urbanSTL

ward24 wrote:Some info on the FP Hospital sale:

The Zoo has two immediate needs / wants:

- Additional research & office space. They'll be able to renovate / adapt the Medical Office Building and expand their conservation biology program and research related to human / animal disease vectors. This is a worthwhile endeavor. They will also have land available for future expansions of related activities or additional office space for staff. This is another step in making St. Louis a bio-tech hub. I'm happy to have those folks working in Dogtown.

- Parking and Forest Park circulation / visitor experience. The Zoo has 3 million visitors a year, and can top 30,000 on a busy day. The have about 1,300 parking spaces but accommodate more 7,500 cars on a busy day. 1/3rd of their visitors are coming from over an hour away from St. Louis. This amount of traffic is negatively affecting other users of the park during the summer, and its creating a bad visitor experience when it takes 45 minutes to go from the zoo exit to the highway 1,000 feet away. There are a lot of cars wandering aimlessly around Forest Park searching for a parking spot. Moving some of those cars south of the highway into structured parking will hopefully improve that situation for zoo visitors and for the 75% of people who are in the park but not at the zoo.

After those first two items, we get to the rest of the possibilities that the site offers. The Zoo is already showing new commercial space at the corner of Oakland and Hampton, replacing the blank wall of the current parking structure. I think that's positive. The planning for that area is just starting, so we don't know what will ultimately be located there, but I know the zoo is considering all options.

There is potential for residential development, especially on the lot south of Clayton Ave., at the bottom of their rendering. The Zoo is also considering other options for the rest of the property - this kind of expansion is new territory for them.

Then we get to the interesting transportation stuff. How do we get fewer people to drive to the zoo in the first place? How do we get them from the DeBaliviere Metrolink to the Zoo? How do we get them from the FP Hospital Site to the Zoo? Those problems open up some interesting possibilities down the line, which I hope people will be involved in finding transit based solutions to.

My main message is that the Zoo is the type of institution that has the long view in mind. They will be an anchor here for the next century, and their own growth is going to drive maximization of the site, which will certainly evolve over time. They are also going to be soliciting ideas and input from zoo visitors and the neighborhood - so I know they want to hear your ideas.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Ald.

You bring up some good points. In terms of St. Louis becoming a bio-hub, gaining some expansion of the Zoo's research abilities can be seen as nothing short of good for the area.

The positives of the Zoo moving parking infrastructure outside of the current confines, while underwhelming in terms of development potential, does create a better integration of the zoo and surrounding neighborhood. People now have to move through urban fabric from outside the compound. That offers up a new level for the FPH site and its surrounds. I just hope the design itself responds to the context appropriately. We need urban design, not suburban/corporate campus design.

If this places greater emphasis on Hampton becoming a stronger alternative transportation corridor, then it could be catalytic. BUT, the right things need to happen.

It would be great for the nextSTL community to submit our thoughts, further unlocking the potential for this and future developments. Anyone know a contact at the Zoo in charge of this development?

As Alex noted, the Highlands' "success" is relative. It has been much slower than first planned. Plus, I think a more germane comparison would be Tamm and Clayton.
.

What? Where else in the City has a hotel, restaurant, three office buildings with around 150,000 square feet of leasable space (that is almost entirely leased!), and two loft apartment buildings, with another office building on the way <takes breath>...been built over the span of a decade?

Sure this is a slow pace for a development hot spot like D.C. or Seattle or the like...but for St. Louis, this is one of the most successful developments there is.

And how is Tamm and Clayton (a neighborhood business district) more comparable to the Forest Park Hospital site than the Highlands, located a few feet away at nearly the same highway interchange, both with acres of land?

Agree with those that say that green space and parking are appropriate for any zoo. There absolutely is a premium on parking in Forest Park - though the garage at the Art Museum should help, and shouldn't be ignored in the context of how much parking is necessary for the zoo. Any parking should help; reusing one of the on-site parking garages is a good thing.

The FP Hospital site is not 'a few hundred feet' from the zoo. The NE corner of the Clayton/Berthold intersection is 1500' from the South Entrance. The NE corner of the FP hospital site is closer to 1000' away. But what's in between should be noted - 14 lanes of traffic, much of it traveling high speed when not gridlocked, makes for a very real physical and psychological barrier between the two sites; that's far more of a divide than that between the Arch grounds and Downtown.

