Allied Strategy Recommendations

⬚ figure

Allied Strategy Recommendations

In its legal role as part of the comprehensive plan, the SLUP has certain powers, but it can’t do everything on its own. Other elements of the comprehensive plan (like transportation and sustainability) and other policies, entities, and practices need to align to address the issues and opportunities facing St. Louis.

The following pages introduce a set of recommended strategies that complement the more regulatory components of the SLUP, the land use designations and map, to support the implementation of the vision and goals of the SLUP. These strategies are a guide for partners across City government and the many other entities and organizations that shape and influence land use in St. Louis. Some of these strategies amplify and continue ongoing efforts while others introduce new opportunities and needs.

These strategies are organized by vision theme and then by goal. Each recommended strategy includes a number of potential efforts, which are the specific policies, practices, and changes that could bring these strategies to life. Many of these efforts are illustrated by case studies from other cities, where policies like these have been implemented.

The Goals

The three elements of this vision are interconnected and dependent on each other — one cannot come without the others. While this vision is lofty, the SLUP has goals that are specific to land use:

⬚ figure

An equitable St. Louis is one where there is intentional effort to improve conditions for people and places harmed and marginalized by past and current policies and practices.

The SLUP has three goals for equity:

1. Offer housing options that meet the diverse needs of the community, and support residents staying in their neighborhoods through change and growth.
2. Intentionally reflect the opportunities and needs of disinvested areas and people in the land use designations, map, and policies.
3. Expand opportunities for more people of St. Louis to build their wealth and stake in the city by increasing their understanding and facilitating them being part of development and change, particularly people from historically disinvested communities and groups (including small-scale developers).

A growing St. Louis is one where a diversity of people, institutions, and businesses want to come to St. Louis and to stay here.

The SLUP has three goals for growing:

1. Reimagine vacancy as an asset that can be activated to support, retain, and attract residents.
2. Encourage development that builds from, improves, and enhances assets like parks, cultural and educational institutions, and the Mississippi River.
3. Guide growth and change in a manner that will help St. Louis more readily adapt to a changing climate.

A thriving St. Louis is one where all people, institutions, and businesses have what they need to flourish, succeed, and be part of a strong community.

The SLUP has three goals for thriving:

1. Ensure that all residents have safe and convenient access to core services like food and healthcare and support people’s ability to thrive in St. Louis without a car.
2. Foster community and public spaces that feel family friendly, safe, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities.
3. Foster an environment that supports the growth of jobs at a wide variety of future-facing businesses and organizations across the city, particularly in Nodes, Corridors, Central Areas, Campuses, and Industrial Centers.

Vision Theme

Equitable

An equitable St. Louis is one where there is intentional effort to improve conditions for people and places harmed and marginalized by past and current policies and practices.

Equitable Goal 1:

Offer housing options that meet the diverse needs of the community, and support residents staying in their neighborhoods through change and growth.

E1.1 Establish a citywide housing strategy.

E1.1.A: Develop a citywide strategy for housing.

E1.2 Increase the supply and diversity of housing options.

E1.2.A: Revise regulations to encourage the creation and preservation of a variety of housing types, with sensitivity to the surrounding context and historic fabric.

E1.2.B: Create pre-approved housing plans to accelerate creation of diverse housing types.

E1.2.C: Coordinate and support infrastructure investment to assist with housing rehabilitation and construction.

E1.2.D: Support the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

E1.2.E: Create more universally-designed, aging-friendly, accessible housing.

E1.2.F: Continue to monitor and regulate short-term rentals and their impact on housing affordability and neighborhood quality of life.

Equitable Goal 2:

Intentionally reflect the opportunities and needs of disinvested areas and people in the land use designations, map, and policies.

E2.1 Encourage development that builds on or creates assets that expand quality of life and economic opportunity.

E2.1.A: Highlight areas that should be prioritized for mixed-use and/or commercial development that can provide needed services and amenities.

E2.1.B: Incentivize and support development projects that build on a variety of current community assets, including commercial corridors and neighborhoods near areas of existing or potential market strength.

E2.1.C: Incentivize and support development projects around transit and mobility infrastructure, including MetroLink, high-frequency bus lines, and greenways.

E2.1.D: Support efforts to align investments in infrastructure, real estate, transit, and other assets to get the most out of each investment and create momentum.

E2.1.E: Proactively create policies and supports that guard against displacement in areas experiencing growth and change.

E2.1.F: Make strategic choices in identifying next opportunities for neighborhood or district plans, supporting community-driven alignment, visioning, and planning to support improvements to quality of life and economic opportunity.

E2.1.G: Use neighborhood plans and small area studies, redevelopment plans, and other planning efforts to assess and prioritize where to use specific program dollars from the City.

Equitable Goal 3:

Expand opportunities for more people of St. Louis to build their wealth and stake in the city by increasing their understanding and facilitating them being part of development and change, particularly people from historically disinvested communities and groups (including small-scale developers).

E3.1 Reduce barriers to development by streamlining, clearly communicating, and providing assistance in navigating development and approvals processes.

E3.1.A: Update and streamline the process for review (including regulations, approvals, incentives, rezoning) and coordinate to ensure processes are smooth and understandable.

E3.1.B: Ensure that new development processes and policies alleviate barriers for small developers engaging in reinvestment.

E3.1.C: Create a staffed “front desk” program that supports people through funding and development processes.

E3.1.D: Continue ongoing efforts to clarify and modernize historic district standards in new and existing districts.

E3.2 Increase awareness of and transparency around development opportunities and processes.

E3.2.A: Create a consolidated resource guide on the City’s website to highlight development and funding opportunities and to demystify development processes.

E3.2.B: Create an interactive map to provide up-to-date information on plans and policies.

E3.2.C: Ensure that neighborhood organizations are informed about development taking place in their communities.

E3.3 Reduce barriers to opening and sustaining small businesses across the city.

E3.3.A: Continue to streamline and expand access to the process for opening and operating a business.

Vision Theme

Growing

A growing St. Louis is one where a diversity of people, institutions, and businesses want to come to St. Louis and to stay here.

Growing Goal 1:

Reimagine vacancy as an asset that can be activated to support, retain, and attract residents.

⬚ figure

G1.1

Attract new residents to St. Louis by amplifying the city’s assets, addressing quality of life concerns, and proactively welcoming new Americans.

G1.2

Address nuisance issues caused by vacancy and certain land uses.

G1.3

Align policy, community priorities, and resources to proactively repurpose vacant and underutilized buildings.

G1.4

Make intentional physical and mobility connections between the Central Areas and surrounding neighborhoods.

G1.5

Invest resources, processes, and other assistance to support the city’s diverse urban agriculture community.

Growing Goal 2:

Encourage development that builds from, improves, and enhances assets like parks, cultural and educational institutions, and the River.

⬚ figure

G2.1

Improve physical, visual, and recreational connections with the Mississippi River and River Des Peres.

G2.2

Establish and/or update a citywide plan for green infrastructure, inclusive of parks, greenway systems, and other open spaces.

G2.3

Strengthen maintenance and investment in the public realm (including landscapes), with a focus on supporting existing and planned assets.

G2.4

Continue to engage large institutions through their long-term planning to ensure that institutional growth and stewardship are aligned with community goals.

Vision Theme

Growing

A growing St. Louis is one where a diversity of people, institutions, and businesses want to come to St. Louis and to stay here.

Growing Goal 3: Guide growth and change in a manner that will help St. Louis more readily adapt to a changing climate.

⬚ figure

G3.1 Mitigate flood risk for new development and take flood risk into account in new developments, city grants, and incentive programs.

G3.1A: Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence future land use decisions for development.

G3.1B: Develop a long-term road map and plan for green infrastructure and climate resilience.

G3.1C: Plan for flooding in higher-intensity areas that are at risk.

G3.1D: Explore how stormwater plans could support housing and commercial development.

G3.1E: Involve adjacent residents and the local community in assessing trade-offs and risks about land use and flooding through neighborhood and district-level planning.

G3.1F: Consider flood risk as a criteria to guide the use of public funds and resources in areas that are at risk of flooding.

G3.1G: Update historic codes to support mitigation and resilience measures.

G3.2 Strategically use vacant land to absorb flooding and mitigate heat in a manner that protects residents from the impacts of climate change and supports nearby development.

G3.2A: Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence reuse of vacant land.

G3.2B: Designate strategic high flood risk vacant parcels as Other Open Space uses.

G3.2C: Reflect existing non-park open spaces that should be preserved long-term through the Other Open Space Designation in the SLUP.

G3.2D: Highlight areas that should be prioritized for conversion into high-quality open space uses such as parks, urban farms, and other green spaces.

G3.2E: Remove impervious surfaces and unsalvageable vacant buildings on high-risk parcels to increase potential for water infiltration and decrease heat island effect.

G3.2F: Plan for networked green infrastructure, starting with publicly owned parcels.

G3.2G: Plan for networked green iPlan low-density green neighborhoods in areas that flood.

G3.3 Ensure current and prospective property owners are aware of flood risks.

G3.3A: Inform and educate the public about flood risk to inform their decision making.

G3.3B: Continue to develop and encourage participation in programs that facilitate community stewardship and other care of vacant lots.

G3.4 Continue to invest in the urban tree canopy and other open spaces and infrastructure to strengthen the city's resilience to extreme heat and flooding.

G3.4A: Create a plan to protect, replant, and maintain trees and forests throughout St. Louis.

G3.4B: Prioritize beauty in the design of functional infrastructure to add community benefit and visual appeal.

G3.4C: Allow for permeable pavement or green infrastructure allowance, with sensitivity to maintaining accessibility of pedestrian access routes.

G3.5 Maintain and/or establish buffers between pollution-generating land uses and residential / public spaces.

G3.5A: Introduce Flex Industrial designation.

G3.6 Invest in energy resiliency infrastructure.

G3.6A: Develop design guidelines that inform the location, form, and implementation of needed utilities, such as substations, solar installations, etc.

G3.6B: Work with Ameren to develop robust electrical infrastructure, including back-up, around community hubs and electrified transportation routes.

G3.6C: Continue to explore changes to state policy that would allow community renewable energy generation and storage at the block or neighborhood scale.

G3.6D: Update historic codes to allow for the use of solar panels and other green infrastructure.

Vision Theme

Thriving

A thriving St. Louis is one where all people, institutions, and businesses have that they need to flourish, succeed, and be part of a strong community.

Thriving Goal 1:

Ensure that all residents have convenient access to the things they need to thrive, including food and healthcare, without relying on a car.

⬚ figure

T1.1 Establish and sustain core services and amenities that improve quality of life for residents.

T1.1A: Investigate effective means to increase access to quality food retail.

T1.1A: Support alternative methods to distribute needed services in areas where transportation and access are limited.

T1.2 Promote pedestrian and bike connectivity through infrastructure investment and by avoiding land uses that divide neighborhoods.

