urbanSTL

^ Thanks for sharing. It always bugs me when strip malls or just stand-alone businesses have fences around their properties. In Oakville, where I grew up, a Walgreens put a tall, ugly, vinyl fence up between their lot and the library. I never understood why they felt it necessary to spend the money to do that. Were they trying to keep out those pesky readers from taking a short cut to buy some Advil to calm the side effects of living in Oakville? SMH

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

^Fencing around new businesses is usually requested by the immediate neighbors, and then required by the authorities. 

^^Agree. Most of the time it isn't the developer who chooses to do it, rather they're required to by the city.

STL city requires a fence for gas stations on sides it neighbors residential property

The Lively & Livable Neighborhoods that are Illegal in Most of North America

^In my neighborhood there were clearly about four or five commercial spaces on local side streets. All have been converted into residential property, but the hallmarks are unmistakable. I'm fortunate in that I'm a couple of blocks from Grand and so there's plenty within walking distance anyway. There are still a few examples outside of Soulard that lay host to small bars and restaurants, but far fewer than there once were. Maybe the thing that would really kick places away from the sexy core like Carondelet into high gear would be more sensible (and permissive) zoning.

I've always said that if we want to get the area north of downtown desirable for development, we need some retail space peppered though the Columbus and Carr Square. The area feels so dead because unless you live in the neighborhood, there is no reason for anybody to go there. It wouldn't even take that much, maybe 4-5 spots in each neighborhood with a couple of them being restaurants/bars.

I don't disagree at all with the idea that long term, having corner stores will help create a walkable city. But there's just not enough people right now to justify new retail in some of these neighborhoods. At least not the retail that I assume many on this site would want to see. (i.e., no pawn shops, cash advance places, gas stations, etc.) 

This is a bit of a chicken vs. the egg problem, but there's enough empty retail spots all over St. Louis right now that the last thing we need is to build more.  St. Louis needs to focus on increasing residents to support small businesses, otherwise storefronts will just sit empty. 

So wonder how will this effect the future of Atlanta growth or is having a bunch of small  municipalities more of an issue if you are slow growing region. 

With more people working from home, do you think more commercial spaces will be developed throughout residential areas? I imagine that many people would be willing to walk a block or two to grab a cup of coffee, then walk back home to start their day, since they no longer are able to go through the Starbucks drive-thru on the way to the office.

Right now, a lot of the corner buildings in the city are being converted to residential from former commercial, but I'm wondering if that will change. I live in Kingshighway Hills where there are some random strips of commercial on Hereford and Brannon, and I would love to see some coffee shops, cafes, restaurants, even yoga studios and small markets fill in some spots.

Think it could happen, or should I keep dreaming?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

We have a lot of retail vacancy, but largely in areas where there is already a good amount of retail. Places like Carr and Columbus Square essentially have 0% vacancy because their is essentially no place for retail. These neighborhoods are less stable as a result.

Some are interested in doing stuff like that, just in some neighborhoods, acquiring the property or properties is expensive and makes a project like this, once you add in the costs of materials, unviable financially.

But, I do see this type of project being a winner in neighborhoods like Dogtown, South Grand, Tower Grove South, Cherokee Street, and so on. The smaller yet thriving business districts where people want to be and land values are still low enough to justify the cost of a small format apartment building with small retail spaces. Maybe even Midtown or Grand Center could see something like this since land values there aren’t near as high as Downtown or the Central West End or Grove.

chriss752 wrote:Some are interested in doing stuff like that, just in some neighborhoods, acquiring the property or properties is expensive and makes a project like this, once you add in the costs of materials, unviable financially.

But, I do see this type of project being a winner in neighborhoods like Dogtown, South Grand, Tower Grove South, Cherokee Street, and so on. The smaller yet thriving business districts where people want to be and land values are still low enough to justify the cost of a small format apartment building with small retail spaces. Maybe even Midtown or Grand Center could see something like this since land values there aren’t near as high as Downtown or the Central West End or Grove.

I think the bigger problem with these smaller 6 plex type buildings is that we still have parking minimums. Get rid of those and I think the central corridor would start to see a lot more of these.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Farting motorcycles" lol, I like it.
Can we get some of that porous asphalt on our highways?

^ oh, god... yes, please.

"It is possible to reduce tire noise significantly by using low noise tires, but manufacturers have lobbied against this for years because they're d*cks."

Subscribed. (Even if me do like car go vroom vroom.)

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 29, 2021

"It is possible to reduce tire noise significantly by using low noise tires, but manufacturers have lobbied against this for years because they're d*cks."

Subscribed. (Even if me do like car go vroom vroom.)

TANGENT:  Funny, yes. And yes, auto industry lobbyists are most often d*cks for a plethora of reasons.

But this is a gross oversimplification.  Auto makers don't want overly noisy tires either - for selfish reasons.  They want cars that are quiet for the driver and passengers. Certainly they can and do soundproof interiors. But soundproofing is expensive and adds *a lot* of extra weight to cars.  Auto makers would much rather not have to deal with that.

