"The Coolest Thing I Have Ever Seen in My Whole Life"

Moment of Impact

So declared my five year-old son at the end of yesterday's demolition ceremonies that kicked off the plan to redevelop the St. Louis Centre mall into ground-floor retail and upper-level parking, and the Dillard's building into the "Laurel" project that will house an Embassy Suites, apartments, and additional street-level retail.  I think a bit of exaggeration was going on, but perhaps I could have saved some money on that Disney trip last summer--next time we'll just hit a nearby construction site!

I agree that the pedestrian bridge was an ugly barrier and that its removal will help beautify Washington Avenue and, later, Locust Street (removal of that skybridge is scheduled for later this year).  Hopefully it will be, at least symbolically, the "turning point" intended by city leaders in the ongoing rejuvenation of downtown (although the proposed use of the St. Louis Centre will continue to be a subject of much debate).  Beyond that, I can't say that the removal of the skybridge has as much emotional meaning for me as it clearly does for many people--I simply haven't been in St. Louis long enough.  I wasn't around for the controversial decision to clear the site for a large indoor mall, or to see the project's painful failure.

I am, however, greatly interested in the future of downtown, and in that respect, I thought the most exciting aspect of yesterday's events was simply the large crowd of St. Louisans that gathered for what was clearly an important (even emotional) moment for many.  It is always exciting to see how many people care about the city, and it is that spirit that needs to be cultivated and expanded.  Here are a few pictures and a video of the festivities.

Your Friendly Downtown Guide and Downtown Clean Team,
part of the St. Louis Downtown Community Improvement District

Tweet

St. Louis United: Thoughts on Reunification

The City of St. Louis, 1844
Source

In February 2010, St. Louis City Mayor Francis Slay made the first of several recent public statements advocating the reunification of St. Louis City and St. Louis County.  His blog post on February 25th lamented that much of the metropolitan region's "energy is spent competing with each other--municipality against municipality, City versus County."  To heal those divisions, Mayor Slay called for the City to re-enter the County as an "important early step," and proposed in an interview that same day to put the issue to City and County voters within two years.

The secession of the City from the County became official in 1876.  (For a detailed look at the events leading up to and following secession, take a look at this recent paper written by Joe Huber, a junior at Christian Brothers College High School, first published by urbanstl.com and subsequently picked up by several media outlets).  By the early 20th century, the City's decision to split from the County was already recognized as a mistake. As the population of the County grew (from approximately 27,000 residents at the time of secession), the City (with 310,000 residents) "found itself pushing against its western border at Skinker and began to regret its decision to divorce itself from the county." Several failed attempts to reunite the City and the County were made in the century following secession, most recently in the 1980s.

Today, the separation of the City and the County--not to mention the existence of 91 separate municipalities within the County--is often cited as a principal cause of regional stagnation. Wasteful duplication of services and intra-regional competition are two primary factors seen as resulting in a self-defeating metropolitan area that fails to realize its potential and loses opportunities to its geographic rivals. Proponents of re-joining the City and the County, including Mayor Slay, believe that reducing this infighting and inefficiency is a key step toward staying "competitive both nationally and globally."

The City of St. Louis (and Chicago), 1856
Source

If, however, the City's original decision to split from the County was controversial, the notion of re-joining the two today is even more so.  This seems particularly true for those County residents who believe that the City--facing problems of poverty, crime, and education shared by many urban cores--would be a "drag" on the more prosperous County.  Others think that re-joining the City and the County is simply unachievable at this point, or even unnecessary.  In early 2006, John Temporiti, campaign manager for County Executive Charlie Dooley, ruled out the possibility of the unification of the City and the County in the short-term, and said it was unlikely even "in our lifetime."  UMSL political scientist Terry Jones in 2007 characterized the split as "irrelevant today," and even that it "makes us what we are." 

Although any government consolidation is likely to have both good and bad ramifications, preliminarily I agree with those who believe that reunification would be a net positive for the St. Louis metropolitan area, at least in the long-term (which, I believe, is the only way you can think about this kind of issue).  In addition, I think the region may be at a critical juncture that, despite multiple setbacks over the last century, could provide a unique opportunity to actually achieve that goal.

Tweet

The Costs, Benefits, and Politics of Historic Tax Credits

Syndicate Trust Building, Downtown St. Louis
Source

Count me among the many who believe that the continued, unfettered availability of the Missouri historic rehabilitation tax credit is critical to the ongoing revitalization of not only downtown St. Louis, but many other historic areas and buildings across the state. I do not doubt that Governor Nixon and his allies truly believe that their proposed changes to the program are necessary in light of the increased use of the credit over recent years, especially at a time of economic and budgetary hardship. Nonetheless, the apparent thoughtlessness with which they are approaching the issue--at least if we are to judge them by their public statements--is incredibly galling.