T1.2A: Create bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets and sidewalks.

T1.2B: Continue to build quality bike infrastructure to connect Corridors and Nodes.

T1.2C: Identify and establish more strategic and equitable models for public infrastructure funding.

T1.2D: Preserve the grid system of streets and sidewalks.

T1.2E: Reconnect and re-open streets where context allows.

T1.3 Promote transit-supportive development around existing and proposed Metrolink stations and high-frequency bus routes.

T1.3A: Encourage and allow appropriate flexible, dense, and mixed-use development in locations near existing and future transit stations.

T1.3B: Align infrastructure investments to encourage bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets near transit stations.

T1.3C: Support high-frequency bus service, particularly on routes that serve Corridors and Nodes.

Thriving Goal 2:

Foster community and public spaces that feel family friendly, safe, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities.

⬚ figure

T2.1 Increase access to parks and quality open space, with special attention to comfort and maintenance.

T2.1A: Support and preserve pocket parks and parklets.

T2.1B: Encourage publicly accessible green space as part of larger private developments to encourage access and reduce maintenance burden.

T2.2 Promote pedestrian-oriented public realm through infrastructure investment and land use policies that cultivate a walkable environment.

T2.2A: Support the creation, maintenance, and preservation of a tree canopy, particularly for creating shade along pedestrian routes.

T2.2B: Reduce the impact and shrink the footprint of existing highways.

T2.2C: Update the zoning code to prevent off-street parking in front of residential and commercial developments.

T2.2D: Limit drive-thrus and curb cuts while allowing walk-up windows.

T2.2E: Encourage ground-floor activation in commercial Corridors and Nodes.

T2.2F: Require commercial buildings like big box stores to have safe and comfortable pedestrian access to sidewalks and bus stops.

T2.3 Reduce the burden of parking costs on new development by rightsizing or eliminating requirements and by allowing and encouraging shared parking arrangements.

T2.3A: Encourage shared parking arrangements within districts or larger developments.

T2.3B: Support municipal and subsidized parking in Corridors and Nodes to support commercial activity.

T2.3C: Reduce or eliminate parking minimums and explore further parking maximums in strategic areas.

Thriving Goal 3:

Foster an environment that supports the growth of jobs at a wide variety of future-facing businesses and organizations across the city, particularly in Nodes, Corridors, Central Areas, Campuses, and Industrial Centers.

⬚ figure

T3.1 Prepare sites for business development through marketing, remediation, and infrastructure coordination.

T3.1A: Increase capacity for remediation by continuing to aggressively pursue EPA grants.

T3.1B: Take a systemic approach to infrastructure improvements to ensure safe, quality infrastructure is available to support jobs.

T3.1C: Create an inventory of available sites, particularly larger sites, and work with regional leaders to market these for development.

T3.1D: In alignment with neighborhood and district plans, gain site control of large sites to support the relocation of large employers.

T3.2 Support innovative forms of business throughout the city.

T3.2A: Allow low-impact forms of manufacturing and development throughout Nodes, Corridors, and Industrial Areas.

Vision Theme

Equitable

An equitable St. Louis is one where there is intentional effort to improve conditions for people and places harmed and marginalized by past and current policies and practices.

Residents of St. Louis noted that we need to reckon with and address historical racist policies and practices to move forward together as one city. This means seeing intentional investment, focus, and action in historically disinvested areas, which benefits the whole city by creating a more thriving place for all residents. Housing is particularly important to creating an equitable St. Louis, given the past and current harms and challenges with access to quality affordable housing.

See existing conditions (page 178) for more details about historic inequities and context for these goals.

“Land use in St Louis needs to take a proactive role in providing sufficient housing for all groups, protect current residents, and uplift residents who continue to be harmed by racist practices.” -City Resident

“I want to see all neighborhoods rise up together, instead of areas getting left behind.” -City Resident

Equitable Goal 1:

Offer housing options that meet the diverse needs of the community, and support residents staying in their neighborhoods through change and growth.

Quality housing that serves the needs of St. Louis residents is essential to retaining current residents and attracting new ones. Throughout our city’s history, federal, state, and local actions have inflicted great harm on individuals, families, and communities through discriminatory housing policies that demolished communities and drove disinvestment. Those harms have yet to be rectified; the City has ample opportunity to atone for past damages and avoid causing future harms to any vulnerable communities.

Equitable Goal 2:

Intentionally reflect the opportunities and needs of disinvested areas and people in the land use designations, map, and policies.

Across St. Louis, there are communities that have been heavily impacted by disinvestment. This disinvestment can be seen in the built environment through vacancy, aging infrastructure, and neglect. At the same time, this history is part of the histories of families across St. Louis — and shapes the hopes people hold for beloved places to come back to life. Investing in these places can improve the quality of life for people who live there currently while also supporting opportunities for potential future residents, including those with ties to neighborhoods who may want to return. Residents see that addressing disinvested communities benefits the whole city, increasing opportunities to thrive across St. Louis.

Equitable Goal 3:

Expand opportunities for more people of St. Louis to build their wealth and stake in the city by increasing their understanding and facilitating them being part of development and change, particularly people from historically disinvested communities and groups (including small-scale developers).

Given the current complexity of the development process, residents and small developers report that they struggle to understand and navigate the steps needed to be part of development and change in St. Louis. Yet, land use can be a significant part of building wealth and cultivating committed citizens who are invested in the future of the city — which St. Louis residents want to be.

"Please remove hurdles to developing housing! Can we speed up the process? New housing doesn't help the unhoused or vulnerable if [we] spend years talking about the setbacks, cladding materials, zoning, etc. Just do it!"

• Former City Resident

Vision Theme

Equitable

E1: Offer housing options that meet the diverse needs of the community, and support residents staying in their neighborhoods through change and growth.

Quality housing that serves the needs of St. Louis residents is essential to retaining current residents and attracting new ones. Throughout our city's history, City actions have inflicted great harm on individuals, families, and communities through discriminatory housing policies that demolished communities. Those harms have yet to be rectified; the City has ample opportunity to atone for past damages and avoid causing future harms to any vulnerable communities.

Land use identifies many opportunities for housing, but a robust, coordinated strategy for planning, funding, building, and maintaining housing also requires changes in policy and practice, as well as coordination between many departments, agencies, non-profit organizations, and developers. The following recommended strategies will set St. Louis on the path toward realizing the vision for diverse housing across the city of St. Louis, as shown in the SLUP.

Proposed Strategies:

E1.1 Establish a citywide housing strategy.

E1.2 Increase the supply and diversity of housing options.

"Housing is an URGENT NEED that we cannot continue to not address — City Resident We need to prioritize the people that have stayed and invested in areas and prevent their displacement."

• City Resident

E1.1 Establish a citywide housing strategy.

The City is currently making some of its largest-ever investments in housing affordability and working actively to coordinate across the many departments and partners that touch housing. For example, the City has committed more than $250 million toward an array of housing programs with the support of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. This has led to more than 400 units built, almost 500 under construction, and nearly 2,700 units in pre-development since 2022. The City should continue this work and establish a long-term, citywide strategy for housing and housing affordability. To advance the long-term goal of increasing housing options in a way that is in line with the needs of the community, the City should create a strategy that quantifies housing needs and gaps, builds on and sustains investments in focused geographies (such as Economic Justice Action Plan Demonstration Areas), identifies clear goals, and establishes a holistic set of programs, policies, and supports. The goals should include addressing efforts that reduce displacement of current residents, accelerate the production of new housing (both new construction and rehabilitation), and support improvement to the existing housing stock.

Proposed Efforts:

E1.1.A: Develop a citywide strategy for housing.

"Everything proposed seems nice, clean and neat, but what about affordability? It just seems like wordy and complicated gentrification. how can people like me, not only afford these places but continue to have the niceties proposed upkeep? Even with mixed income housing, people with lower income/Section 8 get pushed out or end up pushing higher income residents out for a number of reasons. mixed income just doesn't work, some reasons include: cost, tenant retention, gentrification, funding and income isolation..."

• City Resident (Youth)

"Organizations work to help people with learning about home upkeep, but they can only work with so many people. We need both more places and programs."

• City Resident

E1.1.A: Develop a citywide strategy for housing.

In this citywide strategy, St. Louis can consider various additional levers to preserve and expand the current housing stock, support homeownership, address housing instability, and cultivate vibrant, mixed-income communities. This might include:

• Policies or incentives that encourage mixed-income development, particularly in higher-cost markets, to ensure broad housing choice;
• Proactive assembly and redevelopment in strategic locations to catalyze neighborhood improvement through new quality housing (with attention to the Market Value Analysis — see page 222 — and Economic Justice Index or other data-informed tools to guide sustained investment in place;
• Expanding the availability of homeowner supports, including opportunities for former residents who may seek to return to the city as well as tools like cooperatives and land trusts that can reduce barriers to homeownership while maintaining long-term affordability and community ownership in decision-making;
• Preservation of existing rental housing, such as tax credits for landlords who maintain affordable units and preservation funds to protect vulnerable housing stock;
• Strategies for rehabbing and redeveloping vacant properties into housing;
• Tools to support flood-proofing of existing housing;
• Ways to further meet the needs of people with unstable housing, such as people who need permanent supportive housing, shelters, or temporary housing, in concert with others in the region;
• Creative approaches to closing the appraisal gap in disinvested neighborhoods to ensure that current and prospective homeowners have meaningful access to capital;
• Strategies to expand the availability of physically accessible housing options and support home modifications when the need for accessible space arises; and
• Recommendations to reduce regulatory barriers to housing, especially affordable housing, such as through streamlining permitting processes, offering financial incentives, and revising outdated zoning laws that may hinder projects.

A housing strategy that considers these topics, among others, must also align zoning regulations and neighborhood planning processes to ensure that new developments meet the housing needs of the community, particularly in terms of density, accessibility, and diversity.

“We need to prioritize the people that have stayed and invested in areas and prevent their displacement”

• City Resident

⬚ figure

Source: Bertolet, Dan. Sightline Institute.

CASE STUDY: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Minneapolis, MN

The Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a housing policy aimed at making housing more affordable, accessible, and equitable across the city. The policy removes single-family zoning restrictions, allowing for the construction of duplexes and triplexes in traditionally single-family neighborhoods, which expands housing options and increases density. One initiative within the plan includes the city adding several zoning districts that increase the amount of housing that can be constructed near transit and along commercial corridors. The “corridor” districts permit three- to-six-story buildings along most of the city’s transit routes, while “transit” districts allow 10-to-30-story buildings on lots adjacent to light rail stations. Another is establishing minimum height requirements for new developments. However, the plan faces challenges in managing community concerns around increased density and ensuring long-term affordability amid rising market pressures.