An open-to-the-elements footbridge will not welcome visitors. A full-on enclosed bridge like the one at the Science Center (another FP institution with a large surface lot south of Oakland) might. An enclosed people mover of some sort that drops visitors off inside the zoological park proper would absolutely be ideal if finances allow. And, as others have mentioned, it could theoretically be expanded to move people to other attractions in the park as well.

Encouraging locals to use mass transit is a laudable goal and should be pursued. Adding mass transit stops at or near one of the zoo entrances should absolutely be a priority. But this is an attraction. By definition, it attracts people from around the region and around the country. Very nearly all of these people will have driven here, or at least will have flown in and rented a car. And that's not to mention those from the far-flung areas of St. Louis and surrounding counties that drive to the zoo. That will not change, and the zoo should to all they can to accommodate those very welcome visitors. Shifting parking out of Forest Park is realistically a good way to both accommodate those arrivers-by-car and to lessen traffic within the park itself.

The initial renders are not perfect. The preservationist in me winces any time demolition is proposed. But they do address some of the zoo's very real needs, and the main hospital buildings don't fit those. I do like that they at least have buildings fronting Hampton; that will help. And I do echo others' hopes that putting parking and administrative offices there will allow areas within the zoo currently used for these functions to claimed as new exhibition space.

I have no doubt the renders will change before ground is broken. I do hope constructive dialogue will be opened to help refine the proposal. But we urban enthusiasts need to keep in mind that parking and green space are essential and non-negotiable needs of a nationally-renowned wildlife preservation attraction.

-RBB

stldotage wrote: And how is Tamm and Clayton (a neighborhood business district) more comparable to the Forest Park Hospital site than the Highlands, located a few feet away at nearly the same highway interchange, both with acres of land?

If the Highlands is only "a few feet away," then the Zoo is a 2-mile walk.

Map Clayton/Tamm to one side of the Deaconess site, and then map the Highlands to the other. Maybe 200-300 yards difference. Moreover, Deaconess is in the same neighborhood as Clayton/Tamm (which, amazingly enough, is officially known as "Clayton/Tamm"; the Highlands is not (nor is it even in our friend Ward24's ward).

doug wrote:Why would we build a monorail for people who don't even pay into the ZMD? How much damage would that do to Forest Park itself from a design perspective? They are not very pretty.

St. Louis does not have a parking problem. Metro put in the FP Trolley. We have large free park and ride lots at most stations. People should simply use that as a response to congestion in Forest Park. There's a lot of parking near the CWE station as well. Has the Zoo attempted to get people parking farther away? I wonder if some deal can be worked out with BJC garages which might have room on the weekends?

Other people mentioned Dogtown could be a place to eat before and after the Zoo. Why can't that also happen in the Central West End which borders the park? If people don't want the transfer then has Metro looked at routing the Trolley to the CWE? This is a regional destination so people should expect a level of inconvenience given that fact. Be glad it is crowded. It is free after all. People are not going to stop attending.

This is how it's supposed to work. As the cost of driving increases people switch modes. When government comes in and adds more parking, effectively lowering the price of driving, people keep driving, congestion goes up again as more people choose driving, and the problem re-appears down the road. The way to address the problem is not building more parking or roads but getting people out of their cars. That happens when driving is expensive (congestion, lack of parking) and alternatives are provided (like our regional and local transit system)!

Should we have Zoo valet service next? When I lived here I never had an issue finding an on-street space near my destination. On big event days I either took transit or parked in places which most people don't and then walked. If people are against walking well again that's good for your health. It's one of the best places to walk in the region. Why are we catering to suburban preferences? This is the city. This is what you do when you come to the city. You walk. Get over it. We have to deal with congestion hell in the county where we don't have an option to walk. Are they making it easier in the county for city people to visit on transit, by foot, and bike? I don't think so.

While we should be looking at these broad reaching connections, providing an example of success can fuel such strategies. It has to start with the FPH site, given the commitment already made by the Zoo. Figure that site out and we might head in the right direction.

rbb wrote:Agree with those that say that green space and parking are appropriate for any zoo.

Can you elaborate on why you think green space is appropriate or necessary for the zoo? I get the need for more parking, especially if they eventually want to expand onto the south lot at some point, and I'm ok with that so long as it's done thoughtfully. I think there's plenty of green space near the zoo already, with the main part already being in Forest Park and the FPH site adjacent to Turtle Park.

bonwich wrote:

stldotage wrote: And how is Tamm and Clayton (a neighborhood business district) more comparable to the Forest Park Hospital site than the Highlands, located a few feet away at nearly the same highway interchange, both with acres of land?