Making tires quieter can be done to an extent - and new tire makers have been doing just that.  New tires are uniformly quieter than older ones. Competition between manufacturers is one reason - put two otherwise-identical tires side-by-side but one makes less noise, and informed buyers will often choose the quieter one.  

But to go beyond a certain point in noise reduction means making compromises elsewhere, and those compromises can legitimately impact both safety and fuel economy.  

One of the reason tires are noisy is because they have tread blocks - racing slicks are much quieter at speed.  But tire tread is necessary to evacuate water from under the tire when driving on wet pavement. Eliminate tread and you make it much harder to expel water from under a tire, which can dramatically increase the likelihood of a hydroplaning incident.  Lessening the gaps between the tread on the tire's shoulder has the greatest noise impact on a treaded tire, but even that inhibits the ability to expel water from under the tire to the side. So go too aggressive on the noise mitigation and you make it much more possible to have an accident in the wet.

Another way to reduce tire noise is to use softer compounds. Softer tires = grippier tires, which is great for performance and safety too.  However softer tires wear out much more quickly. This is why high-performance tires tend to last 20,000, even 10,000 miles or less whereas a good all-season tire can go for 40,000-80,000 miles.  And soft tires also have higher rolling resistance, which means worse fuel economy, as more of your motor's energy is going to overcome the stickiness of the tires.  Hybrids and electronic vehicles often have low-rolling-resistance tires for exactly that reason, and their tires are louder for it.

A final way to reduce noise is to reduce the surface area in contact with the road - make tires smaller in diameter and skinnier.  Now this may be the part that is the least 'necessary'  - because it's mostly influenced by design. Bigger, fatter tires are perceived as better tires and therefore more desirable.  And today's bigger cars with higher fender heights (sometimes for design's sake - see nearly every truck and SUV - but also necessary even on smaller cars to accommodate safety requirements for pedestrian impact and crumple zones) 'require' bigger tires for visual balance.  But a bigger contact patch also means greater grip for a given tire composition - which is desireable for performance vehicles but also important for wet and dry evasive maneuvers - both for cornering and, critically, braking.  Most drivers use >10% of a tire's available grip in day-to-day driving.  But having that extra capability there in an emergency situation could mean the difference in having or avoiding an accident.

Governments can and should continue to pressure auto and tire manufactures to make quieter tires.  But practically, they are much likelier to effect a positive  change in noise pollution by designing urban roads to encourage lower speeds (not just lowering speed limits) and requiring the use of asphalt with a lower noise profile.

/TANGENT

-RBB

Thanks for sharing. That was actually pretty interesting.

even with current tires, tire noise isn't much of an issue for the passengers. it's an issue for people outside of the car.

however, as an avid hater of cars and especially all the f*cking noise that they make, i will say that the tire noise bothers me MUCH MUCH less than engine and exhaust noise.

^^^Quieter roads have some of the same costs as quieter tires. Surfaces that are more even are quieter, but they are less apt to expel water. Surfaces that are softer and grippier are quieter, but cut into fuel efficiency. Honestly, I mostly thought it was funny. But you raise some valid points. But the very best answer, the best of all, is to lower speeds in urban areas. (After that require motorcycles and scooters to have effective mufflers. Especially motorcycles.)

The best urban transportation has steel wheels on steel roads and stops like a train. Because . . . oh wait.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2021

^^^Quieter roads have some of the same costs as quieter tires. Surfaces that are more even are quieter, but they are less apt to expel water. Surfaces that are softer and grippier are quieter, but cut into fuel efficiency. Honestly, I mostly thought it was funny. But you raise some valid points. But the very best answer, the best of all, is to lower speeds in urban areas. (After that require motorcycles and scooters to have effective mufflers. Especially motorcycles.)

The best urban transportation has steel wheels on steel roads and stops like a train. Because . . . oh wait.

Yeah I thought it was funny too, and it doesn't invalidate the rest of the video. But as the other parts of the video were ostensibly evidence-based I thought this bit was a bit dismissive, and it was worth mentioning that it wasn't as simple in this case as 'tire makers bad'.
Agreed re: slowing cars down in urban areas. And of course the fewer people who need cars the quieter things will be, as very well demonstrated in the video.

Re: the asphalt, I thought it was interesting that he said the quieter asphalt was 'porous'. It would seem to be that would imply a less smooth surface, which should have a louder profile.  I'd be curious to know its makeup.

My non-expert idea was rubberized asphalt. It's used on the west coast currently, and seems to be a better solution overall - quieter, longer lasting, can be laid on thinner when resurfacing existing streets, and the rubber element is made from ground up tires, which means fewer tires sitting in trash dumps or auto graveyards.  It does cost more to lay per mile, and requires specialized equipment. And it has less working time than traditional asphalt. But it can be laid in colder temperatures, which would seem to be a benefit here. And it would need to be relaid less frequently, which could save costs in the long run.  More info here.

Until such time as STL is able to replace streets with grassy streetcar tracks surrounded by bike lanes, something like this might be worth considering.

-RBB