct with:

I repeat that the money for the design fees and other projects does not come from an incremental increase in the taxes. The Park East Tower has set up a CID and is receiving tax abatement. The $500K was a lump-sum contribution based on a percentage of the subsidy. If you have questions about the financing, I suggest a call to the development agency.

Again, I try to be very accurate with details such as the source of funding. If I am uncertain, I either don’t bring it up or try to verify. After sitting through a long meeting and taking extensive notes I thought I had the various nuances down. CWE1 disagrees, the source of the funds being just one example. So where did I get my information and can I back it up? Well, from Ald. Joe Roddy and yes I can.

Here is a short video (less than 5 minutes) of Ald. Joe Roddy starting off the meeting on the Euclid Streetscape, he discusses the “increment” at 2:50:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7pKsGcjT8c[/youtube]

So, CWE1, if any misinformation is being spread about this project it is either from Ald. Roddy or from you. I’m not sure which.  I regret that I did not record the full meeting to be able to good definitive answers to other areas of contention.

If the CWE-Midtown Development Corporation, or their communications consultant Vector Communications, wants to send me a fact sheet to set the record straight on this project I will be more than happy to publish anything and everything they send me. Given neither the development corp nor Ald. Roddy have a website of their own, it is the least I can do to help them communicate with the tax paying public.

 

ADA for Accessible Streets, Day 1

Today I attended a seminar on new guidelines regarding accessible streets — making sure all citizens can use the public space. We focused today on the physical sidewalk design, ramps and crossings. Tomorrow we will be looking at signals.

I want to thank Mayor Slay, Board of Public Service President Marjorie Melton, the Starkloff Disability Institute, and the Pyramid Companies
for putting together this excellent seminar. No, seriously. The speakers have been top notch and this has shown me that I need to know a lot more about this subject and I know all the engineers in the room certainly need to know more. This clearly demonstrates to me the City saw a lack of knowledge in a critical area and decided to take a very pro-active step to help raise the bar. Very commendable.

In a funny way, however, for the small sum of $100 they are helping me better understand new regulations relative to accessibilty in the public-right-of-way which I will turn around and use to be critcal of future projects. But maybe, just maybe, this will be good. They will have a better understanding of the new rules and knowing that I will be out there with my camera (and soon a new digital level) they will hopefully take the time to get it right.

Granted, they have projects already in the works at this point so I know something started next week will have been designed and contracted a number of months back. But future projects such as MLK streetscape and the Euclid streetscape will need to comply, no doubt!

I realize now I had only a very basic understanding of a portion of accessibility issues. We learned about differences between manual and powered wheelchairs, persons who walk with a cane or walker, people with various types of visual disabilities. In the afternoon we broke up into teams and went out around the hotel (downtown Hilton) looking at intersection design. Reports were mixed on both older sidewalk areas and new areas such as my team’s corner at Busch Stadium. Even at Busch some slopes were beyond the limits and details were off, but nothing major. The encouraging thing was seeing the engineers from HOK and the City talking with expert Bill Hecker (shown below with level).

accessibility - 02.jpg

The agency responsible for setting standards for accessibility is the U.S. Access Board. It should be noted that after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990 they followed closely with standards for a number of areas including public buildings. Their guidelines help architects the exact specifications on things such as bathroom design, hallways and all manner of details in building open to the public such as restaurants, office buildings or civic structures. They’ve also had rules governing site design so you get things such as accessible parking spaces and connections on private developments. Yet, they are just now establishing guidelines for the public-right-of-way.

Yet another federal law requires that when local governments are repaving roads, they must make the sidewalks accessible. They’ve been using earlier guides for this purpose. Most likely your nearby corner has a ramp from the sidewalk to the street-level at the intersection. If not, don’t be surprised if your street doesn’t get repaved anytime soon. Most of the ramps that St. Louis has installed over the last 10 years don’t meet the new guidelines.

I took a break from writing this post, I just had to visit a couple of places (Southtowne Center & Loughborough Commons) to see if the intersections were as bad as I remembered. Yes, yes they are. But on the way I passed by some work being done at Gravois & Gustine. I’ve hesitated taking pictures of this yet because it is not done and didn’t want people going all ‘Matt Villa’ on me.

accessibility - 07.jpg

The cover in the PAR (Pedestrian Accessible Route) is not bad if done right. However, what you cannot see from this angle is how the concrete tapers off in a couple of directions, something we learned today could cause great instability on a wheelchair or someone using a cane/walker. From a lower angle you can get a better idea of what went wrong with this nearly finished project involving new signals and access ramps:

accessibility - 09.jpg

I fully anticipate that there will be mistakes, as we see above. It will be up to those designing the intersection to make sure the expectation is clear and the person inspecting the work must understand what is necessary. There will be times where the letter of the law cannot be met, where it is infeasible. At these times they need to show they considered alternatives and they did the best they could considering the circumstances. So while I do intend to buy a digital level I know it won’t all be perfect. I’ll be looking for more obvious mistakes, ones that some good ole common sense could have prevented. A really good example of that is just down the street at Gravois & Meramec:

accessibility - 04.jpg

Here we see brand new accessible ramps for crossing both streets and a brand new signal pole blocking a new sidewalk section. Can someone please tell me the logic behind adding accessible ramps only to block the sidewalk with the traffic signal? This is a good example of where someone along the process should have said, “Uh wait a minute guys, this doesn’t look right.” And the best time for that (read: cheaper) is while the project is still on paper, not set literally in concrete!

This project is either the responsibility of MoDot or the St. Louis Board of Public Service, I’m going to ask tomorrow. MoDot, you will recall from a post earlier in the week, just ripped out 300 ramps along Lindbergh because they were not constructed at the proper angle. Moving a newly installed traffic signal is not so easy. If anything is clear to me it is this workshop on accessibility did not come soon enough, I’m glad it is here now.

