What to do with Police HQ?

On June 12th, the Post-Dispatch reported that Dan Isom, the new Police chief believes that the city will need to spend “tens of millions of dollars on renovating, rebuilding or relocating” the existing Metro Police Department headquarters (just south of city hall).

The three options being presented the Police Board on June 24th are:

1. A complete updating of the existing building, apparently by working around the existing occupants.
2. Moving into a temporary location while the existing building is demolished and a new one is constructed on the existing site.
3. Moving to an existing building somewhere else in town.

I’d add a fourth – moving to a new building/campus, somewhere else in town.

According the newspaper article, the last major renovation was in 1962, nearly 50 years ago. I’ve never been in this building, but I’ve been in plenty of other ones, both public and private, of the same age, and I have little reason to doubt the chief’s conclusions. So far, all I know about the options are what I’ve read in the paper. And at this point, I’m thinking the last option is probably the best one and the second one is the worst one.

There are multiple issues that should be considered, some obvious, some not. The structure was built in 1928, so it would certainly qualify as both a significant structure and an historic one. According to the Post-Dispatch, “The department hit peak deployment in the 1970s, with 2,200 officers. A year ago, it sank to 1,340, roughly a low for the last century. The number was up to 1,393 this spring.” The way people commute has changed significantly over the past 75 years – most ranking officers now have take-home vehicles, and no longer use public transit to get to work. In its unique, state-run status, the Police chief doesn’t really need to report to the Mayor on a regular basis. Our Aldermen work more closely with the District commanders (located at one of three area stations outside of downtown) than they do with the chief. The need for security of the building and its contents has evolved significantly since it was built. How the Police Department is managed and how Police work is accomplished has evolved, and continues to.

One big reason for keeping the location where it is is its proximity to the courts – one job of the Police is to testify in criminal trials. A secondary reason is that it’s close to both public transit and other city offices. But, much like how the Fire Department Headquarters are more-centrally located, outside of downtown, at Jefferson and Cass, there are arguments for starting “with a clean sheet” somewhere else. It all boils down to what everyone at HQ does, and, unfortunately, where to park the fleet of official vehicles that are an integral part of any police operation.

As we all know, St. Louis has a lot of underutilized structures, vacant land and struggling neighborhoods. For that reason alone, I see little reason for this building to be demolished. If it can be renovated and made to work for the Police for another 30 years, great, do it, and I’ll continue to ignore the on-street parking the Police claim on Clark and other streets. It’s the best way to preserve an historic structure, but I have my doubts about how real of an option that really is. In reality, it may make a lot more sense to find the Police a new location and to put other city departments here.

Which gets to moving – we have multiple options when it comes to existing buildings, including the old phone company headquarters downtown and multiple surplus city school buildings. The city owns multiple parcels of vacant land. What it really boils down is the complexity and the uniqueness of the various components of the program for an ideal home for the management of the organization. According to the Post-Dispatch, the current building houses “most of the department’s 517 civilian employees . . . along with hundreds of police officers, including the upper command staff.” If most of the officers and civilian employees who work at HQ rarely go to court, location becomes a different issue – there are reasons why a location outside of downtown might make more sense, including the ability to create a secure, low-rise campus (an anchor for McEagle perhaps?). I know, I know, it’s not the “urban” answer, but it could likely be the most cost-effective one, and one that would remove a vehicular-intensive operation from downtown.

The only option that really makes little sense is a temporary move. We don’t lack for vacant land, even in the immediate area. This is a significant building, and given our current economic constraints, I have little confidence that any replacement would measure up to the exterior appearance of the existing structure. We either need to make what’s there work for the 21st Century, or we need to find a new location that will. And, as the the mayor’s chief of staff noted in the Post-Dispatch article, “the market for office space has gone real soft, so . . . it is a . . . buyer’s market”, one where you can easily purchase a building for significantly less than its replacement cost. The only real downside of contemplating a move out of downtown will be the inevitable politics that will be a part of it – bringing ±750 stable, long-term jobs to any neighborhood would likely be viewed positively. Bringing them to one that’s “economically challenged” / “struggling” could be a godsend . . .

