15thWardSTL.org
Site Navigation:
Please Log in or Register
Request New Password
Search the Site:
AdvancedPedestrian-Oriented v. Auto-Oriented Development
I received the following comment in regards to my recent post on the new Quik Trip at Gravois and Oak Hill. People regularly write both privately and publicly to question why I believe pedestrian-oriented development is so critical. (My wife pushes me on this one as well). It's a valid question, and I think this response deserves its own post, so here goes.
Taking them back for what? Building all these pedestrian oriented commercial corridors that you and Steve P. suggest will result in nothing but shops that look abandoned because people just don't walk anywhere anymore. Soon those shops will be abanodoned because there won't be enough traffic to keep them in business. Why would a business owner want to open a store where he can go down the street to a more car-friendly strip mall and doulble/triple/quadruple his traffic?
I agree that we need to take some sort of pedestrian/bike friendliness into commmunity plans, but let's be realistic. As much as a few people complain about all the autos and how we need to return to our roots of walking everywhere, it is just not realistic.
There needs to be a balance. Total pedestrian is not reasonable. total auto is not reasonable.
First, I think you are misreading my post here - I am advocating FOR the Quik Trip (an undeniably auto-oriented use) at this location. I respectfully disagree with Steve P on this one. I think that this site simply doesn't make much sense for a pedestrian-oriented development, and I said so in my comment on his blog. In my opinion, you are correct that a retail storefront just wouldn't last at this location.
I acknowledge that the auto is here to stay. I have a problem allowing the automobile to drive (ha ha) the form of our neighborhoods and business districts in ways that are detrimental to our communities. We have allowed our streets to divide neighborhoods from each other rather than knit us together. So much, in fact, that I am compelled to get in my car in order to pick up a pizza at Papa John's just four blocks away from my house!
It simply doesn't have to be that way.
It is not necessary to think of this as an either/or scenario - I'm not asking you to give up your car, and I'm not going to give up mine (though I do make a conscious choice to leave it at home when I can). What I am suggesting, perhaps a little more pragmatically than Steve Patterson advocates, is that there are situations in which creative thinking can result in better development that works to facilitate community rather than simply exist as a place for me to lighten my wallet.
This isn't to say that we ignore automobile access. In order to draw people in from around the region, a pedestrian district has to make room for cars. They just don't belong at the center. The goal of a pedestrian district is to get people out of cars so they can spend their money. They do that in two ways: (1) they draw people from the surrounding neighborhoods by foot, and (2) they allow people from outside the area to park in shared lots and then force them to get out of their cars and walk. Successful examples include the U-City Loop, the Central West End, and Washington Avenue. South Grand could be that successful if we put our minds to it and start planning now.
What Do Pedestrian Districts Offer
Why would a business owner would locate in a pedestrian-oriented district? Ask Joe Edwards who has redeveloped the Delmap Loop how many people will park at one end and walk four blocks just to eat at a restaurant (it's as much about the experience of walking the Loop as eating a plate of red curry). Ask the owner of King and I why they have been at their location for 20 years and not moved to a strip mall in South County (I bet that measurable percentage of their repeat business comes from within a mile). Ask the owner of Hartford Coffee Company if they think they would still be in business if they were located at Westport (I know MANY neighborhood families that would rather spend an afternoon with the kids at HCC than anywhere else).
When I go to the Loop for dinner I can eat at Thai Cafe, wander down to Vintage Vinyl and pick up an album, and stop at Cold Stone Creamery for dessert. All without getting back into my car! My $6 dinner has just turned into a $30 evening! THAT is what a successful pedestrian-oriented district does - through density and design, it multiplies the economy.
The generalized answer is that if the built environment facilitates walking, if there are things to do and see along the way, pedestrian-oriented development is MORE sustainable than auto-oriented development.
The Auto Alternative
Now consider our auto-oriented developments: We have the Southtowne Center where half the storefronts are vacant. Across Chippewa we have the Shop-N-Save strip where a quarter of the storefronts are vacant. We have the Office Depot at Kingshighway and Christy where half the storefronts are vacant. We have the former Home Depot strip on Manchester at McCausland where four-fifths of the storefronts are vacant.
I submit that the strip mall has fared far worse in the City than the pedestrian-oriented district. The Shiny New example of Loughborough Commons that just opened received $14 million in tax incentives. If we had put that money into improving Grand from Arsenal to Chippewa and bringing in new businesses/residential into a pedestrian-oriented district, the payoff would have been 10 times greater. Why? Because the development would be 10 times as dense.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Grand South Grand is a relatively successful business district that is (with a few exceptions) pedestrian-oriented. We are poised to redevelop the area between Utah and Chippewa - the existing buildings and businesses are getting becoming worn around the edges. As they renovate and rebuild why would we ignore the ability to leverage the success of the northern portion?
In the space that is being allotted to the McDonald's reconstruction, for example, we could have three pedestrian-oriented businesses and 25 senior apartments with shared parking. Economically, that makes a whole lot more sense. It makes a whole lot more sense for the development of community as well - seniors without cars depend on public transportation and walkable neighborhoods. Coincidentally, these very same things also benefit parents pushing strollers, teenagers getting to school, and roller-blade enthusiasts getting exercise.
A pedestrian-oriented district is able to capitalize on these people stopping in to get an ice-cream cone on the spur of the moment instead of having to planning a trip in the car. Try doing that in a Chesterfield subdivision. Ask a person in a wheelchair how easy it is to access the Grand and Gravois Schnucks.
Pedestrian-oriented development benefits us all. If it doesn't hurt, makes more economic sense, and you can still drive there if you want, what could the problem possibly be?
In conclusion, I submit that a better question is why NOT promote this type of development?
