urbanSTL

Well, street names carry a certain history to them. True, many have been changed over time (Berling St. to Pershing after World War I; 12th St. to Tucker after the mayor of the same name's reign), but in general, they're more important to local history than the convenience of pedestrians.



I see street names as a preservation issue quite often. I'm a big fan of the "Memorial" streets that will have a person's name underneath the actual street name, rather than renaming streets every time an important person comes along.



I would like to see Leonor K. Sullivan restored to Wharf St. and have her listed as an honorary street name underneath Wharf (see Chicago's Loop for other dual-named streets).



There are actually only a few cities with unrelenting grids that are also numbered. Only the Southside of Chicago is so navigable as well as Kansas City and Manhattan. The rest of the cities I've been to have demanded more vigilance and study from a visitor--and I think even the names give cities more character than a straight numbering system.



I thought New Orleans was confusing as hell for a while, but I love it now, as well as other cities that demand such exploration and do not rely on a compulsive degree of order that degenerates into monotony.



Just my opinion.

Numbering? Big cities? So none of the 50,000 or so tourists that were in Chicago yesterday afternoon could figure out how to get from State and Lake to Michigan and Delaware then, could they?



Oh, and the Asian Farmers Market in U. City is at roughly Olive and 81st Street.

JasonBlack wrote:As for the numbered streets, they end at what 18th or 19th? That numbering should extend all the way out to U. City.

You only mentioned downtown.



Personally, I have never had a problem finding my way around other places. I do have an inherent sense of direction, but I can also read a map and figure things out on my own. Plenty of other places don't have numbering either.



There is also the history part of the street names, making it hard on the people that actually live here with a wholesale changing of the names, Character of not having just numbers, etc.

This is what drives me wild about this city. 'History' is not a static omnipotent notion to be guarded and preserved in perpetuity by our 'enlightened' modern society. Originally, all of this land was woods and long before that a tremendous river. Should we start pumping the water into downtown now in order to better preserve 'history'?



Now, our architecture has 'historic' significance and due to its relative permanence, we must ensure that newer development remains balanced with the overall visual character of the city. This, BTW, happens to be one of the reasons that I'm not thrilled by the idea of skyscrapers in STL. Street names however, have no such permanence and should be revisited when they begin to hinder growth and navigation (their primary purpose, IIRC).



Bonwich - The Chicago example was a terrific straw man. Thanks for that bit of academic excellence :~).



Our physical street layout happens to be well suited to a grid system and adopting one would help outside developers take this city more seriously than the big small town they currently view it as. Also, even well-developed grids have the occasional named avenue for those who feel they need more character than utility in a street system (see Manhattan's Sixth Avenue or 125th Street).

JasonBlack wrote:Bonwich - The Chicago example was a terrific straw man. Thanks for that bit of academic excellence :~).

You're more than welcome. Care to name the other 200 or so major landmarks and/or streets in Chicago that don't have numeric designations?



I'm very pleased to see that you've come up with such a valuable insight into the lack of "growth and navigation" downtown. Who knew all we needed to do was to change the street names?

Give me a break. Developer's don't see St. Louis as a big city because we don't have numbered streets? I think there may be a couple other things that could cause them to think that, if they really do. Not that it matters anyway if we are big city as long as they can make big money.

phoaddict wrote:

Notes from Home wrote:If it makes you feel better pho I don't think you're overreaching. In fact I want to think even bigger. Is it still too late to move the nation's capital to St. Louis?

I sense a hint of Colbert sarcasm? If so, I don't see the need for that...

Ummm, ouch. Sensitive much? I am a sarcastic person by nature, but by no means was I trying to belittle your original post. The nation's capital thing, yes that was a little bit of a joke, but it was a possibility at one time & history. Is it realistic today? No, but if it was a possibility today you can bet your ass I'd want to see it happen.



