urbanSTL

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Feb 24, 2022

I think a simple solution is a pedestrian overpass (or, honestly, a few along K'way while it goes to Forest Park.  With all of the hospital traffic, a diet on Kingshighway is probably not feasible.

Getting rid of the ability to park on Kingshighway SB lanes would be a start. For as busy of a roadway as that is, it makes no sense. I watched at least a few crashes because of them when I live in the Montclair. 

Speaking of that building, you're not going to get development of the surface lots flanking the building as those account for at least half of the parking spaces for the building unless Mac Properties comes up with something to offset.

^ Getting off topic but you can see how Kingshighway BRT incorporating center bus lanes & center pedestrian islands doe really stack up well as a great  north south  connector & overall more of an multimodal use of Kingshighway right of way for the city as is is a short walk over to metrolink/ a great & growing jobs center/walkable area on one side and one of the country's premier urban parks on the other side   If not that, Bwcrow suggestion of pedestrian overpasses would add to for the better.  Kinda like you have the crossing on end of Euclid over I64/highway 40.   

Where I really got off topic is the thought  of all the time the city has been trying to get the county to buy into full on N-S metrolink expansion has left some doable transit ideas for north south connectivity on the wayside or not really looked at.  Instead, leadership now spends its time to stave off the Feds trying to clawback loop trolley funds 

reednavy wrote: ↑

Feb 24, 2022

Getting rid of the ability to park on Kingshighway SB lanes would be a start. For as busy of a roadway as that is, it makes no sense. I watched at least a few crashes because of them when I live in the Montclair.

removing the curb parking would definitely not be a start to improving conditions for pedestrians.  wider lanes/fewer obstacles = more speeding/more reckless driving. the solution is fewer lanes, lower speed limits, more curb parking, more curb bump-outs, speeds bumps, protected bike lanes, in-median pedestrian sanctuaries, etc. and maybe some actual enforcement if that ever becomes a thing again.

urban_dilettante wrote:

reednavy wrote: ↑

Feb 24, 2022

Getting rid of the ability to park on Kingshighway SB lanes would be a start. For as busy of a roadway as that is, it makes no sense. I watched at least a few crashes because of them when I live in the Montclair.

removing the curb parking would definitely not be a start to improving conditions for pedestrians.  wider lanes/fewer obstacles = more speeding/more reckless driving. the solution is fewer lanes, lower speed limits, more curb parking, more curb bump-outs, speeds bumps, protected bike lanes, in-median pedestrian sanctuaries, etc. and maybe some actual enforcement if that ever becomes a thing again.

I meant to remove it and use it either as a bus-only lane or wide protected bike lane, at minimum. I’m not advocating at any level to make Kingshighway even more conducive for speeding than it already is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Road dieting on Kingshighway wouldn't make sense with how much traffic it carries.  Pedestrian bridges would be a big change.

Love the idea of someday a BRT line running on it, it's one of the busiest N/S streets in the whole city and it runs along so many attractions/job centers/neighborhoods/resources.

A BRT running from Kingshighway 70 to Gravois would provide mass transit to:

• Mark Twain Industrial park (job center)
• Velodrome/Penrose Park (recreation)
•  City neighborhoods such as Penrose, Kingsway, Fountain Park, Central West End, The Grove / FPSE, The Hill, North/South Hampton, Princeton Heights... (all reasonably dense population centers)
• Direct route to Barnes Jewish campus for jobs (another job center) 
• Forest Park (recreational/cultural hubs)
• Tower Grove Park / MO Botanical Gardens (recreation/cultural hubs)
• Shopping/Dining options all along S Kingshighway including vital resources such as multiple Walgreens for health and the Schnucks on Arsenal, Whole Foods / Straubs in CWE, Autozones for car repairs.
• Connection to the rest of the Metrolink system via the CWE station. (makes the whole city much more interconnected, you can get from many North/South City neighborhoods to Downtown/Airport/UMSL/Clayton and vice versa with just 1 transfer.

Laying it all out like that I'm amazed we don't already have a Kingshighway line, would do wonders for N/S transit in this city and go a looooong way in making it possible to get around St. Louis without a car.

I think the Kingshighway corridor is deserving of transit, but I'm not just convinced that it's more deserving that the Grand corridor for a BRT line, which serves a ton as well, including the busiest bus line in the state. 

Also along the corridor: Grand Center attractions, SLU, SLU Med, Foundry, Armory, Steelcote Square, Tower Grove Park, Carondolet Park, Fairgrounds Park, Compton Hill Park, South Grand district, etc. 

^Big difference between Grand and Kingshighway is that significant portions of Grand, especially south of Arsenal, are only 3 lanes so the buses couldn't get their own. 

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2022

I agree with the above.  I simply think the current configuration ADDS dangerous elements to an already dangerous stretch of road.  I have to tell every out of town visitor to count to 3 to pull onto Kingshighway on a green light and those that jog/run "head on a swivel" getting into the park.  

That said, I think a couple 2-3 pedestrian bridges between 64 and Lindell would be awesome.   I think Laclede is a great candidate location. 

@ West Pine - no pedestrian median and disappearing cross walk paint.

@ Laclede - An improvement, a pedestrian median on the south side, but it has a low curb and the sweeping turn lane cutting into it facilitates cars accelerating through the turn, making it more dangerous.