CASE STUDY: Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA), Seattle, WA

HALA was adopted to address Seattle’s growing housing affordability crisis by increasing housing supply, particularly affordable housing, and reforming zoning and land-use policies. Its aim is to create 50,000 new homes in 10 years, with 20,000 of those designated as affordable, by upzoning areas near transit, simplifying permitting, and leveraging public land for housing development. HALA’s zoning reforms, particularly its upzoning near transit corridors and urban centers, were critical in increasing housing supply. HALA was crafted by a 28-member task force composed of diverse stakeholders, including affordable housing advocates, developers, business leaders, and labor representatives, and received strong support from the mayor and many city councilmembers. HALA’s policies were rolled out in phases, which allowed the city to manage implementation gradually. This phased approach helped reduce pushback from “Not in my back yard” (NIMBY) communities and allowed for adjustments based on initial outcomes.

E1.2 Increase the supply and diversity of housing options.

While housing in St. Louis is lower in cost than in many peer cities, the availability and diversity of quality, affordable housing in St. Louis falls far short of the need (see “Housing Needs”, page 213). The City of St. Louis’s Community Development & Housing Strategy 5-Year Consolidated Plan for 2025–2029 reports that approximately 15.8% of all households in the city are affected by housing cost burden, meaning that they pay between 30% and 50% of their income to housing costs. 17.0% of households report severe cost burden, meaning they pay 50% or more of their income.

This leaves little for other essentials like food, personal care, transportation, education, childcare, eldercare, and health care and makes saving for the future feel like a pipe dream for many. In some neighborhoods, home prices and rents are rising to the point that many are locked out; and in others, challenges of vacancy and disinvestment drive housing affordability and access issues. While the City, the St. Louis Housing Authority (a non-City agency), and many community development organizations work to provide a range of quality housing options, there is still a major deficiency. It is important to have a variety of housing types that fit different needs, and the SLUP’s framework plan helps identify where different types of residential development should happen. For example, Higher-Intensity Neighborhoods have the right conditions to support larger residential buildings; these are mostly located near transit and amenities, creating walkable communities with easy access to many resources. Medium- and Lower-Intensity Neighborhoods encourage housing that matches the range of options already present in most of the city (e.g., single-family homes, duplexes, small multifamily) which can provide affordable housing options. These neighborhoods can also offer the opportunity for residential development such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) which can provide efficient, sometimes multi-generational housing options without changing the character or structure of a community. To further increase the supply and diversity of housing options, the SLUP recommends the following efforts:

Proposed Efforts:

E1.2.A: Revise regulations to encourage the creation and preservation of a variety of housing types, with sensitivity to the surrounding context and historic fabric.

E1.2.B: Create pre-approved housing plans to accelerate creation of diverse housing types.

E1.2.C: Support the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

E1.2.D: Create more universally designed, aging-friendly, accessible housing.

E1.2.E: Continue to monitor and regulate short-term rentals and their impact on housing affordability and neighborhood quality of life.

⬚ figure

“St. Louis can have a strong future if and only if we are able to reach across our divides. I would like to encourage home ownership with small homes that are architecturally interesting and perhaps with a basement or attic that the homeowner can ‘expand into’ at a future date. Our families are getting smaller and we have singles who either own a home that is too large now or who want to buy a home. This would make our City innovate and forward-thinking.”

• City Resident

E1.2.A: Revise regulations to encourage the creation and preservation of a variety of housing types, with sensitivity to the surrounding context and historic fabric.

St. Louis can revise zoning and land use regulations to offer more flexibility in residential areas to promote the development and preservation of a wide variety of types of housing, in particular “Missing Middle” housing. “Missing Middle” housing refers to a range of housing types that fall between single-family homes and large apartment complexes, offering diverse options such as duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, courtyard apartments, and small multifamily buildings. These housing types are often designed to blend into neighborhoods, maintaining a scale similar to existing homes while increasing density subtly. Many neighborhoods in St. Louis already have a great deal of this “Missing Middle” housing. These buildings cater to a wide range of people, including young professionals, small families, retirees, and other individuals looking for more affordable or downsized housing options. Ensuring that these new housing types are designed with sensitivity to the surrounding context and historic fabric will help maintain neighborhood character while expanding housing options for a wider range of residents.

St. Louis should also take care to encourage and reduce barriers to housing types that meet the needs of New Americans, which may include housing options that support intergenerational living.

E1.2.B: Create pre-approved housing plans to accelerate creation of diverse housing types.

Merely permitting a variety of housing types (e.g., ADUs, smaller single-family homes, Missing Middle Housing) may not be enough to spark their creation. The City can explore creating resources that further reduce barriers to actually building these new housing types and complement other important efforts to encourage innovative construction methods that reduce cost and improve long-term affordability (e.g., by reducing energy burdens).

For example, a resource like a book of pre-approved designs (e.g., floorplans, elevations, and other drawings) could help reduce the time, cost, and complexity involved in building these housing types and encourage features that create and preserve affordability, energy efficiency, and accessibility, such as modular construction, prefabricated housing, renewable energy technology, and even landscape strategies that reduce energy requirements. Universally designed and accessible housing is a particular opportunity for pre-approved plans, where a shortage of available units is an on-going challenge for residents with disabilities.

E1.2.C: Coordinate and support infrastructure investment to assist with housing rehabilitation and construction.

The need for new and/or repaired water and sewer lines can be a significant barrier to housing development, adding substantial costs and time to the development process. Establishing resources for these infrastructure improvements, such as a dedicated fund, could help accelerate the delivery of quality housing options (including through reutilization of lots or buildings owned by the Land Reutilization Authority). The benefits of these infrastructure upgrades would also live far beyond the specific housing development, buyer, or renter, positioning these properties and their future residents for long-term success.

E1.2.D: Support the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

St. Louis can reduce barriers to creating Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by permitting them by right in residential zones, eliminating the need for special approvals, which would streamline the process for homeowners. Additionally, the City could provide educational materials, resources, and toolkits to help homeowners understand the benefits and requirements of building ADUs. Potential additional support could include offering financial incentives and technical assistance to encourage widespread adoption.

"[We need] more support of ADUs and other options that would increase density a bit or return to what it was [in the past]."

• City Resident

Example types of ADUs

⬚ figure

Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit

CASE STUDY:

Strategic Housing Blueprint, Austin, TX

Austin’s Strategic Housing Blueprint, adopted in 2017, is a long-term plan to create 60,000 affordable housing units for those making less than 80 percent of the area median income, with an emphasis on affordability, inclusivity, and equitable housing distribution across the city. The blueprint focuses on expanding housing choices and housing types, increasing affordable housing near transit, and preserving existing affordable homes. There is a plan to diversify housing types, encouraging the development of new housing forms such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and multifamily units. The goal is to create more “missing middle” housing to provide alternatives to traditional single-family homes, which dominate much of Austin’s housing stock. The program has been successful in spurring policy changes, like the Affordability Unlocked program, and advancing mixed-income developments. However, challenges remain, including resistance to density increases in certain neighborhoods, rising property values that threaten affordability, and the need for greater coordination between city departments to meet its ambitious housing goals.

CASE STUDY:

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program, Los Angeles, CA

LA’s ADU program was launched to address the city’s housing crisis by promoting the construction of small, secondary housing units on existing residential lots. The program simplifies the permitting process and offers incentives like fee waivers to encourage homeowners to build ADUs. To simplify and speed up the construction process, Los Angeles offers pre-approved ADU designs. Homeowners can select from a list of architect-designed plans that meet all local zoning codes, reducing both time and cost. In addition to construction incentives, LA launched an “ADU Accelerator Program,” pairing low-income older adults with homeowners who have ADUs, offering a rental subsidy to homeowners. Since its implementation, the city has seen a surge in ADU applications, adding thousands of units to the market. However, challenges include navigating neighborhood opposition, ensuring infrastructure capacity, and addressing concerns about affordability, as some ADUs are rented at market rates rather than at affordable housing.

E1.2.E: Create more universally designed, aging-friendly, accessible housing.

The 2022 5-year ACS survey reports 43,123 people with disabilities live in St. Louis. Additionally, 45,925 St. Louisans are over the age of 65. These are two groups that require specific, accessible-designed housing, which makes finding affordable housing even more difficult. A citywide housing strategy should expand the availability of subsidized and fair market housing units that people with disabilities can use.

New and renovated universally designed, aging-friendly, accessible housing in St. Louis would include features like step-free entrances, wider doorways, accessible bathrooms, and kitchens designed to accommodate people with mobility disabilities, allowing residents of all ages and abilities to live comfortably. Additionally, such housing often prioritizes proximity to public transportation, healthcare services, and community resources, ensuring that older adults and people with disabilities can live independently with access to necessary support systems.

Policies related to housing production, including but not limited to building codes, standards for subsidized housing projects, and the Community Benefit Scorecard should all be revisited to identify opportunities to expand the supply of accessible housing.

E1.2.F: Continue to monitor and regulate short-term rentals and their impact on housing affordability and neighborhood quality of life.

Short-term rentals (e.g., units rented for short stays via Airbnb and Vrbo) have become more prevalent in some neighborhoods over the past decade or more. While short-term rentals have certain benefits for owners and visitors, their growing prevalence can lead to the conversion of for-sale and rental housing, removing housing stock from the overall supply of housing available to residents of St. Louis. Short-term rentals appear to be concentrated in areas near major employment centers, in areas with vibrant entertainment amenities, and in areas where there is a strong demand for housing. If not properly operated, they also create significant nuisance issues for neighbors and surrounding communities.

The City has recently established new permitting requirements and other regulations and policies aimed at monitoring short-term rentals, mitigating nuisance issues, and preserving affordable housing. But this is a dynamic new land use, and the needs for regulation and enforcement may change over time. The City should continue to monitor short-term rentals to ensure their negative impacts are minimized.

“For far too long, [parts of] the city have been ignored and abandoned, left to decay as decades of neglect have taken their toll on the population and perception…”

• City Resident

Vision Theme

Equitable

E2: Intentionally reflect the opportunities and needs of disinvested areas and people in the land use designations, map, and policies.

Across St. Louis, there are communities that have been heavily impacted by disinvestment, currently visible through vacancy, aging infrastructure, and neglect, but also held in family histories and in hopes that beloved places will return to life. Investing in these places can improve the quality of life for people who live there currently while also supporting opportunities for potential future residents, including those with ties to neighborhoods who may want to return. Residents see that addressing disinvested communities benefits the whole city, increasing opportunities to thrive across St. Louis.

Land use can create a vision for the future for areas that have experienced disinvestment, but to encourage development that improves the quality of life for residents, additional prioritization is needed. This includes supporting policy that incentivizes development building on community assets and current investments like transit, as well as investing funds from programs that go directly to homeowners, small landlords, businesses, and other critical stakeholders in this intentional development and reinvestment.

Proposed Strategies:

E2.1 Encourage development that builds on or creates assets that expand quality of life and economic opportunity.

