15thWardSTL.org

It is a terrible waste of the Grand Avenue to put a parking lot on the corner. These people have no ability to manage or run St. Louis. They have not a clue about what they are doing. I am astounded. No I guess I am not. They couldn't sneak a few corner stores into the mix and put parking behind? St. Louis needs a revolution, a serious revolution.
The people making decisions not only subvert democracy, but clearly do not know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to urban planning and architecture.
It is truly a waste, that seems to be all we see in St. Louis, wasted opportunities.

Steve,

When Alderman Conway originally presented this proposed development to the TGHNA, he stated the City was asking the developer to build a parking garage on the corner with first-floor retail. (The condo bulding itself has underground parking.) A purpose of the garage was parking for people who work on South Grand, opening more spaces on the street. Another purpose was additional public parking. My understanding was that condo residents would not park in the proposed garage, as the developer was providing underground parking in the building. I am not sure if this is still true.

Several months ago, I was told that the developer said it could not afford to build the garage for the public. The question in my mind is how can we convince the developer to build this parking garage with first floor retail if it says it cannot afford to, without jeopardizing the entire project. Another question is whether the surface lot is simply temporary and a developer is free to build retail on that corner in the future when it can afford to.

[15thWardSTL says: Certainly, a surface lot can be built on in the future. The problem is in the planning - there is none. We have a long-term parking study that people put a whole lot of time, effort, and money into creating. If the condos and retail are fully built out, there will be a net loss of about 150 public spaces in the long-term plan. I'm not saying that the condos are not a good idea by any means. Because there was a public planning process that will be significantly altered by this project, however, there should have been a more public decision-making process for approvals and mitigation. I've done several posts about what I think these public processes should look like.]

The THGNA lobbied Commerce Bank for years to open the back lot of the bank for public parking. Commerce refused, claiming liability problems. South Grand never had these 150 parking spaces despite the neighborhood's repeated requests.

The impact of parking for this project has been discussed at TGHNA meetings. Some complained about the density of the project. Others did not. Quite frankly, I am glad that people who complained have not squelched this project.

[15thWardSTL says: The "density" should be a non-issue as long as the developer has accommodated the expected auto auto load. Conway rezoned the parcel to allow for a very high unit density. By rights, the developer can build a very dense development.

You refer to people "complaining". In an honest public engagement process (that should include more than just showing up at sparsely attended neighborhood meetings), there would be an opportunity for citizen feedback to be incorporated into the plan. The way the process is set up now, decisions are made in private and by the time residents have enough information to react to, they are labeled as "critics". Its about engagement and timing.]

Neighhood meetings are not optimum forums for vetting these issues in the public, but at the momemt they are the only regular forums we have. A good issue for the 15th Ward Democrats Development Forum would be discussion about existing forums for public input, what are wrong with those forums, what is a better mechanisim for public input, and how do we create a better process for public input.

[15thWardSTL says: our elected representatives have had many many opportunities to create a better system for development and citizen engagement. They have failed miserably. To be honest, I fault them more than the developers that take advantage of the situation - we elect representatives to watch our backs and instead they have created a system that specifically excludes meaningful participation. Then they complain about poor participation!]

Is there anything wrong with the 10 houses being demolished to make way for the condos? Were they purchased or stolen (eminent domain)?

I bet there'd be an uproar if they wanted to knock down 10 houses West of Grand.

I'd be glad to see more population density in the area, but if there's a parking lot right on Grand and up to the street retail it creates a void in the walkable area. A gas station over there already kills the flow considerably.

[15thWardSTL says: I don't think that there will be any houses demolished for these condos. The only building standing is the temporary Commerce Bank branch at the corner. According to the zoning legislation passed recently, the homes that Millennium renovated and sold are not included in this development package. Right now, the entire site is paved as a parking lot.

Condos will be a great improvement. The fundamental zoning and planning decisions simply need to be made in a much more public manner.]

Steve-

You whine about your proposed mechanism for "public input" considerably. It really sounds like you mean "venue for self important and self appointed experts to foist their views on the public in general and people trying to make money while developing real estate in the city of St. Louis specifically". I think it is high time that you spell out in a serious post what this mythological venue looks like and how its checks and balances will work. Further, I propose the official seal for this process be a unicorn jumping over a leprechaun.
Seriously, maybe if the rules were set people would be OK playing by them instead of getting improperly sniped and undercut at every turn by people with half the facts and less of their wits.

[15thWardSTL says: Perhaps, Anonymous "A" Hamilton, if you wish to add to the discussion you could be more clear about which portions of my comments you find improper. If you have more facts on this subject at your disposal than I have, you are free to post them here. The addition of your sharp wit to my less than half wit would certainly be appreciated!

Perhaps I will specifically outline what I think would be a good process. Would you have some more substantive comments if I did?]

I guess people can't park in the residential areas east and west of Grand? This suburbanization needs to end. They are destroying the City.

[15thWardSTL says: I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you implying that there should not be parking lots or structures as part of the South Grand parking strategy? If so, I think you are quite incorrect.

If my vision of additional retail along Grand comes to fruition there will need to be additional parking. Scooter and transit users aside, if automobile parking is not considered early in (and throughout) the building process, the district will fail to thrive. I say let's do it consciously, and plan for a future where we are not so dependent on the auto for transportation. Until that time, we need someplace to store cars while people shop and dine.]