In these last few days of the 2010 legislative session, we will find out the extent to which Governor Nixon has been able to garner support for lowered caps on the program or other harmful modifications.  For the time being, it appears that he may be backing off some of the more controversial proposals, such as giving total control over the program to the Department of Economic Development, but significantly reduced caps remain very much on the table.  While we wait for the final results of this session, here is a quick look at the historic tax credit ("HTC") program's documented costs and benefits, and some of the political considerations that should be on the minds of the program's supporters as the fight inevitably continues.

The Costs

Missouri HTCs are a dollar-for-dollar credit against a taxpayers' liability for certain state taxes, including income tax (excluding withholding tax), bank tax, and insurance premium tax.  The credit is equal to 25% of a project's qualified rehabilitation expenditures ("QREs"), providing a powerful incentive when coupled with the 20% federal historic tax credit (and, often, "twinned" with other incentives such as the low income housing tax credit). 

There is no question that the use of Missouri tax credits, including HTCs, has greatly increased over the last decade.  As noted in a March 2010 Program Evaluation released by the Missouri Committee on Legislative Research, Oversight Division, overall tax credits (not just HTCs) have increased from $145 million redeemed in 1999 (representing 2.97% of related taxes), to $588 million redeemed in 2009 (representing 8.04% of related taxes).  In 2009, historic tax credits constituted approximately 20% of all Missouri tax credits issued (approximately $120 million out of $581 million total), and approximately 32% of all credits redeemed (approximately $186 million out of $588 million total).

Tweet

Open Streets: A Great Way to See Downtown

Looking East from 16th Street and Locust Street

Today was the first of four Open Streets events in St. Louis, giving walkers, joggers, bikers, and skaters an opportunity to enjoy a vehicle-free route stretching from Forest Park to downtown.  The next three events (with a different route) will be held on Sunday, June 13th (featuring Trailnet's Bike St. Louis City Tour and an opportunity to watch the Tour de Grove), Sunday September 19th (featuring a "Bike to Busch" event), and Saturday, October 9th.

My wife, kids (in a bike trailer) and I used the first Open Streets as an opportunity to explore downtown, rather than ride the entire route from Forest Park (next time!).  In all, this was a great, really fun event.  Here are a couple of thoughts on how it can be even better.

So Close, Yet So Far Away

First, what a shame that a 6.5+ mile ride ends (or begins, depending on which way you go) less than a half mile from the Arch and the river.  Imagine if the route took you all the way into the Memorial, culminating in family-friendly events on the waterfront.  This is a perfect example of the gross underutilization of the very best features of the City.  Hopefully, this will not be an issue once the infrastructure barrier problem is mitigated (or better yet, completely eliminated) upon completion of the Memorial improvements in 2015.  In the meantime, I would suggest that the route at least be extended further east to allow participants to see and enjoy even more of our beautiful downtown.

Second, I don't know what level of attendance/participation was expected, but there is no reason we can't do better next time.  I'm not sure when this event was first announced, but I didn't hear about it until urbanstl.com blogged about it this past Monday.  Subsequently, not one single person I mentioned it to or asked to join me had heard about it.   Maybe this first event wasn't announced until this past week, but if it was earlier than that, the City has got to do a better job in communicating to the public for subsequent events.

I think we can, and should, help in that regard.  Let's view Open Streets as an opportunity to invite people who might not otherwise be favorably disposed toward downtown to come and view it in a new light.  It's great that people who are inclined to participate in these sort of urban events do participate--but I don't think that's enough.  Let's get new people downtown.  It's the old idea of changing "hearts and minds," one person at a time.  I believe that just getting people down there is half the challenge, and that once there, most people could not help but appreciate and enjoy the beautiful built environment the rest of us love.

Louderman Lofts and Rooster restaurant, 11th Street and Locust Street

So here's a challenge (and I hope that Open Streets does not mind my piggy-backing on their event, the purpose of which is not specifically to promote our downtown).  I would ask everyone who reads this to do what they can to get the word out about Open Streets, with a goal of getting at least ten people who would not otherwise have participated (or, perhaps, even known about the event) to attend the next event in June.  I don't know if ten is the right number--hopefully most people could get many more than that.  Let's use this as an opportunity to bring to downtown people who would not otherwise go, even people who think they don't even like the City.  This goes to something that Alex at urbanstl.com mentioned to me in an e-mail: that those interested in downtown revitalization need to work to "move out of the echo chamber . . . and really have an impact on the city."  So, let's shout it from the rooftops folks--and see you in June!

End of the Line at 8th Street and Locust Street

Detour to Citygarden

Tweet

Framing a Modern Masterpiece: Meet the Design Teams

Meet the Design Teams Program

Earlier tonight, representatives from the five design teams remaining in the Memorial competition were introduced to the public at the Roberts Orpheum Theater.  At this stage, the teams are discussing only design philosophies and sample projects; actual design concepts will not be unveiled until August. 

Joe Buck hosted the event, mixing humor with obvious passion for St. Louis and the Arch (likening the contestants to "make-up artists for Cindy Crawford").  Buck's anecdotes about the Arch predated his own birth: in 1965, his late father Jack conducted an interview on a platform at the top of the Arch as the keystone piece was dropped in.

Making a strong case for St. Louis and its residents, Buck asked the contestants to "spend some time here and meet the people who make this city great."  Buck noted that the project not only represents the most meaningful renovations underaken in the Memorial's history, but is also one of the most intriguing urban projects in the pipeline in the United States. 

Don Stastny, the overall manager of the competition, followed Buck's introductory comments—and it is clear that St. Louis is lucky to have him at the helm of this critically important project.  Stastny, one of the top competition managers in the country and a recipient of the AIA Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture in 2009, is obviously passionate about the Arch and understands its vital role in the urban landscape of downtown St. Louis.  Calling himself "deeply honored and proud" to be involved in the competition, Stastny referred to the Arch as a "tremendous symbol" of which all St. Louisans and Americans should be proud.

Stastny remarked on the numerous "moving parts" involved in the competition, both in terms of disciplines (architecture, urban design, engineering, landscaping, transportation) and natural and manmade features (highways, the river, the Arch, the Archgrounds, and the East Bank).  A key point of the competition, noted Stastny, is to weave the Memorial back into the urban fabric.  He made the interesting point that when you leave the Memorial, all signs lead you out of town, as opposed to into downtown—something he hopes the renovations will change.

Stastny gave a brief history of the design competition to date, before noting that the recently-begun third and final stage is "where the rubber hits the road."  As noted, the teams' design concepts will be unveiled in August at a public event, and will be displayed both at the Memorial and at various rotating spots throughout the city.  The final design will be selected in September, with the ribbon cutting scheduled for October 28, 2015—the 50th anniversary of the Arch.

The design teams were then each alloted fifteen minutes for a presentation by their representative(s) on the composition of their team, their general design philosophy, and a sampling of past projects.  At this stage, the teams are still speaking in relatively abstract (and similar) terms, but there are some noticeable differences in philosophical approaches:

• The Behnisch Team focused on the "needs of people" (stating that a "good city is a city with a human dimension"), as well as the built environment by calling for the Memorial to become an "active catalyst for urban cohesion."
• The approach of the MVVA Team seems primarily landscape-oriented, stressing that landscape (1) accommodates a humane scale, (2) provides continuity, and (3) is affordable.
• The PWP Landscape Architecture, Foster + Partners, Civitas team (whose representative personally knew both Eero Saarinen and Dan Kiley) advocated "subtle and respectful" changes that, while transformative, are so natural that they're barely noticeable to the majority of the public.
• The SOM, Hargreaves, BIG team stressed "making places for people" (places that are "alive" every day), as well as tying design ideas into a community's bold, long-range plans to "create economic vitality."  
• The Weiss/Manfredi team referred to three primary design categories, titled "Icon and Setting," "Connections," and "Layering Programs."  The interesting facet of this team's approach was an affinity for embracing barriers (such as highways), by turning them into connections and "capturing their energy" without actually removing them.

To review each team's "Statement of Intent," click here.

In my opinion, the SOM, Hargreaves, BIG team was the most impressive, both from a presentation perspective and with respect to the team members' sample projects, which include Chicago's Millennium Park, San Francisco's Crissy Field (described by the team as "another beloved landscape within the shadow of its national landmark, the Golden Gate Bridge"), Houston's Discovery Green, Louisville's Waterfront Park, and London's Canary Wharf.  Apparently Joe Buck felt the same way, given that he jokingly declared the competition "over" after the team's presentation.  I would be interested to get reactions from other attendees.

I would have liked a little more specificity and a little less abstraction from the design teams, but in all, this was a really exciting event.  It's almost hard to believe that, in only five and a half years, the Memorial and the Missisippi riverfront will (hopefully) be significantly different than they are today.  I, for one, know exactly where I will be on October 28, 2015.  How often can you say that about a day that is 2,009 days away? Tweet

Revitalizing the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial: A Vision for Transformative Change

Of all the exciting projects contributing to the ongoing revitalization of downtown St. Louis, perhaps none has the potential to be as transformative as the National Park Service’s plan to renovate the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial—home of the Gateway Arch. The ongoing design competition provides an enormous opportunity to energize downtown, increase regional tourism, and change the fundamental nature of St. Louisans’ relationship to the Memorial and the riverfront.

In my view, the key to the unqualified success of the competition is the creation of bold, world-class improvements to the Memorial that realize the competition’s primary goal—the reconnection of the City to the Arch and the River—to the greatest extent possible. Here, I propose a plan that I believe would achieve that level of success: the construction of two distinctive, yet complementary, buildings on the Memorial grounds, exceptionally suited to the Memorial and appropriately deferential of the Arch. Although these ideas are offered outside the context of the design competition, my hope is that they are compelling enough to have some positive impact, however small, on those directly involved in the urban revival of downtown generally, if not the redesign of the Memorial in particular.

A Quick Bit of Background: A Call for Change

(Credit: http://www.britannica.com/)

For many people, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial means one thing—the Gateway Arch. The Memorial actually is much more than that, encompassing sixty-two acres of landscaped grounds surrounding Eero Saarinen’s masterpiece, plus adjacent areas such as the Old Courthouse. Dan Kiley designed the grounds—considered to be a masterpiece in their own right—to complement and evoke the Arch without drawing attention away from it. In the words of the National Park Service (“NPS”), “[t]he scale, impact, and design of the grounds constitute an essential mooring for the world-famous Arch and merge the Arch and its grounds, with one reflecting the other.”

Tweet

Welcome to St. Louis Energized!

I officially became a St. Louisan in April 2006—admittedly, with a fair degree of hesitation. Although we are Midwesterners, my wife and I had just spent the prior four years in San Francisco, where we were extremely happy living and working in the city. I had a fun (no, really!) job as a real estate attorney at a law firm in the Financial District, and we spent our free time exploring a vibrant new city and the spectacular natural beauty of Northern California. Needless to say, it was an incredible place to spend a small part of our lives, and it was very difficult to leave.

Ultimately, we decided (correctly) to return to the Midwest to raise our children closer to our families. There was a period of adjustment as with any move to a new city, but I soon grew very fond of our new home (we live in University City). Four years later, I consider myself to be a full-fledged St. Louisan, and could not imagine ever leaving.

In my opinion, St. Louis (and here, I am talking about both the City proper and the greater metropolitan area) is one of the great American cities. There are many things to love about this town—the neighborhoods, the urban parks, the food, the architecture, the sports, the culture, and mostly, the people. Although I have spent most of my adult life in Missouri, I also have lived in several states on both coasts, and in various urban and rural settings, and I am incredibly grateful that St. Louis is where I have ended up to put down long-term roots.

One thing that never ceases to surprise me, however, is the extent to which many of the region's residents seem to fail to appreciate—or even downright disparage—the City itself. Of course, the City of St. Louis, as with most urban cores, has many challenges that are very real and very serious. Problems relating to poverty, education, housing, transportation, crime, and homelessness cannot be ignored or discounted in analyzing the present or future state of our community.

At the same time, a lot of exciting things are happening in the City. There are clearly many passionate people working hard to revitalize the City, increase density, and tackle various socioeconomic issues that affect our City and its residents. Numerous positive developments have occurred in recent years, and on balance, I see a lot of reasons to be hopeful about the years ahead.

In Spring 2010, I decided to launch St. Louis Energized as a way to contribute to the positive side of the discussion on the rejuvenation of the City of St. Louis. The site will explore issues relating to the ongoing revitalization of the City (particularly downtown), both in terms of specific development efforts as well as general urban infill issues. In particular, I intend to discuss topics relating to historic preservation and related conservation issues, primarily from a market-based (rather than regulatory) perspective.

Although I am a real estate attorney, this site is really intended to be a layman's view of these issues. I am not an expert in urban planning, green construction, or architecture. I am not a life-long native of St. Louis, and do not pretend to have a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues facing the City—although I am doing my best to learn as much, and as quickly, as possible. My intent is simply to help communicate a positive vision for the future of the City in the upcoming decades, ultimately with the hope that it inspires at least a few people to get involved in making St. Louis an even more remarkable place than it already is.

I hope you enjoy the site! Tweet