E2.1 Encourage development that builds on or creates assets that expand quality of life and economic opportunity.

In planning for future land use throughout the city, it is essential to consider and strive to rectify the historical policies that have led to great disparities in economic opportunity, quality of life, and the built environment that continue to affect St. Louis residents. It is also important to proactively put in place policies and supports that will prevent future displacement in areas where development happens. Whenever there are steps taken proactively to encourage investment that improves the quality of life for current and incoming residents, those efforts should be focused in the areas of greatest need and disinvestment. This might include using assessments like the Economic Justice Index (more information on page 275) to prioritize high-need areas. The efforts below suggest how St. Louis might be proactive in its policies and work going forward.

Proposed Efforts:

E2.1.A: Highlight areas that should be prioritized for mixed-use and/or commercial development that can provide needed services and amenities.

E2.1.B: Incentivize and support development projects that build on a variety of current community assets, including commercial corridors and neighborhoods near areas of existing or potential market strength.

E2.1.C: Incentivize and support development projects around transit and mobility infrastructure, including MetroLink, high-frequency bus lines, and greenways.

E2.1.D: Support efforts to align investments in infrastructure, real estate, transit, and other assets to get the most out of each investment and create momentum.

E2.1.E: Proactively create policies and supports that guard against displacement in areas experiencing growth and change.

E2.1.F: Make strategic choices in identifying next opportunities for neighborhood or district plans, supporting community-driven alignment, visioning, and planning to support improvements to quality of life and economic opportunity.

St. Louis historically deployed racially exclusionary laws, zoning policies, restrictive covenants, and redlining practices that have led to segregation and disinvestment in certain areas of the city. Perhaps most notoriously, redlining designated certain neighborhoods and areas of the city as “high-risk” for investment, limiting residents’ access to loans and other financial resources. This economic discrimination against Black neighborhoods has contributed to profound disparities in housing quality, educational opportunities, health outcomes, economic advancement, wealth building, and overall community development. The consequences of redlining are still painfully visible today, as neighborhoods with a history of disinvestment face challenges related to inadequate infrastructure, less economic development, and reduced access to quality of services like education and healthcare. For more information about these conditions, see Persistence of racial segregation on page 203.

E2.1.G: Use neighborhood plans and small area studies, redevelopment plans, and other planning efforts to assess and prioritize where to use specific program dollars from the City.

Walkability to Key Services and Amenities

Key services and amenities include food spots, health services, educational institutes, transit stops, and leisure spots.

⬚ figure

Key services and amenities are concentrated in the central corridor and to the south.

Most areas with lower access to amenities are industrially zoned or open space.

Legend

• ▲ Key services and amenities
• 5 min walk
• 10 min walk
• 15 min walk
• Open Space
• Industrial Areas

Source: Open Street Map, Google Map

E2.1.A: Highlight areas that should be prioritized for mixed-use and/or commercial development that can provide needed services and amenities.

Community feedback throughout the planning process repeatedly highlighted that core services and amenities (e.g., grocery stories, pharmacies, restaurants) are essential to ensure that neighborhoods are livable. Almost all neighborhoods in St. Louis historically had these types of services woven into their fabric, in walkable distance from people’s homes. Suburbanization, national economic changes, population loss, the rise of e-commerce, exclusionary lending and investment policies, and general disinvestment have all contributed to an erosion and loss of these core services.

Restoring the availability of these needed services and amenities will require thoughtful planning and proactive effort in strategic locations. These can be places with identified economic justice needs, access to transit, or existing community assets, such as commercial corridors or underutilized spaces. The City could use tools like zoning overlays, targeted and proactive tax incentives, and infrastructure investments to encourage development in these strategic areas. Neighborhood planning is a crucial program to further assist the community with strategic planning and implementation. The Neighborhood Planning Program will explore and highlight issues and opportunities, define community vision and goals, and provide guidance for implementation of the plan. Furthermore, neighborhood planning can assist people to understand, modify, and advocate for the programs, resources, and policies needed to pursue the opportunities that exist within a major city like Saint Louis.

E2.1.B: Incentivize and support development projects that build on a variety of current community assets, including commercial corridors and neighborhoods near areas of existing or potential market strength.

Restoring and sustaining services and amenities in disinvested communities will rely, in part, on rebuilding the level of population density that can sustain businesses. In other words, housing and commercial development must go hand in hand. The SLUP use map and designations offer a rough framework for how these uses can complement one another, but incentives and other supports will be needed to achieve tangible outcomes.

These incentives, and other proactive investment strategies, must be aligned to the areas of greatest need. To the right is a map of the Economic Justice Index (EJI), a tool that uses a variety of indicators to determine what places in St. Louis have a high need for equitable redevelopment. Analyses like the EJI should be used to determine how to prioritize use of incentives and proactive investments.

St. Louis can offer tax incentives, grants, and potentially density bonuses to developers who prioritize projects that are mixed-use, are affordable, and/or otherwise further the goals of the SLUP, especially in high-need, prioritized areas. The City should continue and expand public-private partnerships that fund and sustain infrastructure improvements that enhance the appeal and market strength of these assets. This includes partnering with local businesses, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions to create shared-use spaces.

Economic Justice Index

SLDC’s Economic Justice Index (EJI) uses a variety of indicators to determine where economic justice is most needed in St. Louis. The SLUP takes a cue from the EJI by prioritizing high-need areas for equitable redevelopment.

EJI 1 areas have both high need for economic justice and have high opportunity for implementation. These areas are highest priority for SLDC.

EJI 2 areas have high need and some opportunity for implementation. These areas are the second highest priority for SLDC.

⬚ figure

Legend

• Economic Justice Index 1 Areas
• Economic Justice Index 2 Areas
• Demostration Areas

Source: Economic Justice Action Plan, SLDC

Existing & Planned Greenways and Transit

Major investments are being made in public transit and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

⬚ figure

Source: Great Rivers Greenway, Metro St. Louis

E2.1.C: Incentivize and support development projects around transit and mobility infrastructure, including MetroLink, high-frequency bus lines, and greenways.

St. Louis and its partners are making significant investments in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure (see page 226). These investments have the potential to catalyze neighborhood revitalization, growth, and improvement and should be intentionally leveraged for community benefit. Proximity to the planned Metrolink Green Line is already an element of SLDC’s Incentive Scorecard, but proximity to transit could be a factor incorporated into more funding programs.

St. Louis can offer incentives to encourage affordability, reduced parking requirements, and potentially expedited permitting for projects near these transit corridors. The City can provide incentives or grants for developers who incorporate affordable housing, bike-friendly facilities, or green space into transit-oriented developments. St. Louis can reinforce the goals of the 2024 changes to the Zoning Code to support more transit-oriented development along the proposed Green Line route as an example of how to incorporate transit-supportive development goals into policies.

Missouri’s Transit Development District program is another tool that should be considered here. TDDs are specially designated areas established to promote and finance transportation-related infrastructure improvements alongside development. It does this by leveraging a mix of public funding and private investment to foster urban development that aligns investments in infrastructure, creates momentum, and identifies opportunities in tandem in an area (as opposed to a specific site). The use of TDDs should be coordinated with transit and support the use of transit.

E2.1.D: Support efforts to align investments in infrastructure, real estate, transit, and other assets order to get the most out of each investment and create momentum.

Recent examples of the City combining infrastructure investment with real estate development include the highway reconfiguration around Jefferson and I-64. By reducing the footprint and eliminating legacy highway ramps, 30 acres of formerly unusable land was unlocked, which were developed as a new MLS Soccer Stadium and team campus. The alignment of one former highway exit ramp was repurposed as a new multi-use trail, and additional connected investment is underway with the reconstruction of Market Street to add the Brickline Greenway. The City of St. Louis and MODOT have been investigating whether similar changes can be made on the I-64 corridor between Compton Avenue and Grand Boulevard as part of the Future 64 project.

The City of St. Louis and Bi-State Development recently worked with the development community to incentivize the conversion of a surface park-and-ride lot adjacent to the DeBaliviere MetroLink Station into a mixed-use development with 287 apartments and ground-floor retail spaces.

Well in advance of construction of the Metrolink Green Line alignment, the City of St. Louis is already taking proactive policy steps, including zoning reform and incentive prioritization, to encourage transit-supportive investments along the alignment.

Other cities offer promising models for how to leverage infrastructure investments for community revitalization and equitable, sustainable growth. Some projects that align investments are transit-oriented developments (TODs), such as the redevelopment of Denver’s Union Station, which integrates mixed-use real estate (residential, commercial, and retail) with public transit hubs, encouraging sustainable transportation and reducing car dependency. Greenway projects like the Atlanta BeltLine combine public spaces, trails, and new real estate development along old railway corridors, enhancing mobility, green infrastructure, and property values. Similarly, district energy systems integrated into new developments, like those seen in Toronto’s Regent Park revitalization, provide efficient heating and cooling while supporting mixed-income housing and public spaces.

St. Louis should proactively identify and cultivate redevelopment opportunities in tandem with infrastructure improvements. This may include

proactive policies to prevent displacement and encourage mixed-income housing development, community-engaged planning to identify desired development types, and land assembly that aligns with community-engaged planning. The neighborhood planning program offers an important venue for identifying and thoughtfully leveraging specific improvements in partnership with community members.

“I believe that in order to maximize the effectiveness of St. Louis’s transit, the city must begin thoughtful development around its transit hubs.... If more people are to utilize public transit, the stations must have welcoming development that is easily accessible immediately upon arrival.”

• City Resident

E2.1.E: Proactively create policies and supports that guard against displacement in areas experiencing growth and change.

As neighborhoods change, both physically and culturally, residents worry about no longer being able to afford to live there, as well as no longer feeling welcome. Proactive policies that prepare for these changes can support residents, in particular older adults, renters, and low-income families. The City of St. Louis has recently established several supports to guard against displacement, including a property tax freeze for seniors homeowners, a real estate tax assistance fund to support owner-occupants facing tax foreclosure, expanded homeowner assistance and repair, tax abatement for homeowners in some areas, and various protections for renters (e.g., a rental registry, a right to repair policy, legal assistance for renters facing eviction, and a ban on discrimination based on renters’ source of income). The City should continue to monitor displacement pressures and take action to mitigate them through both citywide policy supports and place-based action to ensure that current residents can guide and benefit from neighborhood improvement rather than feel economic pressure or isolation as a result.

The City’s Market Value Analysis (MVA), described on page 222, is one tool for identifying displacement pressures and other problematic housing trends year over year.

CASE STUDY:

Equitable Development Initiative, Seattle, WA

The Equitable Development Initiative (EDI) in Seattle, managed by the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD), addresses displacement among marginalized communities by promoting equitable access to resources. It funds community-driven projects, such as affordable housing and cultural spaces, to foster sustainability and growth in neighborhoods facing high displacement risks. Since 2016, EDI has secured significant financial support, including $30 million from the Strategic Investment Fund (SIF), and has successfully funded numerous projects benefiting communities of color. However, challenges include meeting the high demand for funding and ensuring equitable distribution of project benefits to effectively serve targeted communities.