– Jim Zavist

Missouri Court of Appeals Upholds Kansas City Smoke-Free Law

Earlier today a Missouri court rejected a challenge to a Kansas City law mandating restarant & bars be smoke-free.

The [Missouri Court of Appeals] affirmed Kansas City’s comprehensive smoking ban. An appeal had been filed by JC’s Sports Bar in Clay County.

Jonathan Sternberg, the attorney representing the bar, had argued that Kansas City is not allowed to regulate smoking in bars, billiard parlors and restaurants that seat fewer than 50 people because state law permits smoking in such places. He said Kansas City’s strict smoking restrictions are in conflict with state law and violate the Missouri Constitution.

But the city argued that state law does not “permit” smoking in bars, small restaurants and billiard halls; it simply leaves those places unregulated, and cities can still impose smoking restrictions there. The court of appeals agreed, saying that Kansas City’s authority to enact the ban was not denied by other laws.  (Source)

The pro-smoking lobby was counting on the court to tell a municipality they could not create stricter laws than the state.  Comments on earlier posts reflected this viewpoint.  From April 17th:

The Missouri courts are about to strike down all municipal bar/restaurant smoking ordinances in the state. The state says that bars, taverns, restaurants that seat less than 50 people, bowling alleys, and billiard parlors “are not considered a public place” for the purposes of smoking regulation as long as they post signs saying “Nonsmoking Areas are Unavailable.” Cities can’t redesignate those places as “public places” and ban smoking in them completely.

And from a different person on June 2nd:

Steve, I’d be glad to bet you or anyone else 100 dollars that the Ballwin smoking ban will be gone by the end of this summer.

A state can tell counties and municipalities when they are not permitted to enact stricter laws but in the absence of such a limit these entities are free to do so.  So sorry guys, do your smoking at home.  Nice timing from the court too.  Following on the heals of a new federal law regulating tobacco products and just days hearings on a bill to create a smoke-free St. Louis, BB46, is heard in committee at the Board of Aldermen (June 30th).

– Steve Patterson

The Page Avenue Extension

Missouri Highway 364, more commonly known as the Page Extension, does not lay within the St Louis city limits. Just a few miles of it are even in St. Louis county. And yet it stands as a prime example of state and federal policies that is working against urban renewal in the city. Before I go much further, let me state that I am an avid user of the highway and the associated bridge.

The highway was originally planned back in the 80’s and a history of the project can be seen here along with an overview here. At that time there were three bridges connecting St Charles Co. to St Louis, I-70, US 40, and the Rock Road. Of the three only I-70 was a high speed travel corridor. US 40 had traffic signal intersections and the Rock Road dumped into the City of St Charles. Since then the Rock Road bridge has been torn down, I-64 has been extended along 40, and 370 & 364 have been added. This gives drivers four high-speed choices to cross the Missouri river, for a combined sixteen lanes of traffic. Upon completion of the Page extension project, it will extend almost to the 70-40 interchange in Wentzville. Drivers originating in Wentzville and beyond will have four different ways to get into St Louis Co without a single traffic signal.

What purpose does this road serve? Anyone who has driven on it can easily answer that question. It gets workers living in St Charles Co to their jobs in St Louis City and Co. The morning rush hour has a large flow of vehicles into St Louis with barely a trickle going the opposite way. It is reversed for the evening rush hour. On the weekend it is used so sparsely, I doubt most drivers would notice if the bridge was not there. Therefore, almost the entire purpose of this road is to make it easier to work in St Louis and live in St Charles.

All major projects need funding. The first phase was funded partially by Congress in the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992. The second phase, currently under construction, is getting a large chunk of funding from the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This money was added to the pot of cash already provided for by the state to make this new artery possible. And this is where the project becomes a policy debate. Lawmakers in Jefferson City and Washington deemed it necessary to spend state and federal dollars to make it easier to not live in St Louis if a person has a job there.

