I read it, and I still don't understand.
^What are your thoughts about strip malls in historic urban neighborhoods? Wow, really? You feel that strongly about the issue? I dunno, seems like you are making this into a much bigger deal than it is.
In any case, its the same argument, you just aren't getting it because you are on the other side of the fence this time.
BTW, if the justification for angled parking is that the Washington Avenue ROW has more capacity than is necessary to meet near term traffic needs, then I have an alternative suggestion for you - give the space back to the pedestrian! Expand the sidewalks! Would that not create "a barrier to make the eating environment 'relaxing'"?"
In any case, its the same argument, you just aren't getting it because you are on the other side of the fence this time.
BTW, if the justification for angled parking is that the Washington Avenue ROW has more capacity than is necessary to meet near term traffic needs, then I have an alternative suggestion for you - give the space back to the pedestrian! Expand the sidewalks! Would that not create "a barrier to make the eating environment 'relaxing'"?"
I'm actually trying not to make it a big deal by not arguing it much. We're going to disagree. Is it necessarily my preferred solution? No. But I'm OK with it right now.
Clock towers, fountains, and public squares seem to work quite well in Europe. And I've got no idea how angled parking would turn this building into a strip mall.
I just hope the drunks remember to watch for traffic before backing out.
I just hope the drunks remember to watch for traffic before backing out.
Would that not create "a barrier to make the eating environment 'relaxing'"?"
yes, let's close the street to cars! that worked out GREAT for 14th street mall! welcome to 1960's thinking!
by the way, isn't there angled parking on Pine, near the Soldier's memorial. Jlblues, are you from a "small town" is that why you're so hell bent against this concept? Historically, 45 degree parking was ALL OVER the city... more parking = more patrons = more retail = the city succeeds.
What a ridiculous comment.Clock towers, fountains, and public squares seem to work quite well in Europe.
European cities generally respect and revel in their urbanity, they don't try to create a suburban or rural environment in the middle of the city by tacking the aforementioned architectural features onto a building site - think SLU's campus if you still don't know what I am talking about. Angled parking is yet another attempt to do just that, it will make the Tudor building look like a suburban strip mall, it takes up more space, and it is not necessary. Angled parking is just another symptom of the St. Louis attitude that says that not being able to park within a block of your destination is absolutely unacceptable and that we must sacrifice the urban character of all of our neighborhoods to the almighty automobile. It is the same attitude that brought about the demise of the Century building and gave us the Garage Mahal. Some of you people seem to actually believe that sidewalk dining would be more inviting with angled parking than it would be with widened sidewalks and parallel parking. Unbelievable. Any of you been to the CWE or the Loop recently? Parallel parking and sidewalk dining coexisting, oh my! Oh but there isn't enough parking in those neighborhoods, so maybe we should add angled parking everywhere?!?
I think too much is being made of this.
Angled parking along that stretch is fine. It gives that block an identity and adds to the complexity and character of downtown.
In downtown there is angled parking, curb parking, streets with no parking at all, one-way streets, two-way streets, cobblestone streets, alleys with nothing but trucks with hazard lights on, 'runway lights,' divided medians, depressed sections, highways that go nowhere, parking garages and unfortunately, surface lots.
It's all part of the variety of downtown/DT West.
Angled parking along that stretch is fine. It gives that block an identity and adds to the complexity and character of downtown.
In downtown there is angled parking, curb parking, streets with no parking at all, one-way streets, two-way streets, cobblestone streets, alleys with nothing but trucks with hazard lights on, 'runway lights,' divided medians, depressed sections, highways that go nowhere, parking garages and unfortunately, surface lots.
It's all part of the variety of downtown/DT West.
- 1,610
Angled parking not only provides traffic calming within existing curb lines, but it also lowers the demand for nearby surface lots, helping their redevelopment.
Angled parking is not right for every location, but is a good choice in this spot. The only downside I see is if angled parking were added at the expense of a wider sidewalk/ dedicated bike lane. But given streetscaping elsewhere along Washington, this is not an issue.