CASE STUDY:

Middle Neighborhoods Initiative (MNI), Cleveland, OH

MNI aims to stabilize housing markets and commercial districts and improve the economic opportunities for residents of Cleveland’s middle neighborhoods—moderate-income, family-centric neighborhoods—such as North Collinwood, Lee/Harvard, Jefferson Puritas, Westpark, Old Brooklyn, and Euclid-Green. The $10 million program focuses on acquiring and rehabilitating around 200 homes and enhancing local businesses to preserve affordability and community identity. Cleveland Neighborhood Progress (CNP) partners with the city to secure philanthropic investments, creating a comprehensive approach to neighborhood revitalization without pushing out long-term residents.

⬚ figure

Source: Cleveland Neighborhood Progress

E2.1.F: Make strategic choices in identifying next opportunities for neighborhood or district plans, supporting community-driven alignment, visioning, and planning to support improvements to quality of life and economic opportunity.

As the City undertakes neighborhood planning in more parts of the city, there are opportunities to be strategic in identifying the order and scope of each community-driven alignment and visioning process. These plans can vary in scope, including a single district, one neighborhood, up to a cluster of neighborhoods. Areas that are prioritized for planning should have the potential for the greatest improvement on the quality of life and economic opportunity of surrounding residents while also supporting planning around the existing community assets. SLDC’s Economic Justice Index and the Qualified Census Tracts (QCT) are two data-driven guides that could be used to inform these decisions; other tools may be used in the future to assess need.

E2.1.G: Use neighborhood plans and small area studies, redevelopment plans, and other planning efforts to assess and prioritize where to use specific program dollars from the City.

Neighborhood plans, redevelopment plans, and other planning efforts that consider the future vision for areas of St. Louis have a role in ensuring that program dollars (such as MSD Rainscaping Small Grants Program, the CDBG Disaster Recovery program, and the Healthy Home Repair Program) are invested in the highest-impact way that builds on assets and improves the quality of life. For example, the ongoing Neighborhood Planning Initiative seeks to create neighborhood plans to guide the future of many neighborhoods in St. Louis. These adopted plans often include infrastructure upgrades, historic preservation strategies, and support for small business development and should continue to make specific recommendations about where these types of investments should happen to support momentum in revitalization.

Using neighborhood plans to guide programmatic investments and redevelopment tools represents somewhat of a shift from the current approach, where funding programs and incentive tools are deployed in a more reactive or ad hoc manner. But to catalyze long-term community reinvestment will require a holistic and proactive strategy; neighborhood planning can serve as the guide for this coordinated reinvestment.

“Small grants like the MSD Rainscaping Small Grant are the financial help that current residents need to put their activism into action to improve our city.”

• City Resident

Recommendations from Adopted Neighborhood Plans

The SLUP supports existing neighborhood plans and offers a framework and set of land use and policy tools for forthcoming ones.

⬚ figure

• Stimulating commercial development Downtown, creating new employment opportunities and equitable & inclusive development in the North City, and investing in the existing and emergent innovation districts were recommendations for economic opportunity.
• To encourage walkability and diverse transit options, many plans make recommendations that center commercial corridors, transit-oriented development, and mixed-use development.
• Housing recommendations from adopted plans include preserving existing residential owner occupancy, adding additional affordable and senior housing, increasing the number of housing units with access to multi-modal transportation options, and increasing mixed-income and mixed-use housing options.
• Many plans propose specific sites for green infrastructure and low-impact development strategies. Several plans also provide citywide guidance for hydrological resilience.
• Recommendations for racial and economic inequality include reducing levels of air pollution disproportionality affecting Black residents and resulting in high asthma rates, encouraging affordable housing in high-amenity neighborhoods with transit access, and the integration of low-income housing into market-rate and mixed-use developments.
• Key environmental contamination recommendations include the prioritized redevelopment of brownfield sites, various initiatives to clean air and water, and the remediation of toxic dump sites across the city.

Legend

• Officially Adopted Neighborhood Plans
• Spatial Recommendations from Plans

Source: Adopted Neighborhood Plans

E3: Expand opportunities for more people of St. Louis to build their wealth and stake in the city by ensuring they are a part of development and change, particularly people from historically disinvested communities and groups (including small-scale developers).

Given the current complexity of the development process, residents and small developers report that they struggle to understand and navigate the steps needed to be part of development and change in St. Louis. Yet, land use can be a significant part of building wealth and cultivating committed citizens who are invested in the future of the city — which St. Louis residents want to be.

While having people involved in land use, particularly taking on development, business, and activation projects, is critical to the success of the land use plan, the SLUP has limited control over the opportunities available and who pursues them. Greater awareness, transparency, and access to land use and business opportunities must be supported through additional policies, as well as through new tools that support improving the system and process for development.

Proposed Strategies:

• E3.1 Reduce barriers to development by streamlining, clearly communicating, and providing assistance in navigating development and approvals processes.
• E3.2 Increase awareness of and transparency around development opportunities and processes.
• E3.3 Reduce barriers to opening and sustaining small businesses across the city.

⬚ figure

“I like the idea of a smooth and consistent process. Existing residents should inform the process but the process needs to reflect the specific community and the specific proposal for change. I also think that empowering existing residents to fix up their homes, open small businesses, and give back to their communities is how we build resilient neighborhoods.”

• City Resident

E3.1 Reduce barriers to development by streamlining, clearly communicating, and providing assistance in navigating development and approvals processes.

The SLUP is an important and useful tool in guiding the type and location of future development throughout St. Louis. However, to realize the city’s development goals, it is essential to build development processes that are easily understood and navigated by those who want to invest in the city. Currently, there are hurdles that individuals need to navigate to navigate a project. While those stage gates may have originally been developed to address a clear need, over time the process has become convoluted and time consuming.

One core element is the City’s zoning code, which sets the rules for buildings and land use. The current zoning code has not been comprehensively reviewed and updated since the 1950s. The zoning code has been patched together for decades with a combination of overlay districts and small text amendments. These have been important improvements — and several are currently in progress — but they have made the zoning code increasingly impenetrable to the public. The City is now past the point where topic-specific amendments will be sufficient; an overhaul of the code is overdue. In addition to the zoning code, other requirements can complicate the approval process, lengthening timelines to completion. For example, the city has 18 Local Historic Districts, all of which have a unique set of rehabilitation and design standards. While these regulations are vital to preserving St. Louis’s historic neighborhoods and architecture, they also add complexity to the approvals process. At times, requirements enforced through zoning, historic standards, public approval processes, and other policies can be in tension, where the goals of one requirement are in conflict with the goals of a different requirement. Ultimately, greater predictability in both the process and the policies will facilitate positive reinvestment in St. Louis.

The following efforts are recommended to make development and approvals processes more predictable and accessible.

Proposed Efforts:

• E3.1.A: Update and streamline the process for review (including regulations, approvals, incentives, rezoning) and coordinate to ensure processes are smooth and understandable.
• E3.1.B: Ensure that new development processes and policies alleviate barriers for small developers engaging in reinvestment.
• E3.1.C: Create a staffed “front desk” program that supports people through funding and development processes.
• E3.1.D: Continue ongoing efforts to clarify and modernize historic district standards in new and existing districts.

⬚ figure

“The amount of variances needed for seemingly every redevelopment project is holding the region back and killing economic activity.”

• City Resident

“Allowing easy and red-tape-free processes for business and real estate development will be conducive to the most durable vitality — ground up voluntary efforts to build business, housing, and culture by ordinary citizens.”

• City Resident

E3.1.A: Update and streamline the process for review (including regulations, approvals, incentives, rezoning) and coordinate to ensure processes are smooth and understandable.

St. Louis can streamline the development review process by consolidating regulations, approvals, and rezoning steps into a single, coordinated system with clear timelines and criteria, reducing redundancy and delays for developers. The policies and processes for zoning, historic preservation, incentives, and more should all be aligned to ensure greater clarity and coordinated purpose. All elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the SLUP, can serve as a guide for appropriate development types and principles. Communicating these changes to the public through easily accessible online platforms, workshops, and guides is crucial to ensure that developers and community members understand the streamlined process, leading to more efficient project approvals and increased trust in the system.

“Neighborhood support differs in every neighborhood. The process is different, the leadership is different and changes regularly. Volunteer boards should not be debating development and providing approvals. It’s not sustainable and we don’t have the expertise in the Community Development Corporations or Neighborhood Associations to properly vet projects. Aldermanic support is also a thing of the past. We need to add predictability, and right now community engagement is a real problem. The current zoning and need for community feedback creates the issues with Board of Adjustment — It can’t go on like this!”

• Local Community Developer

E3.1.B: Ensure that new development processes and policies alleviate barriers for small developers engaging in reinvestment.

St. Louis can alleviate barriers for small developers engaging in reinvestment and rehabilitation by offering additional financial incentives, such as grants and low-interest loans, to reduce upfront costs. Additionally, the city could build on the existing resources in the Business Assistance Center and other programs to offer a dedicated support system that provides technical assistance, such as help with navigating approvals processes, zoning regulations, and accessing development incentives, while also streamlining the approval process for smaller projects by reducing fees and simplifying paperwork. Providing educational resources and one-on-one support would further empower small developers to successfully reinvest in underutilized properties. A number of City departments and agencies might be part of developing and offering these resources, ensuring that they are coordinated and aligned.

E3.1.C: Create a staffed “front desk” program that supports people through funding and development processes.

Such a program could supplement or expand existing resources (e.g., the Business Assistance Center, the Cultural Resources Office Hot Spot, etc.) to serve as a one-stop resource center, offering personalized assistance to developers and community members navigating funding options, zoning regulations, and approvals processes. By integrating more of the development and approval processes online, such as permit applications, real-time project tracking, and virtual consultations, the “front desk” would make it easier for developers to access information and receive timely support, reducing the complexity of the development process while ensuring transparency and efficiency. This may be offered in both virtual and in-person formats to reach a diverse range of residents.

E3.1.D: Continue ongoing efforts to clarify and modernize historic district standards in new and existing districts.

The Cultural Resources Office (CRO) is already in the process of reviewing and aligning the existing standards and creating a framework that can be used to update them. Updating guidelines can ensure that standards support preservation and are compatible with new development or reinvestment. This may require clarifying design review processes, incorporating flexibility for adaptive reuse and affordability, and leveraging modern building techniques while also providing clearer guidance for developers and property owners to ensure historic character is maintained. CRO’s early work will result in a menu of options that can be used to update, modernize, and clarify historic district regulations in partnership with neighborhood groups. In addition, the City can encourage and support efforts to expand and/or establish National Historic Districts as a means of expanding assistance and incentives for rehabilitation.