Seriously, I may be a bigger dreamer than you. I really do like you ideas for the most part. I'd still like to shoot even higher & end up being pretty dang happy if only half of your ideas came true, but I'd still crave more & I probably always will.



Let me see,



6.) We take over the post-dispatch and replace people that are young, progressive and forward thinking optimists.



How about an actual2nd STL newspaper to give the post some competition instead. An actual news reporting paper & not a tabloid. Something that really sets a journalism standard & embraces convergence & works across media in print, broadcast & online?



WE BUILD A FREAKING BUILDING TALLER THAN THE ARCH and TALLER THAN ANY BUILDING IN THE STATE (or even Midwest outside of Chicago).





Why outside of than chigago? Why not taller than chicago? I'm not saying the need is there yet, but why not dream that it could be possible?



How about a good-sized movie/tv studio to encourage more wide release television shows & movies to be shot locally? Maybe Joe Buck's future (possible) talk show could be shot here, not new york.



How about some great audio recording facilities & decent-sized recored label (that embraces new distribution methods & revitalizes old) based in STL?



How about a local book publisher that has a strong presence?



How about nourishing local arts? Music, art, theater, dance. New venues. New destinations that travelers will come many miles to patronize.



And finally, pick the brains of Joe Edwards & Bob Casilly & find out what their far-reaching dreams are. The things that they don't think they'll ever have the time or $$ to accomplish & see what we can do to make them reality.



Sarcasm in my 1st reply? Yes.



Was it directed it you trying to keep you down? An emphatic NO.



It was aimed squarely at those who try to crap over anyone who trys to crap all over anyone's big dreams for St. Louis.



Sorry if you got nicked in the crossfire pho.

I like the idea of numbered streets. There's something cool about the idea of going to 12th and 81st as opposed to regular names. Certainly feels very urban. Barnes is 5 minutes away from downtown, don't know how much a downtown complex is really necessary. Convenience/gas stations are a GREAT point, especially new, nicely lit ones that can stay open without hassle from homeless/thugs 24/7. I thought they were planning a Walgreens downtown. Any news?



^About the skylines, things change. Get over it. I think the evolution of the skyline in Chi-O right now is just about one of the coolest damn things on the planet. Wish I could say the same about stl. Would you prefer to have the skyline from 1970? DOUBT IT. Fortunately, I get a little change soon with Centene. Someone is going to go higher than the arch, it is inevitable. I never thought I would say this, but where is Trump when you need him?

While I don't think it really matters, I prefer alphbetical one way and numbers the other. Ann, Berry, Coal, and so on.

Is it too much to ask for responses based in logic rather than "not all cities do it that way so why should we"? I mean what are the technical demerits of the idea?



No it's not *the* reason that developers might choose to overlook us but ease of navigation would be an important and definite consideration for any large developer. Unambiguous street navigation becomes especially important in an old city like ours where downtown streets are narrow to the point of being a serious impediment to overall traffic flow. The more we repopulate downtown with buildings full of automobile driving middle and upper-middle-class, the more attention we need to pay to the coming traffic issues.



Let's stop thinking small. What's wrong with being progressive? If the idea of numbering streets is bad (ie., too much investment for too little return, technically infeasible) then let's argue those points but we can forego the thoroughly subjective nonsense.

Frankly, Jason, it's rather nonsensical to suggest we "need" to change street names.



Addresses act as number designations. If you live on the 5500 block of Page, you're just past the 55th Street from the River. Now, if Belt Avenue were named 55th Street, would I as a pedestrian or tourist just know to keep walking down page 55 blocks from the river? Or, if I were a typical traveler and wanted to get to that block, would I find one of the innumerable ways to determine that location, including driving/riding/biking/walking straight down the block until I find the address? There are maps and eager civic boosters everywhere that will be happy to point you in the right direction.



The history component should not be so flippantly disregarded either. Streets like Destrehan and Angelrodt in Hyde Park indicate neighborhood founders. Erasing their names from the physical landscape is a swipe at history. Hasn't Hyde Park lost enough history?