People were migrating to St Chuck as part of white flight before all the new concrete was laid the last two decades. How many would continue to move out there if it was not so convenient? This convenience will hamper any efforts to revitalize the city, like the planned Northside development. For that development to work it needs to attract a large population of people living in the suburbs. Relocating people already living in the city would be zero growth and no new tax base.

So we have a government working against the city. Until that changes it seems liked the deck is stacked against urban renewal. That does not mean it will not happen, just that until there is a policy change it is going to be harder than it should. The solution to the problem leads to a conflict of interest. Lawmakers would need to make it inconvenient to live in the far flung suburbs. Their constituents probably would no longer support them and no lawmaker wants to work themselves out of office. I have no idea how to get lawmakers to do what is better in the long term as opposed to what will get them re-elected. And I do believe increasing the number of quality urban walkable neighborhoods is better in the long term.

– Kevin McGuire

Preservation Board To Decide Fate of San Luis Today (Updated)

St. Louis’ Preservation Board will, later today, hear a request by the St. Louis Archdiocese to raze the San Luis.  Built as the DeVille Motor Hotel in the early 1960s, the Archdiocese wants parking rather than a hotel or apartments.  I’m not a fan of the building, but even vacant it is preferable to a parking lot.

The Archdiocese must demonstrate that it is not feasible to rehab the structure. Most likely they will present information to this effect.  The full criteria is in the City’s report to the Preservation Board.  Opponents of the demolition need to stick to the established criteria in the applicable ordinances.

The Preservation Board meeting is scheduled to start at 4pm today (6/22/2009) at 1015 Locust Suite 1200.  This item is the 5th on the agenda.  Those wishing to address the Preservation Board must arrive early and sign in.  I have a presentation in class tonight so I will not be able to attend.  I may stop by after class.

If I were a gambling man I’d say they vote to permit demolition.  It somewhat depends upon which members are absent from the meeting.

– Steve Patterson

Update 6/22/2009 @ 10:30pm — The Preservation Board tonight just before 10pm voted 3-2 to grant preliminary approval to the demolition and construction of a surface parking lot.  I’ve never felt any passion for the building but I do feel strongly against surface parking at this location.  In the end it came down to the fact the Archdioses refused to consider anything other than what they wanted.  I would have denied their request — eventually they would be willing to compromise — getting the parking they want in a renovated & occupuied building.

The Streets of Tehran

Like most of you I’ve been following the events unfolding in Tehran, Iran. The images of conflict are often heartbreaking to view.  But the urban planner in me can’t help but notice details unrelated to the subject of the images —- the scale of the streets, the well marked crosswalks, the architecture, etc.  A couple of pics showed an intersection along a major Boulevard.  The traffic signals had a countdown timer to show drivers how much longer the green light would be green or how much longer the red would be red.

I pulled up Tehran on Google Maps.  Wow, had no idea:

Transit lines, lots of parks.  A tight street network.  Unfortunately no Google Street View.  I never realized the scale of the city before.

My next stop was Wikipedia’s entry on Tehran:

Area
– City 686[citation needed] km2 (265 sq mi)

Population (2006)
– Density 10,327.6/km2 (26,748.3/sq mi)
– Urban 7,088,287
– Metro 20,413,348

That is one dense city!  For comparison I pulled up New York City:

Area
– City 468.9 sq mi (1,214.4 km2)

Population (July 1, 2007)
– City 8,310,212
– Density 27,264/sq mi (10,527/km2)
– Urban 18,223,567
– Metro 18,815,988

Both Tehran & New York City have over four times the population per square mile compared to the City of St. Louis. Of course we have a greater density than numerous other cities.  Still there is a minimum density required to achieve that cosmopolitan feel.  Not sure what the magic number is but I know we are below it.

With density comes active streets.  Granted,  Tehran’s streets are too active right now and in the worst possible way.  But street vendors, bustling storefronts along sidewalks rather than busy malls or big box stores.  Good mass transit becomes a necessity for a dense city to function.

I hope the people of Tehran, Iran and all the Middle East can find peace.

– Steve Patterson