E3.2 Increase awareness of and transparency around development opportunities and processes.

Residents and other stakeholders have expressed that opportunities for and processes around development are complicated and can prevent new development, especially by small-scale developers and residents. Another barrier to development is a perceived lack of funding sources and other support. Although St. Louis has existing resources and tools for development (for example, funds through the Community Development Administration and Affordable Housing Trust Fund and a variety of programs run by the St. Louis Development Corporation), they are not always obvious to people who are not familiar with the City’s development processes. This is especially obstructive to startup businesses and small, local developers. In addition, it can be difficult for everyday residents to figure out what the possibilities and proposals are within their own communities, as projects may enter the pipeline in a variety of ways.

One of the biggest problems with the previous SLUP is that it did not provide clear guidelines for development based on its land use designations. The SLUP should align with other plans, including those at the neighborhood scale, and should be used to guide proactive updates to zoning to clearly indicate expectations for development. The update of the SLUP aims to address this.

Vague designations, complicated zoning overlays, and lack of knowledge and clarity about support for projects and development are all examples of major obstacles to potential development that should be addressed. Below are two recommended efforts for the City to increase awareness and transparency around development opportunities.

Proposed Efforts:

E3.2.A: Create a consolidated resource guide on the City’s website to highlight development and funding opportunities and to demystify development processes.

E3.2.B: Create an interactive map to provide up-to-date information on plans and policies.

E3.2.C: Ensure that neighborhood organizations are informed about development taking place in their communities.

“There are a lot of passionate and capable people in St. Louis who are often frustrated by our city governance and policies. More transparency and collaboration would benefit St. Louis and help people take more pride in contributing and caring for their city.”

• City Resident

“While development is necessary, there is often a mistrust from those outside of the area buying and building with little connection or investment return to the community upon which their wealth is being built. There are people here that want the opportunity to build up and expand and we should elevate our own because we have some hidden gems in our seemingly invisible spaces.”

• City Resident

E3.2.A: Create a consolidated resource guide on the City’s website to highlight development and funding opportunities and to demystify development processes and policies.

A resource guide could demystify the development process by clearly outlining steps, funding opportunities, policies, and incentives in one accessible location, reducing confusion for developers and small businesses. Creation of this type of resource guide likely needs support and input from a variety of city departments and associated agencies, including the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC), the Building Division, the Planning and Urban Design Agency, and the Community Development Administration.

“If we encourage more small-scale development on vacant lots and in buildings... it will bring more residents and more economic activity.”

• City Resident

E3.2.B: Create an interactive map to provide up-to-date information on plans.

To help provide public visibility into ongoing work toward the implementation of plans, there’s an opportunity to update the City’s mapping system to align key information like land use, zoning, real-time information about applications, and additional relevant information for a wide variety of types of projects.

CASE STUDY: Zoning and Land Use Application, New York City, NY

The New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) launched an interactive map, the Zoning and Land Use Application (ZoLA), to provide the public with up-to-date information on zoning, land use, and city planning initiatives. The objective is to improve transparency and public access to data, enabling residents, developers, and policymakers to view current zoning regulations, development proposals, and environmental assessments. Key components include zoning details, real-time updates on land use applications, and neighborhood-level data. While the initiative has been successful in fostering community engagement and streamlining the planning process, challenges remain in ensuring that users fully understand complex planning data and that the tool remains accessible to all, particularly in underserved communities.

A Sample of Planned and Potential Catalyst Projects

Major new industrial, commercial, multifamily, and institutional projects have the potential to transform St. Louis. There are many major development projects underway in St. Louis that are receiving incentives. The map shows a sample of catalyst projects that are in planning and/or under development, including several SLDC Priority Projects, large projects receiving incentives, recently awarded affordable housing investments, and more. The truth is, there are more projects than could be shown on this map!

⬚ figure

Baden School Apartments Wellston Loop Historic Pavillion Easton Mixed-Use MLK Redevelopment Chuck Berry House Marshall School Enterprise Cleaning Building Weissman Theatrical Supply John Cochran VA Medical Center Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center (AMIC) Virginia Plaza Cleveland High School

Sara Lou Cafe Be Well Cafe Gateway Global Griot Museum NGA Campus Tucker / Locust Garage City Block 177 Jubilee Grand Motel Eliot School Redevelopment Preservation Square V Carr Square Village Railway Exchange Building Millenium Hotel Gateway South Municipal Courts Building Clinton-Peabody Redevelopment Phase 1 Benton Park Place Apartments

Legend [ ] Catalyst projects in planning and/or under development

Source: STL 2030 Progress, Greater St. Louis Inc., St. Louis Development Corporation, MHDC, CDA, AHC

E3.2.C: Ensure that neighborhood organizations are informed about development taking place in their communities.

Expanding the capacity of neighborhood groups to engage in planning and development can support an effective, efficient, and equitable system of information distribution back to communities, allowing more active involvement in the process of decision-making about land use, including development, incentives, rezoning, disposition of publicly owned properties, and other decisions. This system should create consistent and convenient methods for finding and sharing information that supports informed resident and stakeholder participation in formal hearings that are associated with approval processes.

“Continue to attempt to get the word out and get the conversations going [at public meetings about development]. The people who live in the areas know what is best for them and how they use their community. Collaborating with many stakeholders typically can bring about some good practical ideas.”

• City Resident

E3.3 Reduce barriers to opening and sustaining small businesses across the city.

To activate and fill the Corridors and Nodes envisioned in the SLUP, for-profit and nonprofit organizations of a wide variety of scales must be supported. The City already provides support for small businesses, including efforts led by St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC). Many programs SLDC manages focus on supporting communities in areas like North St. Louis, where historic disinvestment and discriminatory legal practices have led to economic disparity. For example, the Northside Economic Empowerment Center (NEEC) in The Ville provides a range of business empowerment, capacity building, and workforce development support for individuals and businesses.

However, starting and maintaining a small business can still be difficult, and St. Louis entrepreneurs have expressed that the approval, licensing, and occupancy processes for new businesses can be time-consuming and complicated. Residents have also conveyed a desire for more locally owned small businesses that create vibrant, diverse neighborhoods. Described below is a more detailed recommendation for how the City can support small business development.

Proposed Efforts:

E3.3.A: Continue to streamline and expand access to the process for opening and operating a business.

“I think it would be great if the... barriers to entry stay low for small businesses in St Louis. [Some cities are] so strict with everything that the only businesses that can enter are chain major restaurants or businesses that charge extreme high prices. The neighborhoods lose their character and walkability. The small [and] immigrant-owned stores and restaurants bring so much life and flavor to the city.”

• City Resident

E3.3.A: Continue to streamline and expand access to the process for opening and operating a business.

Shortening approval timelines for small businesses makes it faster and easier for entrepreneurs to launch. The City can also improve accessibility by providing materials on starting and operating a business in multiple languages and formats, ensuring that all communities have the resources they need. Additionally, simplifying the process for obtaining home occupancy business licenses and expanding support programs for small businesses and entrepreneurs will foster a more inclusive, vibrant local economy, especially for underrepresented groups.

CASE STUDY: Motor City Match Program, Detroit, MI

The Motor City Match program in Detroit, managed by the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC), aims to revitalize neighborhoods, support small businesses, and stimulate economic growth by matching entrepreneurs with vacant properties. Launched in 2015, it provides financial assistance up to $500,000 in grants and loans for start-up costs, building renovations, and equipment; technical support with designing, permitting, and financing; and property-matching services to help businesses open or expand, contributing to job creation and the revitalization of Detroit’s commercial corridors. The program has supported over 1,400 businesses, creating visible economic activity and reducing vacancy rates. However, challenges remain in ensuring long-term business sustainability, securing additional capital for growth, and equitably distributing benefits, particularly to minority-owned businesses.

⬚ figure

Example from the Motor City Match program, Wade neighborhood, Detroit

Source: Motor City Match

Vision Theme

Growing

A growing St. Louis is one where a diversity of people, institutions, and businesses want to come to St. Louis and to stay here.

Residents see refilling the city and growing population as a way to support and sustain a thriving and an equitable city. Having more people and more resources helps support walkable, connected communities. The first step in growth is addressing the factors causing people to leave; land use has an important role to play in supporting people to stay. Growth requires a careful balance of supporting and prioritizing the needs of current residents to keep them here as new people arrive. Growing can mean attracting new residents, including young families, immigrants, those who want a lower cost of living, and those who want a more climate-stable home. Critical to addressing a growing St. Louis is addressing vacancy, neglect, and other nuisance issues while building on the existing physical, cultural, and social assets of our community.

“We need more people to solve so many issues including safety (more bystanders), revenue (larger tax base), and job growth (communities of talent).” -City Resident

“I believe if we prioritize all residents and offer these baselines with dignity and opportunity, others will be drawn [here] because they would feel like they belong.” -City Resident

Growing Goal 1:

Reimagine vacancy as an asset that can be activated to support, retain, and attract residents.

Vacancy, and other land-use nuisances that arise from neglect and cause harm, are a physical and emotional burden on neighborhoods and residents of St. Louis, adding costs and tarnishing the experience people have in their own neighborhoods and as they travel across the city. Vacancy is unequally distributed across the city, with much higher vacancy rates on the north side of the city, reflecting the historic patterns of redlining, segregation, and disinvestment. Addressing vacancy, while also addressing land uses that are nuisances or cause harm, has the potential to change the day-to-day conditions for people across the city and is a top priority for residents.

Growing Goal 2:

Encourage development that builds from, improves, and enhances assets like parks, cultural and educational institutions, and the River.

St. Louis is a city brimming with assets. For example, parks and community spaces are important neighborhood and regional destinations that draw people together and help shape the culture of St. Louis. Yet, many of St. Louis’s assets struggle with a similar set of challenges, including disconnection from each other and the rest of the city and challenges with maintenance and upkeep in the surrounding area.

Growing Goal 3:

Guide growth and change in a manner that will help St. Louis more readily adapt to a changing climate.

St. Louis, like places around the world, is threatened by the changing climate, including intensification of storms, increased flooding, and increased heat. The increased risks from these threats are not equally distributed across the city—often, the areas with the highest heat, lowest tree cover, and least stormwater infrastructure reflect historic patterns of redlining and racial segregation. Some of these risks, like flooding, have long been part of the landscape in St. Louis, but in recent decades the city has seen flooding in locations that don’t follow the river-based patterns that St. Louisans have come to expect.

G1: Reimagine vacancy as an asset that can be activated to support, retain, and attract residents

“St. Louis needs a cohesive plan to bring new businesses and residents to the city and the inner ring areas of the county. Whether through immigration or migration from other more expensive and overcrowded areas of the US, we all as a region need the city to be a vibrant, active area that contributes significantly to the US economy.”