I agree with all that you post. And since it was my comment that you referenced, I thank you. However, I think what U city has for it (and the CWE is it has parking, and plenty of it, and security. Both of those places you feel safe to walk in after dark, but you wouldn't go off the beaten path either. The same could be said for Grand. And as much as I hate to say it, I think the East edge of Grand is still a little dicy. The Mer/Chip. area is the same way if not worse.
People want safety and convience. I think a parking garage on Grand will do wonders for that area.
Look at the strip on Gravois where all the Bosnian bars and such are....that place is BUSY. (though I wish they would cross the street a bit safer at night) So a mix can work with what we have!
All of the places I have referenced have these things in common: Safety, plenty of parking, multiple shops with a mix of food and products, all independently owned, and most importantly a sense of community-a sense of belonging. That is what many neighborhoods are missing.
[15thWardSTL says: "Where do we go?" - another good question. As I have said previously, all these good things won't happen unless we make them happen - the first step is a vision, followed by a plan.
I've got vision to spare (that's one of the reasons I started this web site), but I'm only one of many constituencies that need to be a part of a visioning process. Politicians, business owners, residents, City staff, design professionals, and even regional agencies all have a stake in the outcome.
This is the subject for a future post I am working on, so suffice it to say I believe the Grand South Grand business district will stagnate unless there is a more concerted and organized effort to plan for future development. Perhaps a parking garage should be part of that plan, but also there needs to be residential, pedestrian-oriented infill on existing surface parking lots, streetscape improvements, infrastructure improvements at Grand and Gravois, and, of course I can't let it go without saying: a zoning overlay district that forces pedestrian-friendly design.]
Hey Steve, don't you know this is St. Louis and as a resident of the 15th ward you are not supposed to have an opinion on something in the 25th ward. Granted, it is across the street from the 15th but you know the rules!
You never actually posted anything on my site about the idea of leaving the tip of the wedge for a more urban building at some point in the future. Knowing you as well as I do would think you can see ahead to how this area could look, even with a QT. Keep in mind, the railroad bridges might possibly be rebuilt as part of a southside MetroLink line. As you point out above and on other posts, as we make things more walkable more people will walk to places and then it simply becomes easier with each new project.
But please weigh in on other elements such as street trees. QT keeps their places immaculate yet they always fail to plant street trees between the curb and sidewalk -- a practice that would bring some comfort to pedestrians on the sidewalk. The width and number of the drives are another area that could be reviewed to bring the balance back toward the pedestrian. Some cities advocate some low brick walls to help offset all the open area from the parking and pumps.
Come on, suggest some changes to the standard QT so Travis will think you are an extremist!
- Steve Patterson/Urban Review
http://urbanreviewstl.com
[15thWardSTL says: I was going to suggest that they only pump vegetable oil, but I'm sure the neighbors in the 15th Ward would complain about the french fry smell.
Seriously, when I prioritize the places I think we should put public effort and $$ in the 15th Ward, that intersection (yes, we 15th Ward-ites do control a portion) just ends up a lot lower than South Grand. Unfortunately there will be a lot of development that happens before any zoning overlay or comprehensive plan will be in effect, even if we were to start working on Monday. We need to deal with things like street trees, building form, site planning, and use at the legislative level, not through individual representatives.
I don't disagree with your idea of reserving a corner lot unbuilt for now. Doing so would certainly add to the viability of future pedestrian-friendly redevelopment. We don't have any local ordinance with the teeth to enforce such a proposal, or any local representatives with the political will to push for it.
As an intellectual exercise, it is definitely worth pursuing - I hope people who read your proposal start to internalize how we must begin to question the assumptions that developers and franchise businesses make when building in an urban environment.]
Submitted by: travis reems (not verified)
Steve:
You wrote, "I have a problem allowing the automobile to drive (ha ha) the form of our neighborhoods and business districts in ways that are detrimental to our communities." But it is not the automobile that drives any decision-making, but rather the people using the autos drive the decisions. And, those people are the majority of our community.
Thankfully, you are not extreme, as some that share our urban vision are. You recognize the need for designated pedestrian districts, as opposed to the entire city being one large pedestrian district, as some would misguide our development.
Finally, I share the dream that we can continue the pedestrian and commercial successes further down Grand, from Utah to Chippewa, and eventually to Meramec.
Thank you for your moderation, realism and leadership in this area.
[15thWardSTL says: At the risk of starting a Chicken/Egg circular argument here, I think you are overly discounting the effect that the physical environment has on the decisions people make. I truly believe that if we make the physical environment more condusive to walking (denser, more pedestrian-friendly commercial districts) more people will do so more often. I do also believe that particularly in the City, it is preferable to design for the pedestrian whenever possible.
In regards to the "who makes the physical environment" question, I say that the car drives the decision making because such a high percentage of our space, time, and money are dedicated to the movement, maintenance, and storage of automobiles. I'm not convinced that consumers can control this any more - it has become a self-perpetuating cycle.
Things have reached a point where even when it is POSSIBLE if not preferable to design pedestrian-oriented places (Loughborough Commons for example), it simply doesn't enter into most people's consciousness. We end up with people arguing against good pedestrian design simply because it wasn't included in the project. I am confident that had Loughborough Commons been designed from the start to be more pedestrian-friendly, there wouldn't be anyone arguing that there are too many sidewalks or that it is too accessible by public transportation or that it is too easy to walk there from the adjacent homes.
We have grown so accustomed to our spaces being designed around cars, that the collective consciousness has forgotten that it is still possible to design places that are BOTH pedestrian-friendly and accessible by auto.
I don't buy the argument that consumers are dictating the move towards auto-only development. There are too many other forces at play.]