If the Highlands is only "a few feet away," then the Zoo is a 2-mile walk.

Map Clayton/Tamm to one side of the Deaconess site, and then map the Highlands to the other. Maybe 200-300 yards difference. Moreover, Deaconess is in the same neighborhood as Clayton/Tamm (which, amazingly enough, is officially known as "Clayton/Tamm"; the Highlands is not (nor is it even in our friend Ward24's ward).

With that being said I think a mid rise apartment building would do even better on the other side of Hampton in Clayton Tamm.

rbeedee wrote:

rbb wrote:Agree with those that say that green space and parking are appropriate for any zoo.

Can you elaborate on why you think green space is appropriate or necessary for the zoo? I get the need for more parking, especially if they eventually want to expand onto the south lot at some point, and I'm ok with that so long as it's done thoughtfully. I think there's plenty of green space near the zoo already, with the main part already being in Forest Park and the FPH site adjacent to Turtle Park.

It's appropriate to ask an institution like SLU to acknowledge its urban context and build dense neighborhoods that match its environment. However A good zoo is the recreation of the animals' environments. They live in nature, not in crowded cities. As contextually inappropriate as the SLU campus is in a human context, it would be just as inappropriate to require dense concrete-and-steel construction of a home for animals. The buildings reused or erected should be mindful of their purpose, and that's serving animals, not just people.

-RBB

bonwich wrote:

stldotage wrote: And how is Tamm and Clayton (a neighborhood business district) more comparable to the Forest Park Hospital site than the Highlands, located a few feet away at nearly the same highway interchange, both with acres of land?

If the Highlands is only "a few feet away," then the Zoo is a 2-mile walk.

Map Clayton/Tamm to one side of the Deaconess site, and then map the Highlands to the other. Maybe 200-300 yards difference. Moreover, Deaconess is in the same neighborhood as Clayton/Tamm (which, amazingly enough, is officially known as "Clayton/Tamm"; the Highlands is not (nor is it even in our friend Ward24's ward).

Uhh...okay. So the neighborhood-oriented business district (Clayton-Tamm) is almost as close as the Highlands site. That's where the comparisons end. But the Highlands site was once a huge clearcut lot (check), faces the highway (check), and is located on Oakland 1,000 feet away from the Forest Park Hospital site (check). None of those check marks apply to Clayton-Tamm. Seems like a silly comparison if you ask me. This FPH site is a twin to the successful Highlands Plaza site.

And for the record, the corner of Oakland and Hampton is a little more than 1,000 feet (1/5th mile) from the corner of the westernmost Highlands office building. So be a little more sparing with the eye rolls, maybe?

I think the monorail is the coolest part of the Zoo's plan! The worst part is the surface lots that will inhabit the former hospital site. Maybe one day near real estate and commercial space will occupy the site as well. I hope the Zoo disguises the parking garage they intend to keep with plants on the exterior of the structure.

rbb wrote:

rbeedee wrote:

rbb wrote:Agree with those that say that green space and parking are appropriate for any zoo.

Can you elaborate on why you think green space is appropriate or necessary for the zoo? I get the need for more parking, especially if they eventually want to expand onto the south lot at some point, and I'm ok with that so long as it's done thoughtfully. I think there's plenty of green space near the zoo already, with the main part already being in Forest Park and the FPH site adjacent to Turtle Park.

It's appropriate to ask an institution like SLU to acknowledge its urban context and build dense neighborhoods that match its environment. However A good zoo is the recreation of the animals' environments. They live in nature, not in crowded cities. As contextually inappropriate as the SLU campus is in a human context, it would be just as inappropriate to require dense concrete-and-steel construction of a home for animals. The buildings reused or erected should be mindful of their purpose, and that's serving animals, not just people.

-RBB

I would agree in the context of Forest Park, but not the Forest Park Hospital site. The site is much more tied to the neighboring context (the surrounding neighborhood). A large highway subdivides the Zoo grounds from this new site, as such there is a different context and accompanying appropriate design response. Not to mention that that corridor has a great impact on perception and experience. a few trees and a parking lot won't be much of an improvement there. Plus, it is not as if the animals are going to benefit from green space at the FPH site.

stldotage wrote:Uhh...okay. So the neighborhood-oriented business district (Clayton-Tamm) is almost as close as the Highlands site. That's where the comparisons end. But the Highlands site was once a huge clearcut lot (check), faces the highway (check), and is located on Oakland 1,000 feet away from the Forest Park Hospital site (check). None of those check marks apply to Clayton-Tamm. Seems like a silly comparison if you ask me. This FPH site is a twin to the successful Highlands Plaza site.