• City Resident

Vacancy, and other land-use nuisances that arise from neglect and cause harm, are a physical and emotional burden on neighborhoods and residents of St. Louis, adding costs and tarnishing the experience people have in their own neighborhoods and as they travel across the city. Vacancy is unequally distributed across the city, with much higher vacancy rates on the north side of the city, reflecting the historic patterns of redlining and racial segregation and disinvestment. Addressing vacancy, while also addressing land uses that are nuisances or cause harm, has the potential to change the day-to-day conditions for people across the city and is a top priority for residents.

Land use can contribute to addressing vacancy by creating a vision for how land should be used, including encouraging the reuse of existing buildings, identifying areas for reinvestment, and highlighting areas well positioned to provide ecological services, such as stormwater management for flood resilience. Yet addressing vacancy requires policies and investments that support proactively responding to vacancy, including the nuisance issues that impact people’s quality of life. In addition, there must be demand to reuse currently-vacant spaces, which means growing the population and supporting new uses of spaces. The following strategies address these needs.

Proposed Strategies:

G1.1 Attract new residents to St. Louis by amplifying the city’s assets, addressing quality of life concerns, and proactively welcoming new Americans.

G1.2 Address nuisance issues caused by vacancy and certain land uses.

G1.3 Align policy, community priorities, and resources to proactively repurpose vacant and underutilized buildings.

G1.4 Make intentional physical and mobility connections between the Central Areas and surrounding neighborhoods.

G1.5 Invest resources, processes, and other assistance to support the city’s diverse urban agriculture community.

G1.1 Attract new residents to St. Louis by amplifying the city’s assets, addressing quality of life concerns, and proactively welcoming new Americans.

Following St. Louis’s population peak in the mid-20th century, the city has faced among the most dramatic demographic shifts in population loss of any city in the United States, with a decline of 63% from 1950.

However, population change in recent years has been characterized by a slowing rate of population loss. This rate of departure from the city varies by racial groups. Between 2010 and 2020, 27,000 Black people left the city, while just over 5,000 white residents left in the same time period. While the city’s population has declined, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has had a nearly stagnant population compared to other areas of the same size. In the time period from 2010 to 2020, the St. Louis MSA gained about 33,000 people. A significant amount of population growth in the St. Louis MSA is due to an increase in the foreign-born population. From 2022 to 2023, the area’s foreign-born population rose by 23%, or about 30,000 people.

The SLUP takes an optimistic yet realistic approach to population growth in St. Louis. It focuses on enhancing the city’s existing assets and urban qualities that attract newcomers and make existing residents choose to stay in the city, but it also acknowledges that growth is a long-term effort that will take dedication and attention. Described below are three efforts that may help attract and retain residents in the city.

Proposed Efforts:

G1.1A: Continue efforts to attract and retain new Americans in St. Louis city.

G1.1B: Create a plan and strategy to attract new people, particularly those with roots in St. Louis, to St. Louis city.

“Immigrants and families are key to growth and stability.”

• City Resident

G1.1C: Put special attention and focus into the environment and physical stability around schools.

“I would love to see more immigrants spread throughout the city to promote the population... but it’s hard because Missouri is a red state and often has anti-immigration rhetoric that mirrors the rhetoric I hear towards the Black community.”

• City Resident

G1.1A: Continue efforts to attract and retain new Americans in St. Louis city.

St. Louis has long been a destination for immigrants and refugees, and in recent years efforts like the creation of the Office of New Americans by Mayor Tishaura O. Jones have offered additional support and resources to welcome new Americans to the city. The work of the International Institute, the Mosaic Project, and countless other organizations in the city is also essential. There are more opportunities to strengthen and coordinate this support, bringing more people to St. Louis.

At the same time, new Americans sometimes find it difficult to remain in the city long term. Many new Americans arrive in St. Louis for a job or because of family connections, and even if families want to stay in St. Louis city, the difficulty of navigating housing, transportation, and services can be challenging, leading people to move elsewhere in the region. There is limited quality affordable housing available in places where new Americans are also able to access necessary services for transition, grocery stores, public spaces, and transit. There’s also few housing options that support multi-generational living, which is critical for families moving together. As one person who supports new Americans said, to retain people in the city after a transitional period, it “has to go beyond ‘here’s some keys to a house, some money, and we’ll help you find a job’—they need to develop some sense of community and connectivity through program opportunities.” Many new Americans are comfortable interacting with others in public spaces like parks, gardens, courtyards, and libraries, and having these spaces nearby can support connection and a sense of safety for new Americans. New Americans also believe homeownership and entrepreneurship can be particularly difficult, and there are many opportunities to increase their access to these paths. This could include translation of materials related to these topics, intentional outreach, and having a coordinated strategy across many support organizations to engage new Americans in the city.

“[It] has to go beyond ‘here’s some keys to a house, some money, and we’ll help you find a job’—they need to develop some sense of community and connectivity through program opportunities.”

• Stakeholder who supports new Americans

“Immigrants and families are key to growth and stability”

• City Resident

CASE STUDY:

The Refugee Resettlement Program, Utica, NY

Utica has become a model for refugee resettlement, largely through the efforts of the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees (MVRCR). The program provides a wide range of services, including housing assistance, healthcare navigation, legal aid, and enrollment in public benefits to help refugees transition smoothly into life in Utica. They also match New Americans with jobs, ESL courses, entrepreneur support, and business training. New Americans, in turn, revitalize Utica’s economy and reverse population decline by contributing to the local workforce and cultural diversity. Despite successes, the city faces challenges in providing adequate affordable housing, language services, and long-term economic opportunities for its refugee population.

G1.1B: Continuously advance plans and strategies to attract new people, particularly those with roots in St. Louis, to St. Louis city.

Many U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, and Minneapolis, have been able to reverse population decline in recent years. These cities have developed extensive comprehensive plans that have helped them align on and follow a strategic vision for improving conditions for existing residents and attracting new residents. These plans include Atlanta Plan A, Blueprint Denver, and Minneapolis 2052. As part of its comprehensive plan, St. Louis must lay out goals and strategies for attracting new people, including families with children, to the city. This plan should include a focus on bringing back people with roots in St. Louis who might still have ties to the city. Place-specific strategies should be explored within Neighborhood Planning.

G1.1C: Put special attention and focus into the environment and physical stability around schools.

To support families, young people, and schools’ long-term success, extra attention to the environment surrounding schools is needed. This includes addressing transportation issues like complete sidewalks, safe crosswalks, shade trees, and visible lighting that can support more children safely walking to school. It also includes addressing vacancy and nuisance properties in the vicinity of schools. Emphasis should be placed on strategies that “complete” the blocks with occupied infill and rehabbed housing, especially around elementary schools, to provide a greater sense of safety, stability, and optimism within neighborhoods.

G1.2 Address nuisance issues caused by vacancy and certain land uses.

The St. Louis Vacancy Collaborative reports that in the past three years, the City has incurred over $25 million worth of costs due to vacancy, including unpaid property taxes, forestry maintenance fees, and unpaid vacant building fees. However, the consequences of vacancy aren’t just economic: abandoned or poorly maintained properties attract crime and illegal dumping, diminish community pride, add burdens to City departments and residents, and contribute to population loss. Furthermore, nuisance issues resulting from vacancy are not equitably distributed across the city. One example of how this manifests is that building demolition permits (which if not carefully done can contribute to air pollution by spreading harmful dust and asbestos) are requested and issued more frequently in majority Black neighborhoods. Many vacant parcels are also located at gateways, at block corners, or in places where people arrive in St. Louis or specific neighborhoods from elsewhere, giving visitors a negative impression.

But it’s not just vacant properties that contribute to nuisance concerns. Other active uses of land—when not properly monitored or operated—can tend to attract behaviors and activities that create public safety issues and make residents feel uncomfortable or even unsafe in their own neighborhoods. Certain gas stations, convenience stores, liquor stores, and similar uses can contribute to quality of life concerns and disorder, which makes it difficult for families to remain in the city.

The City of St. Louis has several departments involved in monitoring vacant properties and nuisance complaints in the city, including the Neighborhood Stabilization Division, which supports registering requests for city services; the City’s Building Division, responsible for conducting building inspections, administering zoning ordinances, and enforcing the building code; and the Board of Public Service, responsible for the works and maintenance of all

public buildings and properties owned by the City. A resident’s first stop to report needs for service is the Citizens Service Bureau (CSB), which registers and routes city service requests to appropriate departments. In addition, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) is the City’s land bank, responsible for the stewardship and sale of previously abandoned and tax-foreclosed properties.

Beyond these City-led departments, the St. Louis Vacancy Collaborative is a coalition of partners dedicated to reducing the negative impact of vacant property in St. Louis through data-informed resources and working groups. The Vacancy Collaborative, through efforts such as its Law, Policy, and Implementation group, is working to enhance or improve the effectiveness of laws and policies that can reduce vacant and abandoned property.

The SLUP designations can help address vacancy-related issues by allowing and encouraging diverse types of development in areas with high vacancy. The Neighborhood designations in the SLUP permit non-residential land uses such as neighborhood stores and community spaces such as parks and other open spaces such as green infrastructure, community gardens, and other urban agriculture. Non-residential infill development creates the opportunity for vacant nuisance properties to be redeveloped for new purposes that benefit the community. And stronger standards for gas stations can help create an environment that feels safe and that is easy to monitor. Additionally, the following efforts are recommended to address nuisance issues related to vacancy.

Proposed Efforts:

G1.2A: Enforce standards for building code and occupancy.

G1.2C: Explore policies and programs that encourage repair or reuse of vacant properties.

G1.2B: Expand the capacity to document and act on nuisance complaints.

G1.2D: Maximize the use of zoning policy and other tools in regulating uses that can contribute to nuisance activities.

“[We need]... more enforcement of laws and dilapidated structures and homes being forcibly attended to... I love this neighborhood and this city, but our tax dollars only go to keeping the richer neighborhoods nice to keep up appearances. We deserve clean streets and abandoned/neglected properties taken care of.”

• City Resident

Evolution of Residential Blocks with Increasing Vacancy

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Population of St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Louis Metropolitan Region

⬚ figure

Source: St. Louis County GIS Service Center

G1.2A: Enforce standards for building code and occupancy.

Expanding the City’s capacity to enforce the standards for buildings — especially for vacant and underutilized property — is critical to ensuring that these conditions do not impact the quality of life for residents. Being able to enforce these standards may require expanded capacity in building inspectors and other City departments involved in enforcement of

nuisance property. Recent initiatives seek to expand the City’s capacity to address vacant property. For example, ballot initiatives passed in 2024, and subsequent legislative proposals to increase the cap for fees on vacant and deteriorated non-owner-occupied properties can pave the way for new, more-appropriate fees to deter vacancy.

G1.2B: Expand the capacity to document and act on nuisance complaints.

