Hampton needs walkablility, not more gas stations

2166 Hampton

Greg Johnson ‏@PresbyterianStl
Not as excited: Demolition begins on old the Bradburn's on the Hill in order to make way for a QuickTrip

Rather subpar location for a QT.

Hampton from the park to all the way to Gravois is a good case study for land use planning gone wrong.
drive that stretch you see: auto dealerships, auto repair shops, single family houses, doctors office in single family houses, vets in single family houses, multi family, gas stations, office buildings, radio stations, union halls, railroads, apartment buildings, median parks, parks, strip malls, big box stores....its has everything...

Hampton from the park to all the way to Gravois is a good case study for land use planning gone wrong.

I think you mean "lack" of planning. Hampton happened as an auto-oriented commercial strip, just as everyone started to drive their own SOV cars, and public transportation, especially street cars, was being put out of business in STL.

It's a bizarre area. Some places have opened outdoor patios (Joey B's, Twiggs, Pueblo Solis, St. Louis Pizza and Wings, a couple of Bosnian-owned cafes further south). Patrons of those establishments get to "enjoy" the noise and smells of zooming traffic a few feet away.

It's adjacent to some of the most prosperous city neighborhoods (the Hill, Dogtown, Lindenwood, Clifton Heights, Southampton, St. Louis Hills). And for whatever reason, the residents of those neighborhoods and their leaders (well, except for Ald. Ogilvie) won't begin to consider big ideas for slowing traffic/making the area more pedestrian friendly. Maybe part of the problem is the fact that the street passes through five wards on its way from Forest Park to Gravois?

The results? Many failed businesses. A dearth of greenery. Lots of car accidents. It's not an attractive landscape. My theory as to why this is?

The people in these neighborhoods are too comfortable. They are complacent. They fear change. The heavy Catholic presence is even more loathe to change. They don't much question the status quo (another Catholic thing?). However, rather than make changes, they like to complain, especially about things like crime, but don't do much to consider how they might work to improve the area. They equate "change" with decline.

The wave of Southside progressive reform hasn't reached this area. It's still very old school/traditional. It's not like South Grand. It's a DINO stronghold. It's a place where lots of politicians live and get votes, and a place where old traditions are strong. And those traditions are very autocentric/Catholic-school focused, preserving the status quo.

Wouldn't it be nice to see progressive conversations about the future of Hampton similar to those re. the future of Gravois? N. Florissant?

Think that'll ever happen? My Magic 8 ball says "No". Too much risk in rocking the status quo. Better to let the area tatter around the edges, being the change no one wants, until problems are much worse, than to acknowledge there is any cause for concern. Oh, and money. You'll always hear that first: there's no money. Well, what about forming one or more CIDs/SBDs?

You just stated this...

some of the most prosperous city neighborhoods (the Hill, Dogtown, Lindenwood, Clifton Heights, Southampton, St. Louis Hills).

What reason do they have to change their "traditions that are autocentric/Catholic-school focused"? (At lease you have painted that entire area with a broad brush) Whatever they've been doing has been working for their neighborhood.

What reason do they have to change their "traditions that are autocentric/Catholic-school focused"? (At lease you have painted that entire area with a broad brush) Whatever they've been doing has been working for their neighborhood.

Why?

How about these (not my words):

That stretch of Hampton is already a auto-centric race track.

Hampton from the park to all the way to Gravois is a good case study for land use planning gone wrong.

Hampton needs walkablility, not more gas stations

I actually like the chit show that is Hampton between 44 and arsenal.

Northside Neighbor wrote:

What reason do they have to change their "traditions that are autocentric/Catholic-school focused"? (At lease you have painted that entire area with a broad brush) Whatever they've been doing has been working for their neighborhood.

Why?

How about these (not my words):

That stretch of Hampton is already a auto-centric race track.

Hampton from the park to all the way to Gravois is a good case study for land use planning gone wrong.

Hampton needs walkablility, not more gas stations

Yea it seems like at least from what I've seen in the Hill neighborhood is they don't care at all about Hampton or Kingshighway. It's just what happens between them. I mean on Hampton between Arsenal and interstate 64 there is 5 gas stations not including this QT. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of them close because of the QT opening. It's a shame because at least south of 44 Hampton could easily be this wonderful street especially with the divided greenway in the center

It's a shame because at least south of 44 Hampton could easily be this wonderful street especially with the divided greenway in the center

For this to happen would require vision and leadership from local community organizations and support from elected officials. Who ya gonna call?

My point is that it seems for the people that live immediately off of Hampton, they don't need Hampton to be less autocentric or walkable. The area around their house (their block) is walkable, quiet, prosperous, etc. Would Hampton be more enjoyable if it was more walkable? Maybe, probably. But you have to figure out a way to convince people that a less autocentric, more walkable Hampton is needed and a benefit for them. Because right now, most people's lives are just fine the way Hampton currently is. And making Hampton less autocentric, only makes it more difficult for those people to drive, while not changing much for the immediate block they might live on. I lived on Devonshire a block off of Hampton for 5 years. I never had any heart ache over how Hampton was/is.

But that's to you, and me, and maybe most people on this forum right? The neighborhoods along Hampton are great neighborhoods. Trying to convince people in these neighborhood that Hampton as-is is not good enough, that's a tough sell.

We all have our ideas about urban design and what is a better way to design a street and the properties along it. Everyone has their own rough recipe for creating great streets/spaces. But I think we focus too much on how the other side is wrong instead of trying to incorporate their "autocentric" mentality into our urban design theories. We say things like they are "complacent, fear change, traditional, preserving the status quo". Instead we should be saying how do we get what "those" people want into a design that we believe is better while also improving the status quo.

