JMedwick wrote:Michigan Avenue is one of the most pedestrian-friendly shopping areas in existence, as are most of the streets around it. Why do you think that is?
Well where to begin...
1. Safety in numbers... do you think the Brentwood area pedestrian levels will ever reach those of Michigan Ave? Well if not, then it is hard for pedestrians to commandeer the street when a light changes, as happens so often in NYC and Chicago. And if the pedestrian's can't take the street through their sheer numbers, then they can't do much to counter act the high traffic volumes. The number of pedestrians makes Michigan Avenue more pedestrian friendly.
2. Scale...The scale of the tall buildings to street width. While both Brentwood and Michigan Ave are approximately equal in width (I will admit that Michigan is probably wider) how tall are the buildings on Brentwood? 2 stories? 3 stories? Even if you were talking 15 stories, the scale of the street due to the lack of tall buildings makes Brentwood feel miles wider and like much more of a barrier, thereby reducing the attractiveness of the street to the pedestrian. On Michigan you are talking what 30, 40, 50 stories? The scale is completely different, enclosing the street much more, reducing its perceived width.
To sum up the points above, really isn’t the reason Michigan Ave is a successful pedestrian environment is because of density… more people, more jobs, taller building… all along a similarly sized street.
Maybe you have noticed, but Brentwood doesn’t have and likely won’t see that type of density for 50 or more years, if ever. Then, the question becomes, do you still demand a design based such high density in an environment that doesn’t support such design? Or do you alter your design to meet the needs of the environment?
Of course Brentwood does not have the density or ped traffic that Michigan Avenue does. I never said that it did. I was offering a counter-point to your apparent belief that ped and auto traffic cannot co-exist. They quite obviously can and there are many, many examples around the country of shopping districts where they do (many of which are similar to Richmond Heights in density, but were planned with pedestrians in mind). Your argument seems to be that, since the area is not currently pedestrian friendly, we should just throw up our hands and try to create pedestrian friendly pockets connected by bridges. As an aside, I have seen studies that indicate that those pedestrian bridges of which you are so fond can be just as uninviting to pedestrians as a wide, high-volume street, for all of the same reasons you have cited about Brentwood Boulevard being uninviting vs. Michigan Avenue. Imagine for a second, if you will, that one were to station one scary-looking homeless person somewhere along your pedestrian bridge, and not give people the option of crossing Brentwood at-grade. With little other ped traffic, how many women are going to want to cross that bridge?
While it may not be Michigan Ave., density on and around Brentwood is going to increase very rapidly. Once The Boulevard, the Galleria expansion, the development around the U Club tower, and the new hotels are completed, it will be a dramatically different environment. This will more than likely be followed by development of parcels on Clayton Road and Brentwood south of I-64, outparcels along Eager Road, and the residential neighborhood just Northeast of I-170/I-64. Even if you widened Brentwood Blvd., it may not be able to handle the increase in auto traffic if the only option is to drive and park in those developments. So, Richmond Heights has two options: 1) Cater to the auto, knowing that Brentwood Blvd. will soon become one giant clusterf**k, and eventually driving business away,
OR, 2) Think 10 years ahead, and start developing the area NOW into a truly pedestrian-friendly environment. Anyone that has driven down Brentwood since the MetroLink expansion has opened can see how things are already changing. There have been several posts on this forum about the dramatic increase in pedestrian traffic on Brentwood from ZERO ped traffic just a few weeks ago. The fact is, that with two Metro stations nearby, people WILL be walking between developments on Brentwood and Eager, and WILL be walking along those streets. The question is, should Richmond Heights/Brentwood take steps to encourage that activity, or do as you suggest and create an environment that encourages people to drive, and discourages them from walking and/or taking mass-transit? You have to look at what Brentwood Blvd. COULD be, not what it IS.
How do you encourage ped traffic? Lighting, benches, landscaping, public art, decorative sidewalks...widen the sidewalks, narrow the traffic lanes on Brentwood, build planters in the median up and down Brentwood. Narrowing traffic lanes and adding planters slows traffic. Obviously, traffic lights must be set up to calm traffic and allow more time for pedestrians to cross. Large, clear walk/don't walk signs with timers and audible counters should be added. Moreover, several multi-story buildings are planned along Brentwood. Why not demand that these be positioned to "enclose" Brentwood, similar to Michigan Ave., rather than setting them back from the street? All of these options are simple, relatively cheap, and entirely feasible things that Richmond Heights and Brentwood COULD be doing/demanding but, for the most part, have ignored.
STL could have it's own version of identical towers 