There's, to me anyway, an undeniable character in many street names. No one should have a monopoly on a certain part of history deemed worthy for preservation, but at the same time, and consistent with my beliefs on historic preservation, if you're going to replace it, it better be better and worth the act of replacement.



In my eyes, the numbering scheme is simply not.



Now, if you were in favor of putting address markers underneath street signs, I am ALL for that. Letting tourists and drivers know that this is the 3200 block of Locust in this direction or the 1200 block of North Compton in that one is a great idea.



Recall State and Madison in Chicago. That's the 0-0 point. If I'm at 400 W. Huron, I am 4 blocks from State. To me, that makes more sense. And Chicago has a great knack for displaying the address range each block. That's the sensible thing; not changing all the names.

bonwich wrote:You're more than welcome. Care to name the other 200 or so major landmarks and/or streets in Chicago that don't have numeric designations?



I'm very pleased to see that you've come up with such a valuable insight into the lack of "growth and navigation" downtown. Who knew all we needed to do was to change the street names?

In downtown Chicago, the street names change from presidents to Great Lakes, and then there's Oak Street, but no other streets named after trees, and then there's Wacker, and what is a Kinzie, exactly? Oh, the humanity - it's too confusing!!

Matt Drops The H wrote:Frankly, Jason, it's rather nonsensical to suggest we "need" to change street names.

No nonsense at all. Entirely pragmatic. I work downtown. On a very regular basis (every three days or so on average) I'm confronted by city visitors (usually scouting from the convention center) who are looking to find some destination. The most common question is "which way is streetx" followed by is it walkable? Just about two weeks ago someone asked me the way to Market (from Washington Ave @ 9th st.). I gladly complied and pointed them straight towards Market. Fortunately, I inquired about their destination. Someone had told them that "Harry's over on Market" was a great place to go for lunch. Not really a walkable destination for many (this was an older group of folks).



This happens more often than you might think.



Your intimate knowledge of the city's layout doesn't mean a thing to the groups of wandering tourists that have become far more frequent over the last couple of years. Only by making the place more inviting and practical to outsiders will we become a place that ppeople want to live and do business.



So far every argument against this point has amounted to 'it's not confusing to me so it must be obvious or a non-issue to everyone else'. I'm telling you that I personally direct lost travelers all the time. It is a real problem and it's going to become more critical if we grow.



As for the CID guides many people (city dwellers included) have no idea what the purpose of those people are. In fact, I had one woman tell me that she thought they were part of some (privately run) City tour rather than a civic service. Here again, you have to place yourself in the shoes of a complete outsider trying to find their way in a foreign place. Something that may seem obvious to a local can be totally cryptic to a newcomer.

I like cities and their street networks to make sense too, Jason. I regularly chafe against street barriers and other blockages. They're short term solutions to crime and nuisance issues at best.



But there is an arbitrary line here, which is what everyone who has presented criticism to you so far are relaying, where order and rationality can actually make a city monotonous and boring.



I think the historical argument alone should be enough to save the street names. As I said before, replacing anything historical should result in something better. That's the burden of proof.



What makes numbers better? Why is 5500 Page not as good as 55th and Page, or 55th and P? To me, it conveys the same thing. It's not hard to figure out. People go to new cities expecting not to know their way around. It's best if they supply themselves with a map, and the city supplies them with sensible signage. Unrelenting numbers/letters diminishes the character of the streets, in my opinion.



Maybe a binary system would work, in which historical street names remain, but a new citywide system of numbers and letters is added on to street signs and road signs (kind of like how Page is State Route D, or something, but this would be a city system, not state).



That way, Hampton would be Hampton and 60th, and Hampton and Eichelberger may be 60th and F, depending on the sequence.



In any event, there are only minor changes needed to make St. Louis's grid more sensible. Chicago-style address indicators are the key.