- 1,493
Wow you really hate angled parking!jlblues wrote: 1. There is far more than enough parking in this area.
2. There are many ways to create an effective barrier for sidewalk dining that do not include 45-degree parking.
3. How does angled parking slow down traffic??? More likely is that studies have simply looked at areas with 45-degree parking that have many actual traffic-calming measures in place.
4. You could have said the same thing about all of Washington Avenue five years ago.
Angled parking is simply yet another anachronistic affectation in the toolbag of urban-fabric-hating developers everywhere. Think clock towers, fountains, public squares, pedestrian malls, etc., etc. Basically, the developers want to try to recreate a section of some small town square, but it will simply end up looking like a strip mall in an existing building.
But seriously, have you been to the best part of Lafayette Square? Over by Chocolate Bar? The entire street is angled parking, and not only does the retail thrive, but it is a pleasant walkable urban enviornment. Nothing small town about it. What's so bad about wanting to replicate that along this stretch of Washington? A strip mall?! It's streetfront retail with nice apartments above and behind w/ alley access. That's pretty urban by my definition.
I think I'm just going to agree to disagree with you.
Huh??? There is nothing urban about Lafayette Square. Lafayette Square was designed as an escape from the urban environment and was St. Louis' first exclusive suburb! The area is mostly residential, and it was built with extremely wide avenues around a central park. It is a completely different environment than Washington Avenue. The pace in Lafayette Square is very slow and already brings to mind a small town square, because, again, it was designed that way. I have less of a problem with angled parking there, but I still don't think it is necessary along the commercial strip. I would much, much rather they use that space to widen the sidewalks, add/expand sidewalk cafes, and put in more trees and planters. Think how much more inviting the LS commercial strip would be if the sidewalks could comfortably accomodate a couple of rows of tables, pedestrians, trees, planters, and benches. Wouldn't that be worth sacrificing parking for a few more of your precious automobiles?Urban Elitist wrote:But seriously, have you been to the best part of Lafayette Square? Over by Chocolate Bar? The entire street is angled parking, and not only does the retail thrive, but it is a pleasant walkable urban enviornment. Nothing small town about it.
I also have no problem with angled parking around the park itself, or any park for that matter, since there is no need for widened sidewalks around a park, and because parks are, by their very nature, an urban retreat.
It does not get much more urban than Washington Avenue, and angled parking simply does not belong there. I still have yet to see one solid justification for it - and sorry, squeezing more automobiles in front of each retailer is not a justification. It never ceases to amaze me what passes for urban design in this town.
- 1,517
jlblues wrote:Huh??? There is nothing urban about Lafayette Square. Lafayette Square was designed as an escape from the urban environment and was St. Louis' first exclusive suburb! The area is mostly residential, and it was built with extremely wide avenues around a central park.
Wow...I guess my 1911 Bevo home surrounded by later-built bungalows is in the absolute boonies!
I understand your historicist's point, but think you're splitting hairs a bit. What is urban? Is it a form (e.g. three-story buildings that hug the sidewalk)? Is it an experience (lots of people walking, old buildings, interesting and diverse architecture)? Is it a matter of numbers (population density)? A combination?
Certainly, the point could be made that the form but little else is urban about the current location of the Tudor Building, which lacks pedestrian traffic, significant residential density, and much activity at this point in time.
AGAIN, you could have said the same thing about all of Washington Avenue five years ago. Would angled parking instead of expanded sidewalks have been a good idea along the eastern portion of Washington Avenue then? Why is everyone so chronologically myopic? (yes, I know that is probably redundant)Matt Drops The H wrote:Certainly, the point could be made that the form but little else is urban about the current location of the Tudor Building, which lacks pedestrian traffic, significant residential density, and much activity at this point in time.
- 1,517
The minute they pour (permanent) concrete instead of angled (temporary)striping, you let me know. Deal?
