urbanSTL

It's happening!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"that could eventually"

I would say at the minimum we would need a site plan, but preferably construction permits, before giving them everything they ask for.

I'm ALL for a new 20 story building, but it still makes no sense that they need to close a small street with little auto traffic "to improve safety and security." How would it improve security? Are they going to build a fence around the consolidated lots? As for safety, a long unbroken stretch of Washington Ave will only encourage faster driving. These little street closings add up. I thought we'd learned that lesson from the scourge of Schoemehl pots and dead-ends-at-highways that litter the city.

16th and 17th street really don't add much to the grid of downtown west, since they are a confusing maze with St Charles running through them. That closure probably wouldn't do much harm, especially if it were to add a pedestrian friendly plaza with shops on it. If this were, say, 15th or 18th, then yes it would be far more serious but 16th and 17th aren't a great addition to the continuity of close walkable and navigable blocks in downtown


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of you guys (lead by stlunite) have this obsession with the grid and it's just so damn silly. It's makes literally no stinkin difference. I could give you so many examples of health cities with all kinds of cut up streets and what not. But really don't want to waste time on something so silly

^ nice opinion, but it actually does make a stinkin' difference:

http://www.citylab.com/design/2011/09/street-grids/124/

^ nice apples and oranges comparison, i wasn't talked about suburbs. I was talking about broken grids in cities. closing 17th street to cars makes no difference at all. all the other streets we have closed have made no difference at all either.

where does 90% of downtown car traffic happen? Tucker, Market, Washington and Broadway...all still open and in a grid...the others really dont matter much. Closing, 17th that is rarely used by cars makes it safer for pedestrians....walking down a plaza is much safer than walking down a street open to traffic

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ nice apples and oranges comparison, i wasn't talked about suburbs. I was talking about broken grids in cities. closing 17th street to cars makes no difference at all. all the other streets we have closed have made no difference at all either.

where does 90% of downtown car traffic happen? Tucker, Market, Washington and Broadway...all still open and in a grid...the others really dont matter much. Closing, 17th that is rarely used by cars makes it safer for pedestrians....walking down a plaza is much safer than walking down a street open to traffic

Something to keep in mind, vacating the street will make it private property and not necessarily open to pedestrians and cyclists.

couldn't the city put a condition in the agreement to vacate that allows open access to pedestrians and cyclist?
its always easier to meet in the middle then pull someone from one side to another.

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ nice apples and oranges comparison, i wasn't talked about suburbs. I was talking about broken grids in cities. closing 17th street to cars makes no difference at all. all the other streets we have closed have made no difference at all either.

where does 90% of downtown car traffic happen? Tucker, Market, Washington and Broadway...all still open and in a grid...the others really dont matter much. Closing, 17th that is rarely used by cars makes it safer for pedestrians....walking down a plaza is much safer than walking down a street open to traffic

and of course, car traffic is the only traffic that matters. also, maybe it has to do with the way certain streets are selected for higher traffic volume through widening and increased speed limits.

actually, the article compares the efficiency and safety of urban grids to non-grid, non-regular patterns (closed streets and dead ends) which happen to define traditional suburbs and, more and more, St. Louis' broken grid.

i love how everything is conveniently "apples to oranges" these days when one doesn't feel like addressing an argument.

chaifetz10 wrote:I want to see a site plan and rendering first before making up my mind on this street vacate request. Actually, scratch that. I want to see renderings, site plans, AND construction permits before the street is vacated.

Seems to me the way things work in this town, neither you nor I nor anyone on this forum will see much of anything before the street vacation is a done deal.

dbInSouthCity wrote:couldn't the city put a condition in the agreement to vacate that allows open access to pedestrians and cyclist?
its always easier to meet in the middle then pull someone from one side to another.

They could. You'd need to call up the alderman who introduced it and convince them to amend it because it's already been on the floor for a first reading.

I'm a huge fan of keeping the grid. the BIGGEST mistake was allowing the Federal Reserve to vacate the block of Locust between 4th and Broadway. I also HATE seeing the City Garden street (8th?) constantly closed.

I testified yesterday against this bill in the Streets, Traffic, and Refuse Committee hearing. This is what occurred:

• The committee unanimously approved the bill as it stands.
  The committee members showed little interest in opposing the bill, and some of the committee members appeared (in my view) to be annoyed by the neighborhood association's opposition.
  Ald. Marlene Davis and the lawyer representing the developer mentioned they might be able to alter the site plan and amend the bill to add a pedestrian easement.
  The site plan provided shows 7 parking spaces (4 of which are handicap spaces), a sidewalk with trees, and a gated area for residents of the building to let their dogs outside in the vacated street area.
  The site plan also shows the area will be completely fenced in.
  There was mention of turning 16th Street into a two-way street. However, there is no language pertaining to that in Board Bill 64 or anywhere else I have seen at the moment.

^ perfect. public right-of-way given to a private developer for a private, fenced-in dog park. "What's the big deal?!", say all city officials.