DeBaliviere wrote:and then there's Oak Street, but no other streets named after trees

Just a minor point... There is an Elm, Cedar, Maple, and Chestnut surrounding Oak Street.

I can definitely see benefits to numbered streets. Especially for visitors. I think it could work if some of them were double-named "memorial" streets like was mentioned earlier.

carrieocity kills wrote:
Saturday the 24th- and we will win:)

Anyway, back to online flirting



If my family plans for the 24th don't run too late I'll show up w/ a few friends & buy you that victory drink. Maybe I can convince them to buy you a couple too. Never been to a roller derby match, but it looks like it could be fun. I'll try many things once (not anything, that would just be plain dumb )



If I can't make it good luck & I'll just have to owe you that drink.



Psst, anybody reading this, check out the Metrolink Pub Crawl thread for the 23rd. Love to have more members & their friends there.



http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=4905

I like the numbered streets too, when I was living in Shaw I liked that there was a 39th Street, but it was kind of strange that you have to go twenty blocks east (18th street) or twenty blocks west (59th street) to find another numbered thoroughfare.

That being said some cities like Kansas City get carried away with it. The numbers go way out into the burbs and beyond. And working in the agribusiness field I can tell you that plenty of farm addresses in places like Iowa and Nebraska are 300th Street or 265th Avenue. So while in our mind it conjures up urbanity it ain't necessarily so.

^ Indy too - somewhere in a cornfield 20 miles north of I-465 is 241st Street. Every time I see it I think "Cool - only 241 blocks until I'm downtown".

phoaddict wrote:All books were separated by brand, ie, fodors had two big sections of the wall with all their books, etc. Of all the books there, i found ONLY ONE of visiting or touring st. louis as a destination. ONE! Among dozens and dozens of tour guide brands and hundreds and hundreds of books, IN CHICAGO. ONE! I felt so sad for our city. This also shows how st. louis I am, or my st. louis complex, of trying to find our importance among other cities in the US, and moreover world. Minneapolis, KANSAS CITY, OMAHA, all had more guide books.

Don't be so glum, chum. The St. Louis guidebooks were nearly sold out from high demand.

Matt Drops The H wrote:In any event, there are only minor changes needed to make St. Louis's grid more sensible. Chicago-style address indicators are the key.

Those address indicators on street signs are so helpful. I wish St. Louis would have them. It's extremely hard to find a building or business now that has its address in an easy-to-find place (while driving, you only have time for a quick glance). So, while I'm on the bus in San Francisco looking for an address, those street signs make life much easier. Especially when the numbered streets change direction and don't line up with the addresses (eg. the 2000 block of Mission is at 16th St.). Or at night, when it's hard to see outside the bus because of the reflection from inside the bus, knowing you'll find out what block you're on keeps you from freaking out that you missed your destination.



Another helpful piece of signage in SF is pedestrian-oriented street names. On the corner of just about every block (even in the suburban-style neighborhoods), the street names are imprinted into the concrete. I don't have to look in every direction for street signs (which may be blocked from view from my corner). I just have to look down on the corner of the sidewalk and I'll know exactly what intersection I'm at. It's kind of a way for a city to show that pedestrians are important too.

While I have a personal preference for a numbered grid (history be damned, we have plenty of parks, rec. centers, court bldgs, etc. to name) I would certainly welcome any compromise that addresses the underlying problem. Posting address markers would be a great start.



That option still leaves a sore spot (IMO) with respect to making the city seem more cohesive. The Hill, U. City, CWE...where are these places in relation to downtown or each other? What address markers would you tell someone to look for to get there (if we had address markers posted)? These locations (and many other similar designations don't appear on common street maps). What's worse is that people downtown see Delmar and reasonably figure that the Delmar Loop, which they hear so much about, might be nearby. Dead wrong.



There's much to be said for making the various elements of our city function together while still allowing them to maintain their identity.