Then I will grab that pitchfork.
Besides, Main Streets in rural America that use this are mistakenly characterized as non-urban, when in fact, on a small scale, they are exactly that.
I do want to add that I do not prefer the angled parking approach.
Then I will grab that pitchfork.
Besides, Main Streets in rural America that use this are mistakenly characterized as non-urban, when in fact, on a small scale, they are exactly that.
I do want to add that I do not prefer the angled parking approach.
jlblues wrote:Would angled parking instead of expanded sidewalks have been a good idea along the eastern portion of Washington Avenue then?
This is a good question. Angled parking from Tucker west might have been a good idea.
- 1,493
jlblues wrote:
Huh??? There is nothing urban about Lafayette Square.
I can't take your posts seriously anymore now.
No one is saying this is the optimal solution for this part of Washington. But it is acceptable and economically feasible. For now, this area will need convienent parking for the retail as well as a traffic buffer. This accomplishes both of those goals. When this area becomes more populated, then we can revisit the angled parking.
^Instead of making inane comments, why don't you attempt to rebut my argument? What about my statement below is incorrect?
Soooo, let me get this straight, more parking good, widened sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly streetscape bad. JJ is rolling in her grave...
Lafayette Square was designed as an escape from the urban environment and was St. Louis' first exclusive suburb! The area is mostly residential, and it was built with extremely wide avenues around a central park. It is a completely different environment than Washington Avenue. The pace in Lafayette Square is very slow and already brings to mind a small town square, because, again, it was designed that way.
This area has convenient parking out the wazoo. And I am still waiting for an explanation as to how angled parking accomplishes these "goals" better than expanded sidewalks and parallel parking...Urban Elitist wrote:For now, this area will need convienent parking for the retail as well as a traffic buffer. This accomplishes both of those goals.
Soooo, let me get this straight, more parking good, widened sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly streetscape bad. JJ is rolling in her grave...
- 1,493
I guess we just have different definitions of urban. I consider Lafayette Square urban due to it's good population density, it's walkable enviornment where you don't need a car, curbside retail, and pedestrian activity. Is Wash Ave more urban than Lafayette Sq, sure, but LS is urban also in my eyes(and probably everyones' here except yours). LS's density is much higher than this part of Washington right now, and it's "activity level" is far higher than this stretch of Washington's, so I just don't understand why you're making such an issue over the parking.
Would a wider sidewalk be better? Yes, but it is also more expensive and I don't expect a private developer in this part of DT to fork out that kind of extra money right now. Angled parking is the most economical way to get what this block needs right now.
This is my last post on this subject matter, as far as I'm concerned you have your opinion, I have mine, and we are going to disagree.
Would a wider sidewalk be better? Yes, but it is also more expensive and I don't expect a private developer in this part of DT to fork out that kind of extra money right now. Angled parking is the most economical way to get what this block needs right now.
This is my last post on this subject matter, as far as I'm concerned you have your opinion, I have mine, and we are going to disagree.
Your mistake is with your notion that since Lafayette Square was originally designed as a suburb that it is still a suburb. Also, you are making a wrong assumption that a suburb cannot be or have urban characteristics: e.g. downtown Kirkwood.jlblues wrote:What about my statement below is incorrect?
Lafayette Square was designed as an escape from the urban environment and was St. Louis' first exclusive suburb!
Here's a question for ya: why is angled parking so much worse than parallel parking? Please note that angled parking does not in and of itself preclude wider sidewalks which is more a function of street width.
Do they have any commercial/retail renters identified yet?
45 degree parking is good if you have a lot of quick stop shoppers who don't have to fight // parking headaches (not everyone is good at it). I, for one, hope that part is a success. It is a main conduit (and last of the Washington Ave. eyesores) for connecting DT to Jefferson. Can you imagine having a street all lit up and lively from DT to Jeff (and beyond)? It has not happened in a few decades.