Actually I’m really in agreement with you on this one, a surface lot would look like garbage there and I would have to think that a parking garage with some first floor retail would work great here, although I think some block grant funds would be required to make the parking aspect viable (and yes, free to the public or at least metered). For the record i ate at that exact corner sunday night (red curry duck can not be beat), and circled the block for a spot that i eventually found through the Grace of God.
The real point is if you look through your post’s you really complain about the lack of a 'public process' for new construction a lot. Maybe I agree with you some days, in part to possibly level the playing field for everyone(why DOES the crap in N. St. Louis get ignored while any new construction in S. STL get picked apart like the patriot act? Should the majority black neighborhoods settle for less or do people just not care? Another post perhaps…) Whatever it is, the feeding frenzy, vocal minority attitude really and truly runs against the grain of common sense and constitutionality. And yes, I relish the opportunity to see and substantially comment on the specifics of the process you might propose, I'll suggest a title Steve's Little Red Book. I might have to start my own blog to properly respond. Regardless, I think you might agree frank discussion would be better than the process we have now.

[15thWardSTL says: Mmmmm. Red curry duck.... I love walking to King and I and other businesses on South Grand. The pleasure is made sweeter when I pass by cars cruising for parking spaces. This is the joy of a walkable pedestrian district!

I am not an advocate of public participation in private development decisions unless there is some significant effect on the public commons (financial, zoning, or planning). A progressive zoning code that encouraged denser pedestrian oriented development along neighborhood commercial corridors would go a long way towards eliminating the need for public participation on a project-by-project basis.]

Steve I agree that proper zoning laws would alleviate a good deal of the concerns expressed in these blogs. One has to wonder what arguments were made to conclude a parking lot was the best site plan along Grand Avenue.

In addition new retail buildings would create the potential of shaping the street itself, creating value in that way. Thus, with the circular shape of the Commerce Bank Building new retail next door could be shaped to form a small plaza that enters a walk way to the rear. There are many other ways the architecture can contribute to the urban street. A parking lot has no ability to do that and in fact is a subtraction of street life.

What makes the situation worse is the parking lot at Jay’s, creating a huge dead area. A better strategy might be to utilize eminent domain, build a parking garage on Jay’s site and give Jay’s back the first floor.
Even on that site, a small retail building, if only 15 x 20 or so on the corner would help reinforce the commercial district.

In any case it would be a big mistake to leave a parking lot for some possible future parking garage with retail on the bottom. That future could be never, and with the degrading of the street environment another parking lot represents, it is probably never.

The need for an inclusive public process comes from a government that lacks the skill to work with the public. A. Hamilton should compare the efforts in St. Louis to San Francisco. http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25164
A Hamilton mentioned the North Side. Michael Allen http://www.eco-absence.org/ has done an excellent job chronicling the 400 parcel purchase of homes and lots on the Northside and then the state passing a tax credit for Paul McKee. This was reported in the Post-Dispatch this morning.

It is government gone astray, no longer representing people’s interests but the interests of a few insiders. The second rate results of what is actually proposed and built is covered in this and other blogs. That is why there is an uproar, the rush to mediocrity. And now there is another second rate proposal on Grand Avenue.

I talked to a friend who worked on the Grand Parking study. He said a number of solutions were proposed, but none of them left a open parking lot along Grand Avenue. So it turns out the developer is not even following previous recommendations. Why is that?

I would also like to point out that the U.City loop has avoided large open parking lots off of Delmar. Even with expanding East into the city, development is of retail space, not featured parking lots. Is it because there is a different alderman? Why does that city project seem to be working while Grand Avenue falters?

You speak of an urban process. It seems in some ways that the Grand Parking Study should be a beginning of the process. It has public input and various public hearings attached. Thus it is a first step in community preference. A transit study, a study of the commercial units, a study of housing can all follow up and flush out this parking study. Instead of using a study such as this as a paperweight, ways should be found to keep it active. The process is flawed that pushes such an effort aside and squanders the resource that it is.
I could not find the full study online anywhere, only parts and references to portions of the study. That is not to say it is not all there somewhere, but I could not conclusively determine whether the parking study made any recommendations to leave parking on Grand Avenue or not. The web should be more effectively organized and efforts be made to include all information as a one stop resource.
So, since this study is not really in the form to become a law. It may be possible to write an ordinance that gave studies less than ten years old review status. Reviews could be made by something similar to the City Preservation Board. If something like this is instituted it would make studies more effective as they become part of a process.
So this new City Review Board would then start a public process in which, if similar to the Preservation Board, would begin with public hearings and have an appeal process.
This would then include public involvement, thus relieving at least some of the frustration of surrounding the lack of citizen participation.
While this does not help areas without studies, at least it would make the studies that are completed working documents, not simply paperweights.

Another approach may be to introduce a new City Architectural Review Board could review all building permits resulting in a change of use or new building, plus building permits in select areas. Permits reviewed by the Preservation Board excluded. The key would be to establish goals or general criteria. (I’m not sure but I think in Webster Groves and Clayton use their architectural review board pass judgment on all projects)
The criteria could be similar to the eight goals for great neighborhoods San Francisco has developed or something similar. The goals could be very general, and could relate specifically to urban issues or building issues or both.
While not perfect this would allow public comment on all projects as well as lessen the need for zoning overlay districts and other special legislation. While a special zoning district would be a better solution, overall projects will be proposed in many areas that don’t have special legislation and a general review will capture them all, including projects such as Loughborough Commons. The charge of the Review Board would simply be to insure they are appropriate projects. If additional information is available, such as the Grand Parking Study, that could be included in the final decision.
Given the poor planning that is evident with this Grand project, it is clear something has to be done. Passing an ordinance establishing an architectural review board sounds doable and may be the simplest answer to insure that St. Louis maintains some quality in what is built.