Helpful Resources:

Update 12/15/2006 at 6:00am:

Last night I forgot to quote some of the text from the invitation about this event. I posted it back on November 17th but I think it is worth repeating:

“Compliance is no longer a guessing game. There is a right way, a wrong way and a best way. Architects, engineers, other designers, developers, builders, contractors, and city inspectors and officials now have a chance to make our community a model. This seminar will provide an opportunity to learn about the new guidelines — from experts in the accessibility field who helped develop the guidelines, and by experiencing what happens when accessibility is not addressed.”

The bold emphasis is theirs, not mine. However, it does appear many have simply been guessing (and poorly). It was repeated a number of times at the event and deserves notation here — the standards set by the government are the minimum for compliance. Minimum. Not ideal, not best practices, and certainly not a world leader for modeling accessibilit. I think we need to work on getting to minimum compliance!

Update 12/15/2006 at 9:00am:

The intersection work being done along Gravois is the handy work of MoDot — the folks about to spend $500 million on highway forty.  Let’s hope it is better planned than these sidewalks.

 

Power Shift on Cherokee Street

Earlier today control of the Cherokee Station Business Association shifted to a new and diverse group (see prior post):IMG_6535

In front from L to R is: Minerva Lopez (VP), Karen Abounader (board member), Patavee Vanadilok (board member). In back from L to R is: Jason Deem (Pres), Will Liebermann (Treasurer). Not pictured, Andrew Liebermann (board member).

The meeting was long and not without conflict. The new group provided roughly 20 proxie votes from business owners that could not attend the mid-afternoon meeting. SLDC staffer Harry Bennett and Ald. Ken Ortmann saying they’d need an opinion from the City Counselor’s office before they could accept the proxies. After long debate the new group, thinking they had enough votes anyway, dropped the issue.

And boy were they right. I watched as Ald. Ken Ortman and Ald. Craig Schmid unfolded and counted the ballots. Basically the old guard ran a full slate of candidates (same officers I believe) and the new group did the same. Based on what I could see it was a good 4-1 margin of victory in favor of a change of leadership.

Part of their victory, I believe, was the fact they ran a diverse group of people for the positions and you could tell from the packed room their base of support was as diverse as the street itself.

One of the issues that I think sent them over the edge was the recent paving of three vacant lots owned by the association. All three were paved over at a cost of $9,687.18 per the Treasurer’s report handed out at the meeting. The report shows another $2,471.06 in wrought iron expenses.

IMG_6536

The new board felt these lots should have remained as grass and that for this type of cost they could have been maintained. They also mentioned to me their concerns about water runoff with the impervious paving. Though not designed as parking, you can already see a car parked on this lot. Perhaps that is where the wrought iron fencing will come into play? Still, that is a lot of their improvement fund to be used — roughly 40% of their total.

Aldermanic candidate Galen Gondolfi was present at the meeting although he could not vote as his property is just a block or two beyond the boundaries of the CID (Community Improvement District). Interestingly, new board member Patavee Vanadilok was also not able to vote. As an attorney she is not required to have a business license and only those with a business license can vote. Yet, she was able to be elected and serve on the board. One of the priorities of the new board will be to revise and update their bylaws to fix past loopholes and simply items that were unforeseen when the organization was first established.

The next trick will be to get someone interested in re-opening the old upstairs bowling alley on Cherokee Street. Yes, Cherokee had a pretty awesome bowling alley at one time. Mr. Edwards, can we talk over a taco?

BTW, I had planned to attend the E&A meeting on the TIF for St. Louis Centre (see post) but this meeting ran too long. For coverage of that meeting check out Lucas Hudson’s report over at the ACC.

 

Battle for Control of Cherokee Street

At 1pm this afternoon the Cherokee Street Business Association will hold elections for its board of directors and officers. Unlike most business assocations, where things just continue with little controversy, this meeting may well be as heated as they come. This meeting may be a glimpse of how the upcoming 20th Ward election will go.

You see, Ald. Craig Schmid is pretty much of the same ‘keep out things’ mode of thinking of Wallace and her supporters. In the past, I think this has served a valid purpose. But times change and we must learn and adapt along the way. Among the groups on Cherokee are professionals, business owners catering to Mexican clientele, restaurants and bakeries, various artists and art groups, and a somewhat “radical” left-wing element. Wallace seems to have issues with all of them.

Galen Gondolfi, a candidate for Schmid’s 20th ward seat, is among those seeking change on Cherokee. Jason Deem, a young business man whom I have met and consulted on a rehab project, is seeking to be the new President of the association. Deem has assembled a diverse group of people from the street, all running as a slate. You can view their flyer in: English or Spanish.

Will a win for Deem and his slate mean trouble for Schmid in the larger ward? Maybe, maybe not. But, a Deem win will mark a shift on the street that Gondolfi will certainly tout on the campaign countdown to March 6th. Craig Schmid is not among the favorites of St. Louis’ political establishments but I have to think they’d rather keep him over a more progressive Gondolfi. Ken Ortmann, whose ward includes part of Cherokee, is not up for re-election until March 2009.

At issue is more than just who controls the gavel at meetings. Cherokee is a special taxing district so those who control the board, along with the aldermen, control the use of monies collected from taxes. How this money is used, or not used, will be important in the coming years.

More information on the growing rift on Cherokee from the RFT archives:

The meeting will be held at 1pm on the 2nd floor of the Juvenile Court Building across from the Casa Loma Ballroom, at Iowa and Cherokee (map).  The group, under Wallace’s leadership does have a website, www.cherokeestation.com, which currently has only an announcement about a Cindo de Mayo this past May.

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe