What happens when a street is just no good?

Having a quality streetscape is beyond important, and one essential elements of this is having buildings that address the street. But, what if the street isn’t any good? Should buildings still address it? What happens when a street is just no good?

The River Crossing Apartments in St. Paul are pretty good. It’s St. Paul’s largest project in recent memory; and it’s an infill project, dense, nicely landscaped, moderately well designed, connected to transit and near the great biking and walking paths along the Mississippi River. It can be a little bland, but all-in-all, it ain’t bad.

The problem I once had was that it did a poor job of connecting people to the street. It mostly ignores the street, although the landscaping and tree plantings look genuinely good. If you walk around the development, you’ll notice that most of the 1st floor apartments are elevated a good distance from street level (here’s an example of where the entrance to the building is elevated much higher than street-grade). This gives the complex an uncomfortable, disconnected feel.

New buildings that are forced to accommodate a bad street, or to create a good street that’s worth accommodating? Before criticizing the development for doing this, I wanted to put myself in the shoes of the developer. I asked myself, “what benefit does this development gain from accommodating the street? None. Nothing. No benefit whatsoever.

West 7th Street and South Davern make up a very unattractive section of town. What was once a stop on the extensive Twin Cities Rapid Transit streetcar system turned into a series of strip malls, parking lots, gas stations and fast food restaurants.

The apartment building abuts a drive-thru Taco Bell, BP gas station, an abandoned gas station, a strip mall and a large “park-n-ride” for the airport. The complex is an island, and I can’t blame the developers for taking that route. Would you want to open your front door and walk out towards a ‘park-n-ride’?

Like downtown’s 7 corners, this is certainly another corner that has devolved. There are certainly more influential factors at play here, such as additional cost of digging the underground parking, elevated floors for better views of the river and the perception of increased safety, etc. Long articles could be written about each of these examples. The point here is: why accommodate the street when there is nothing to engage?

This is where I get stuck: from a policy stand-point, what direction do you take this? Force developers to accommodate the street – even when it’s a really bad street? Or, allow infill developers some leniency at first, then buckle down once the urban fabric starts to eventually recover?

One remedy would be to immediately stop devolving our streets and roadways. The Nokohaha Blog occasionally runs a feature called “Then and Now“. It takes a photograph of a building in the Twin Cities  from sometime in the past 100 years, and compares it to how it looks today. The most noticeable feature of the “Now” is how we’ve so aggressively degraded our urban environment to accommodate the automobile.

A few months ago, they ran a “Then and Now” at the intersection of Franklin and Lyndale Avenues.

This is 1920.

This is now.

This is a perfect example of how streetscapes in the Twin Cities have devolved. But, let’s use this historic photograph as a quick learning tool and analyze what exactly went wrong here.

For starters, the building is the most noticeably uglier. A majority of the large windows facing the street have been covered; and sometime in the last 90 years, someone thought it was a good idea to put some wood paneling over the original brick facade. This building no longer accommodates the street. Instead, it tries to pretend it isn’t there.

To accommodate the automobile, the sidewalks were downgraded from pleasant to unsightly. The road got wider and the sidewalks got smaller. The green buffer of grass and trees that once lined street were replaced with pavement that serves on-street parking. And, as the road widened to accommodate the need for more traffic, the once-bricked street got covered in blacktop and the streetcar tracks were removed.

One might think that car-oriented urban transformations, like Franklin and Lyndale Avenues, would halt most pedestrian activity. This hasn’t been the case. In fact, this might be one of the busiest intersections in all of Minneapolis – and that is why it’s so hard to believe this corner looks like this.

The surrounding neighborhood is dense and walkable (walk score: 82) and countless small businesses, such as cafes, pubs and retail shops, line the streets. So, it’s surprising more care hasn’t gone into transforming this intersection into something other than a means of moving automobiles as quickly and conveniently as possible.

This leads me back to my original question: What happens when a street is just no good? Well, it looks like we’ll have to start with streets (possibly some road-diets) and go from there.

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

11 Responses to What happens when a street is just no good?

  1. gml4 February 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Good post Nate. In Mound we are getting a new Walgreens in our commerce district. They are building a street side building, with parking in the back, but they only want to out a door on the parking lot side, and are reticent about a door towards the street for security. I am hopeful we can insist a street side door as our commerce district will need the flexibility of such planning.

  2. Nathaniel M Hood
    Nathaniel February 20, 2012 at 3:11 am #

    gml4 –

    I'd love to get the updates on the Walgreen's situation. And, yes – it definitely should have a door that opens to the sidewalk / front of the building. Doors on the back parking lot side is the equivalent of flipping the bird to the public realm.

  3. Xan February 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Is that a gas pump next to the tree in front of the building? I'm pretty sure it is.

    This building has bugged me for years. I use to live and work down there and it is the nicest building on the intersection, except no one can tell it is. And while we are on the subject, why can we not make signs that stay straight up anymore? They bend this way and that, they are different heights, just thrown up as an afterthought. Look how nice and straight everything is in the old photo.

    • Nathaniel M Hood
      Nathaniel February 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

      Yes, it is a gas pump. Sigh. We create too much of our urban environment as an afterthought.

  4. Jeff Z February 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    gml4 –

    If I am not mistaken the walgreens at 49 1/2th and France in edina only has a street side entrance with parking in the back and that store has been there as long as I can remember.

    • Nathaniel M Hood
      Nathaniel February 20, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

      It can be done, and that's a good example (one that I had forgotten about). Unfortunately it often times isn't the case as good urbanism from a chain pharmacy is the exception, not the rule.

  5. Andy Lee February 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Great post and great blog Nathaniel! I could not agree with you more about how the public realm sets the tone for building interaction with the street. Two other examples of this can be seen on 9th Street in Elliot Park where you have some of the best street oriented residential buildings (though they have seen better days) and the area around Hennepin and Central.

    I think your right that developers, and traffic engineers mutually assure bad pedestrian space. Traffic engineers see streets as sewers for traffic, and developers see no reason to decorate their sewer entrance, ensuring that traffic engineers won't see the value in a property enhancing (and ped friendly) streetscape.

    • Nathaniel M Hood
      Nathaniel February 20, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

      Thanks for reading! I'll make sure to head down and check out 9th Street in Elliot Park later this week. The mutually assured bad pedestrian space is a cycle we need to break. I think it comes with creating a good street space first – that and requiring new government buildings to address / improve the streetscape, and hopefully the private sector will shortly follow suit.

  6. Matt February 21, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    gml4 sounds like the Walgreens on Snelling and Randolph… not as bad as it could be, but definitely ignores a prominent corner.

  7. Matt February 21, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    My plan for the River Crossing was to reconnect the grid in that area and push the through-traffic to Shepard. http://g.co/maps/8be55 (Yes, I recognize the "freeway" section is overkill and I don't know if I'd suggest it now)

    The best plan for this area would be to run LRT along the CP Ford plant spur…

    From Ft. Snelling Station, split around the federal bldg and cross 55. Then cut through Ft. Snelling at grade somehow and across a second deck on the Fort Road Bridge. This deck could also have a nice wide pedestrian/bike trail to get rid of the current afterthought path with stairs at both ends. It would connect perfectly at grade on both sides of the bridge and the highway would feel like it's in a trench.

  8. Nathaniel M Hood
    Nathaniel February 21, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Matt-

    I like plan and the map. Great work. Might be a tad to ambitious for St. Paul's liking. Nonetheless, make no small plans! Best -Nate

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!