People on the forum sound bummed about a QT going in. IMO, I think most people that drive Hampton regularly are likely happy about a QT going in. We do a terrible job of relaying our message to the people that still want the QT and want the quick drive to the highways, and we do a terrible job of trying to incorporate what they want into our world view.

My point is that it seems for the people that live immediately off of Hampton, they don't need Hampton to be less autocentric or walkable. The area around their house (their block) is walkable, quiet, prosperous, etc. Would Hampton be more enjoyable if it was more walkable? Maybe, probably. But you have to figure out a way to convince people that a less autocentric, more walkable Hampton is needed and a benefit for them. Because right now, most people's lives are just fine the way Hampton currently is. And making Hampton less autocentric, only makes it more difficult for those people to drive, while not changing much for the immediate block they might live on. I lived on Devonshire a block off of Hampton for 5 years. I never had any heart ache over how Hampton was/is.

If Hampton is a race track, your block next to it is not walkable. It's dangerous.

But you have to figure out a way to convince people that a less autocentric, more walkable Hampton is needed and a benefit for them. Because right now, most people's lives are just fine the way Hampton currently is.

Do we want a walkable city? Sure, just so long as it doesn't affect me.

And making Hampton less autocentric, only makes it more difficult for those people to drive, while not changing much for the immediate block they might live on.

How big of a cost would this actually be? How "more difficult" would their lives be? Is there no upside? Is this just a complete non-starter because it's too hard? To me, the ironic part of all of this Hampton re-imagining thing is just that - forget it. Go imagine places like S. Grand, Kingsghighway, Natural Bridge, N. Grand. Whatever. Just don't mess with Hampton. We like our local speedway/autocentric/traffic sewer just the way it is, thank you very much.

St. Louis is a weird place. Come to me with your grand visions. Your big problems. Your legacy challenges. But don't mess with my block! Don't move my dumpster! Don't change my neighborhood!

And people complain about our weak civic planning function. I think deep down inside, most people are perfectly fine with things the way they are. Unless they live in a place with woefully horrible problems/challenges. Then they want everything changed right now. Northside crime. Abandonment/decay. Etc.

Good luck getting a new idea very far. Very tough to get a clear read on this place. Very tough indeed.

^Do you try to go through the thought process of the people that would be against something like we're discussing? Or do you just say "my idea is good. They are wrong. All of those people are stuck in the past."? If you aren't trying to see their perspective, you are not going to get anywhere.

I'm not trying to say you are right or they are right about whatever hypothetical spiral to the bottom of a conversation we are going down.....again . There's multiple ways of solving a problem. I think it would more productive if you stopped worrying about how wrong "they" are and worried more about how to incorporate their wants into a good design.

Anyways, another gas station isn't ideal. But if it is a foregone conclusion, does anyone believe there is a possibility of building it in a way that is remotely desirable?

The wrong part is the lack of discussion. I said early on that the challenge is getting people to even engage. There is no right or wrong if there is no engagement. There's nothing. So I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of this discussion. We aren't at the point of debating any solutions, because we really aren't even agreeing whether there is any concern whatever. You sort of started from the point of view of "if it's not broke, don't fix it".

So while the thread began with a number of observations of a rather depressing traffic sewer of a condition, we're now sort of dismissing the identification of design flaws because we're not empathizing enough with the neighbors satisfied with the current rather uninspiring situation. And if these contented neighborhood residents aren't interested in addressing the issue (if they'd even agree there is a problem, which clearly, we understand, that's an open question), then how/where do we even begin?

And to get to your last point, the notion of building a "remotely desirable" QT, is that a serious question? QTs are leaders. They blow away the competition. They leave closed QT stores (one now re-purposed as a gun store on Gravois Road in Lemay) and closed competitor stores in their wake. Does Hampton Avenue need another glorious filling station? Should we even care? Again, as I mentioned last time, very tough to get a read on this place. So we are now to debate the aesthetics of state of the art gas/convenience stores? Seriously? Like that's really an interesting matter of neighborhood life? Okay.

I love when people blame the Catholics in South City for everyone's problems when we were the ones that didn't run for the hills as the public school declined, crime and murder rates rose, and the tax burden increasingly fell on us. I'm all for more walkability and sensible urban planning, but acting like somehow the nice neighborhoods of South City are some autocentric wasteland is a ridiculous starting point.

^^So your answer to the question would be that "No, I don't believe its a possibility". The question was about if a QT is even a possibility. If you believe it should never happen, but other people want it, then there is no middle ground. You have nothing to agree on. And if there is more of them, then there are of you, they will win the argument.

I said early on that the challenge is getting people to even engage.

Right. I agree. How are you going to engage people when you don't have any middle ground? There is no compromise. For you, the answer is no QT. So why should someone who wants a QT listen to you?

I'm not saying I want a QT. I just don't see how you are going to get your point across when many people in that area may not see a QT as a problem, or the autocentric-ness of Hampton as a whole. How do we get people to change their options on things like that? How do we get people to understand that a QT is unnecessary without just telling them they are wrong?

For me it's not about what I like dislike or what residents nearby like or dislike in urban design. It's that in order to pay for the level of infrastructure and services we'd like, what sort of built environment can support it? We need to "do the math." I argue that walkable places can and auto-centric ones cannot.

I love when people blame the Catholics in South City for everyone's problems when we were the ones that didn't run for the hills as the public school declined, crime and murder rates rose, and the tax burden increasingly fell on us. I'm all for more walkability and sensible urban planning, but acting like somehow the nice neighborhoods of South City are some autocentric wasteland is a ridiculous starting point.

Um, North St. Louis was once filled with vibrant parishes, now a largely littered landscaped of abandoned magnificent churches.

Could we start by making Chippewa to Gravois two lanes? Anyone ever try and run across the street to the Green Goose while waiting for you pizza at JJ Twigs? Records and blizzards?