@ Parkview Place is a great model with a full pedestrian median with a substantial curb and hard corners - this should be copied from Lindell to Hospital Drive

Broadway from 60th to 122nd is a gold standard

reednavy wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2022

urban_dilettante wrote:

reednavy wrote: ↑

Feb 24, 2022

Getting rid of the ability to park on Kingshighway SB lanes would be a start. For as busy of a roadway as that is, it makes no sense. I watched at least a few crashes because of them when I live in the Montclair.

removing the curb parking would definitely not be a start to improving conditions for pedestrians.  wider lanes/fewer obstacles = more speeding/more reckless driving. the solution is fewer lanes, lower speed limits, more curb parking, more curb bump-outs, speeds bumps, protected bike lanes, in-median pedestrian sanctuaries, etc. and maybe some actual enforcement if that ever becomes a thing again.

I meant to remove it and use it either as a bus-only lane or wide protected bike lane, at minimum. I’m not advocating at any level to make Kingshighway even more conducive for speeding than it already is.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gotcha. totally agree that the parking there is harrowing.

Regarding the building architecture, I wish more floors had terraces. It would break up the monotony. To me, the whole thing looks basic. Nice, but basic.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

^ I personally don't get the allure of living in a high(er) rise building and needing to take an elevator just to get some fresh(ish) air.

Is there a reason why balconies are so exclusive on this build, even far less than One Hundred?

bwcrow1s wrote:^ I personally don't get the allure of living in a high(er) rise building and needing to take an elevator just to get some fresh(ish) air.

Is there a reason why balconies are so exclusive on this build, even far less than One Hundred?

The balcony units did fill faster on One Hundred despite being more expensive and less sq.ft.

As for getting some fresh air, if I'm getting off the couch and putting shoes on, I'm probably going for a 15 minute walk. Stepping outside for 30 seconds or sitting outside with a book and a cup of tea doesn't do much for me, even if I am overlooking one of the best city parks in the world. I'd much rather take that tea and book, grab a donut at Pharaohs, and go sit on the boardwalk in Forest Park.

I'll tack this on here since I haven't comment on this yet, I'm very happy with the design. IMO it compliments One Hundred pretty well, anything more dynamic would have clashed. The curved form is still appealing and the two balcony levels are pretty tasteful and restrained. I'm not sure if it's just the golden hour lighting of the rendering but it almost looks like some copper or light bronze color metal. I'd love to see it. Yeah, height is exciting but I like that One Hundred remains the tallest. Maybe some 500' pencil towers next to Montclair would be more fitting for surpassing One Hundred's height.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2022

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0:Agree on the the SB parking removal.  I've seen a handful of accidents where people had plowed into rear of parked cars due to the "jog" in the lanes.  Also, lane widening would significantly help the left turn from FPP to SB Kingshighway.  The inside turn lane is way to sharp to get around the median.  People go wide into the outside turn lane, and have even seen a truck in the outside turn lane cut the corner and pinch a car in the inside one.  Lots of room for improvement...
Who park in those spots? Is it Barnes/Jewish/Childrens employees?

Plus remind me again why so many park in Forest Park and then walk a half mile (if not more) to work? Do they have to pay to park in the garages?

Employees have to pay to park, and it's expensive. I bike or metro like 95% of the time, but occasionally I do have to drive and I park in Forest Park and hike it up to the campus. Parking fees are more than $100/month for people making post doc money (~40k/year), and higher for people who make more money (they have a couple of tiers of pricing, depending on your salary). 

Overall, I am in favor of WUSTL's parking policy - steep parking prices (steep for StL, anyways) and they pay 100% for your metro pass. It definitely pushes people out of cars and onto transit. I can totally see how annoying it is for Forest Park users that it gets treated as a BJC parking lot, though. As one of the guilty parties - I apologize.

The thing is despite these "steep" parking fees there is still a subsidy. They don't cover the cost of constructing the garage, maintenance, lighting, insurance. And the BJC and WUSTL ones are tax-exempt to boot.

I don't disagree with you. But I think their policies are quite a bit better than many other major employers in StL. 

Adam Vaccaro in Boston wrote a really great (Boston focused) piece about this a few years ago (https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/inve ... fic-worse/). I would love to see the city (and county) collect data on who charges for parking (literally the only employer I know of who charges for it is BJC, but my knowledge of downtown StL employers is pretty limited...and I know all those garages cost money) and who subsidizes transit (again, only employer I know of is BJC). If you have data, then you can quantify costs/benefits to the city and its residents. And then it can inform policy. And that would be wonderful. But also a total pipe dream and a pretty far deviation from the aims of this thread so I'll shut up now.

BJC WUSTL parking policy is extremely progressive for this region. I have friends who work downtown where the employer pays monthly for garage parking for each employee. Should the employee choose a car free commute? The employer won't raise the salary or move those funds to a metro pass. It's just use it or lose it.

This would be something SO easy to mandate legislatively. Don't even require employers to pay for Metro passes, just allow employees the option to utilize their parking fees how they see fit. Not only would it save money for all involved, but it creates an additional opportunity cost to driving to work every day.

^ I tried to get my last job to pay for a metro pass. They did for their NYC employees but I couldn’t get it done for me. It was in a decent spot for transit.

Current job you can get a metro pass if you give up your parking privileges. Issue it it is in a horrible spot for transit (not downtown) and would take 3 times as much time to get there.

We really do need better citywide (regionwide) incentives for that sort of thing. I suspect its easier in academia, since even in fairly suburban campuses parking passes cost money. Might well be that you have to pay for parking if you work at city hall or the federal building as well. Probably also the courthouse. Doubtless the arch. Can anyone confirm that? Government seems like another likely suspect. Sort of the low hanging fruit, I suppose.

I know a lot of posters were wishing for something taller and I was curious how a 500ish foot tower would impact the skyline so I took about 3 minutes (and it shows!) to mash up a taller rendition. Dang, I think it looks great. Wish they had the $ to stretch it out a bit.

Museum Tower in Dallas was originally planned @ 20 stories but ended up 42 and 560ft. It also resembles this tower proposal.