45 degree parking is good if you have a lot of quick stop shoppers who don't have to fight // parking headaches (not everyone is good at it). I, for one, hope that part is a success. It is a main conduit (and last of the Washington Ave. eyesores) for connecting DT to Jefferson. Can you imagine having a street all lit up and lively from DT to Jeff (and beyond)? It has not happened in a few decades.
- 1,610
jlblues wrote:And I am still waiting for an explanation as to how angled parking accomplishes these "goals" better than expanded sidewalks and parallel parking...
Put it this way, the City already blew cash east of 18th. As that huge outlay proved, it's not exactly cheap to move granite curbs, rebuild the crown of the street, install new lighting, tree grates, etc. So then, angled parking is a very cost-effective way to get both traffic calming that slows down motorists and the feeling of a wider pedestrian realm, just by separating moving traffic farther from the sidewalk.
- 2,929
Jlblues, at the risk of being “chronologically myopic”, I pose this:
We’re talking about developing a retail center in a part of the city without any retail nearby, in an area where people have not historically shopped, with limited restaurant attractions as it is, with four lanes of traffic, not near stoplights w/ crossings, separating the two halves of the congruous developments, and with only a meager base of foot traffic as it is. To lure commercial traffic into the store fronts, to attract new prospective shoppers (much of which will consist of those who aren’t of the “urbanic” philosophies which you espouse), these developers (and city planners) are hoping on decreasing high speed road traffic endemic to the current layout while allowing for easier parking for potential clients and customers.
Would you rather have:
1. The developments built along a 4-lane road, with people driving 35 along it frequently after the lights near the church, which would limit opportunities to lure in new-to-the-area businesses.
2. Twenty foot wide sidewalks outside the businesses which would further disrupt car traffic and limit tenant interest in the property, in the name of people walking in cities. *Note that a supersized sidewalk without matching foot traffic furthers images of an unpopular business adjacent, and therefore psychographics for failing developments.
3. Planning that attracts customers and better controls street traffic, to lure better businesses?
Recognize that we are in a recession, local and national, with a string of failed retail ventures in downtown, amidst a first-mover geographic business environment. Can we really believe quality business would want to move into the area without their clients being accommodated to, let alone anticipate long-term business model sustainability?
While you may be speaking of a design aesthetic, you certainly are not recognizing a sound understanding of the needs of retail businesses. For this, your argument loses its merits.
We’re talking about developing a retail center in a part of the city without any retail nearby, in an area where people have not historically shopped, with limited restaurant attractions as it is, with four lanes of traffic, not near stoplights w/ crossings, separating the two halves of the congruous developments, and with only a meager base of foot traffic as it is. To lure commercial traffic into the store fronts, to attract new prospective shoppers (much of which will consist of those who aren’t of the “urbanic” philosophies which you espouse), these developers (and city planners) are hoping on decreasing high speed road traffic endemic to the current layout while allowing for easier parking for potential clients and customers.
Would you rather have:
1. The developments built along a 4-lane road, with people driving 35 along it frequently after the lights near the church, which would limit opportunities to lure in new-to-the-area businesses.
2. Twenty foot wide sidewalks outside the businesses which would further disrupt car traffic and limit tenant interest in the property, in the name of people walking in cities. *Note that a supersized sidewalk without matching foot traffic furthers images of an unpopular business adjacent, and therefore psychographics for failing developments.
3. Planning that attracts customers and better controls street traffic, to lure better businesses?
Recognize that we are in a recession, local and national, with a string of failed retail ventures in downtown, amidst a first-mover geographic business environment. Can we really believe quality business would want to move into the area without their clients being accommodated to, let alone anticipate long-term business model sustainability?
While you may be speaking of a design aesthetic, you certainly are not recognizing a sound understanding of the needs of retail businesses. For this, your argument loses its merits.
Anyone else think this thread should be split, so those with the necessary time/energy can debate the highs and lows of angled parking elsewhere?