I bet if you ask the people who actually live/work/own existing businesses in Dogtown/Clayton-Tamm, they won't find the comparison all that silly. They'll probably also say that they should have the predominant influence over something that's actually in their neighborhood.

And just as you exaggerated 1,000 feet down to "a few feet" (hence the quite valid eyeroll), if the Highlands site was ever a "clearcut" lot, that was for the brief period between blowing up the Arena and the start of construction on the Highlands.

bonwich wrote:

stldotage wrote:Uhh...okay. So the neighborhood-oriented business district (Clayton-Tamm) is almost as close as the Highlands site. That's where the comparisons end. But the Highlands site was once a huge clearcut lot (check), faces the highway (check), and is located on Oakland 1,000 feet away from the Forest Park Hospital site (check). None of those check marks apply to Clayton-Tamm. Seems like a silly comparison if you ask me. This FPH site is a twin to the successful Highlands Plaza site.

I bet if you ask the people who actually live/work/own existing businesses in Dogtown/Clayton-Tamm, they won't find the comparison all that silly. They'll probably also say that they should have the predominant influence over something that's actually in their neighborhood.

And just as you exaggerated 1,000 feet down to "a few feet" (hence the quite valid eyeroll), if the Highlands site was ever a "clearcut" lot, that was for the brief period between blowing up the Arena and the start of construction on the Highlands.

Sorry you thought I was saying that the Highlands development was an attached row house to the Forest Park Hospital site. Could someone please pass the pedantry?

Anyhow, I'm certainly not arguing that Clayton-Tamm shouldn't play a role in what goes on at this site. I totally agree with you on that. I'm comparing two development sites here: a large interstate-fronting one that was developed with three office buildings, two loft apartment buildings, and a hotel/restaurant over a decade and some change, and a soon-to-be-large-vacant lot a mere 1,000 feet away which also fronts the interstate.

I was also arguing against the notion that the Highlands site was somehow less than successful because it "didn't develop as fast" as developers expected. If that's the metric, then Ballpark Village will be a "failure" for several decades after its construction.

Edit: I'll add that if you're saying the scale of any new development on this lot should mimic Clayton-Tamm (which is what I think has been the point of this whole failed communication scenario)...then I'd say, yeah, let the neighborhood have a say, but the comparisons to the Highlands site and its success are nevertheless still valid. Plus, it's a large site; maybe pedestrian-oriented mixed use and the like is appropriate for the portion of the site on Clayton Ave.?

rbb wrote:However A good zoo is the recreation of the animals' environments. They live in nature, not in crowded cities.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the green space proposed is for animal habitat. In the (very preliminary) rendering, the green space is labeled as a fitness trail, animal-themed playground, water feature, and reflecting pond. As far as I know, any animals on the site will be part of the zoo's research program (e.g., the recently-successful hellbender breeding program), most likely indoors under carefully controlled conditions and not open to the public. If the zoo is going to expand it's animal habitat it's probably going to be onto the existing parking lots in Forest Park. This site is going to be a habitat for people and cars more than animals.

^Well done, sir.

A few quick improvements and reserved at that.

Let's revisit many years ago on how angry everyone got about the Barnes/WUMC complex encroaching on Forest Park land. This is quite similar to me but the roles have been reversed. The consumption of potentially productive land by non-profits and taxing districts like the ZMD is a real threat to the City presently and in the long haul. We generally deride institutions like SLUH/SLU when they expand their campuses, effectively taking tax revenue generating land away for their use. Something similar is happening with the Zoo. The Zoo is in a unique situation because it is on the border of Forest Park unlike the Art Museum, so taking up land outside the park may be an option for it. But I don't support it at all. The Art Museum has been doing a fantastic thing, the RIGHT thing with their underground parking and the acknowledgement to minimize encroachment on park land. The Zoo should operate as if they are bound by the borders of the park. It is so appalling how hypocritical people on this site can be to give a pass to the zoo on a suburban-style, low-intensity use on what is the most appealing site in the City of St. Louis for new commercial and residential uses.