In addition to expanded capacity for enforcement, the City needs a robust system for documenting complaints and ensuring that there is follow-through action. Residents want to see that the nuisance properties that are impacting their quality of life are dealt with in a timely fashion, and better data collection and reporting can help close the gap and demonstrate progress.

CASE STUDY:

The importance of a data-driven strategy for preventing and addressing vacancy and nuisance issues

Vacancy and nuisance issues are notoriously difficult to manage in a strategic, rather than reactive, manner. Over the years, the City, SLDC, and the Vacancy Collaborative have collaboratively built a robust data infrastructure to track vacancy. These partners should continue efforts to strengthen this infrastructure and to actively use it in a targeted manner.

For example, in historically stable neighborhoods where vacancy and nuisance issues are beginning to emerge, the City may devote focused resources toward stabilization and enforcement to ensure residents are supported and that vacancy and nuisance issues do not spread. In other areas, where vacancy is more prevalent, the City and SLDC should identify areas to facilitate redevelopment through land assembly, incentives, and other efforts guided by community planning. This type of targeted approach can be both technically and politically challenging, but a strategic approach is essential to long-term success. The Economic Justice Plan Demonstration Areas (see page 300), Economic Justice Index (see page 275), and the Market Value Analysis (see page 222) all offer data-informed frameworks for strategic prioritization.

G1.2C: Explore policies and programs that encourage repair or reuse of vacant properties.

Many vacant properties, including buildings, are privately owned. Encouraging private owners to redevelop or sell their underutilized or vacant property to responsible owners can help move property back into productive use, in alignment with the vision laid out in the SLUP and other community

goals. Potential policies or programs should be designed priorities, including supporting small-scale developers. In some areas of the city with the highest need, proactive investments to support repair or reuse of vacant buildings should be considered.

⬚ figure

Source: Steering Committee Member

“This building [near me] has been deteriorating over several years. [I was told there were limited options for fining the owner]. The Preservation Review Board has no jurisdiction... a few weeks ago, the building finally burned down, eliminating another corner that provided historic, urban sense-of-place....”

• Steering Committee Member

G1.2D: Maximize the use of zoning policy and other tools in regulating uses that can contribute to nuisance activities.

Zoning can be a powerful tool in regulating uses that contribute to nuisances; zoning can determine whether, where, and under what conditions a given land use can be permitted in the city. It can also set certain requirements that touch on operations, such as limiting hours of operation, ensuring appropriate refuse facilities are available, and more. The zoning code overhaul should explore, at length, the best options for setting and enforcing policies that can assist in preventing and managing nuisance activity. However, zoning has limits in its ability to regulate behaviors associated with certain land uses and must be complemented by other tools, policies, and enforcement capacity that can address nuisance activities themselves.

“Take away some of the little gas stations, corner stores, and liquor stores... they’re bad looking. We’ve had trouble with the gas station.”

• City Resident

G1.3 Align policy, community priorities, and resources to proactively repurpose vacant and underutilized buildings.

There are around 9,000 vacant buildings in St. Louis, including houses, apartment buildings, office buildings, industrial buildings, commercial buildings, schools, and churches. These unused structures have the potential to support new development while maintaining the existing character of the city. Adaptive reuse can also have the benefit of sometimes being less expensive and more sustainable than new construction.

Over 1,000 of the city’s vacant buildings are owned by the LRA. The LRA has several programs meant to assist the rehabilitation of vacant buildings, including the As-Is-Building Rehab Program, the Development Program, and the Ready-to-Rehab Program. In addition, the Prop NS program supports stabilization of buildings that are vacant residential buildings of six units or less. The City’s Stable Communities STL pilot program also supports stabilization of privately owned vacant buildings.

Many vacant buildings are historically and culturally important structures that require significant rehabilitation. It is important to align preservation of the city’s historic physical landscape with the need for a variety of new development. While the SLUP can’t ensure that any given vacant parcel or building will be redeveloped or repurposed, by doubling down on the qualities that make St. Louis distinctly urban—and helping to create the walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that people want to see—the SLUP presents a path toward adaptive reuse and redevelopment. The following efforts are recommended to proactively repurpose vacant and underutilized buildings.

Proposed Efforts:

G1.3A: Create a clear process and strategy for repurposing historic schools and churches for other community needs, including services and housing.

G1.3B: Explore partnership programs that reduce the financial barriers and expand access to capital for potential buyers to rehab or build on city-owned sites.

G1.3C: Prioritize additional investment to stabilize historic buildings and support future rehab.

⬚ figure Source: The City of St. Louis Residential Market Analysis, St. Louis Development Corporation, St. Louis Vacancy Collaborative

⬚ figure Source: STL Vacancy Collaborative

⬚ figure Source: STL Vacancy Collaborative

G1.3A: Create a clear process and strategy for repurposing historic schools and churches for other community needs, including services and housing.

St. Louis’s population has continued to decline since 1950, and historic school buildings may no longer meet all the needs of modern students. Thus, the city is contending with the obstacle of large, aging, vacant structures within neighborhoods. Currently, Saint Louis Public Schools has 20 listed vacant schools for sale on its Surplus Property Website. These buildings, along with vacant religious schools and places of worship, have the potential to be repurposed to benefit the community. New uses should meet the needs of a cross-section of community members, to ensure that neighborhoods remain diverse, resilient and attractive to all populations. Neighborhood groups and community organizations should be involved in decision-making and planning processes, as the potential benefits of new uses could extend to the entire community (not solely immediate neighbors or property owners).

This effort aligns with work led by Saint Louis Public Schools, as outlined in the Blueprint and Strategic Vision for the Education Ecosystem (2023), to utilize vacant and unused school buildings to support and house identified community needs.

Vacant Schools

Population decline, aging school buildings, and changes in education have all contributed to vacancy of former school buildings across St. Louis.

⬚ figure

Currently, Saint Louis Public Schools has 20 listed vacant schools for sale on its Surplus Property Website. The full inventory of vacant school buildings also includes many others not currently listed for sale.

SLP’s Blueprint and Strategic Vision for the Education Ecosystem (2023) calls for the utilization of vacant and unused school buildings to support and house identified community needs.

Baden Elementary School on Halls Ferry Road will be converted to 50 affordable apartments, with support of federal and state Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).

In addition to former public schools, many religious schools and places of worship also have the potential to be repurposed into new uses that would benefit the community.

Legend

• ★ SLPS Surplus Properties
• √ Sold Properties

Source: St. Louis Public Schools Building Revitalization Collaborative

CASE STUDY:

After School Detroit, Detroit, MI

After School Detroit project, led by the City of Detroit Planning and Development Department (PDD) in collaboration with consulting support, offers a model for repurposing vacant historic schools into community-centered hubs. The goal of the project was to explore the possibility of reusing historic vacant school buildings and to imagine new futures for these places, such as providing essential services such as affordable housing, education, and community programs. The project website, which created inventories for the schools, including their building morphology and character, is a useful tool for developers, city leaders, and the public to preserve the historic character of vacant schools.

G1.3B: Explore partnership programs that reduce the financial barriers and expand access to capital for potential buyers to rehab or build on city-owned sites.

The LRA offers a variety of programs for purchasing city-owned properties, but some rehabilitation and new construction on these sites can be expensive on top of the costs of purchasing. The City should explore partnership options to lower the financial barriers and expand capital around the re-use of these properties to encourage infill development and lessen vacancy rates, particularly in areas that are determined to be in high need by indices like the Economic Justice Index (see more on page 275). This might include special loan products, pre-development funds, and/or developer technical assistance that can complement some of LRA’s existing programs described on page 300.

“Improve conditions of vacant property and make the area attractive to residents; subsidize the cost to rehab vacant properties!”

• County Resident

G1.3C: Prioritize additional investment to stabilize historic buildings and support future rehab.

A key part of historic preservation is structural stabilization, ensuring that historic buildings stay upright and intact. Balancing stabilization work with conservation of the sometimes delicate elements that comprise a building’s historic significance can be costly, but it is necessary for the protection of St. Louis’s rich historic character as well as the reduction of vacancy rates. While the City has invested in stabilization, more is needed.

“This sort of thing [large vacant building, uncared for and on the verge of collapse] is so common in St. Louis...if it could be repaired and repurposed, it would be a huge asset.”

• City Resident

G1.4 Make intentional physical and mobility connections between the Central Areas and surrounding neighborhoods.

There is a general feeling among St. Louis residents that the central corridor is disconnected and inaccessible from surrounding neighborhoods, both physically and conceptually. Inadequate multi-modal routes as well as barriers like highways and railways contribute to this disconnection. To the south, the central corridor is separated by physical barriers such as Interstate 64/40 and railways that are hard to traverse, especially without a car. The north is separated by large vacant gaps and/or industrial districts that are difficult and unpleasant to pass through.

The public has shared that Downtown St. Louis and other parts of the central corridor have a lot of unrealized potential, mostly because areas of activity and new investments are disconnected from each other and from the rest of the city. The city has already recognized and documented this challenge through other planning efforts and has major initiatives underway to improve connectivity to Downtown St. Louis. Among these are multiple new bikeways and multi-use trails into and through Downtown. These include the partially constructed 20th Street mobility improvements, which connects from Chouteau Boulevard to St. Louis Avenue with a protected bikeway and trail. The Brickline Greenway is also currently under construction—reimagining the west entrance to Downtown along Market Street as a new linear park and greenway. Soon that project will continue east and head towards a connection with the Gateway Arch National Park grounds. Safer connections into Downtown along 4th Street, Broadway, and Tucker Boulevard are also funded and will soon be under construction. The recently completed reconstruction of Jefferson Avenue also creates a safer, more accessible connection between Downtown and neighborhoods to the north.

Other projects at the perimeter of Downtown will continue to improve multi-modal connections for adjacent neighborhoods. These include a new Compton Bridge, which will include a multi-use trail, a re-imagined Cass Avenue, and safety and bike facility improvements on Chouteau Avenue. The current investments for better connectivity into Downtown are substantial, but much work is still to be done to build consistently accessible sidewalks and safe streets inside Downtown. The partial geographic isolation of Downtown, created by the Mississippi River to the east, the railway and highway corridor to the south, will continue to require new mixed-use development to fill in or reduce current gaps between Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods to integrate Downtown in the fabric of the rest of the city.

The SLUP conceives of the Central Areas as a bridge and a place of connection between neighborhoods to the north and south, rather than as a divide. Corridors that lead into and through the Central Areas help create active, continuous land use from surrounding Nodes and Neighborhoods, encouraging development that leads to more connectivity and mobility. Additionally, the following efforts are recommended to help strengthen connections between the Central Corridor and surrounding neighborhoods.

Central Areas Disconnected

⬚ figure

Proposed Efforts:

G1.4A: Encourage development on surface parking lots, especially those near transit and those that act as barriers between the Central Areas and surrounding parts of the city.

G1.4B: Continue to support the construction or improvement of safe, attractive paths for moving in and out of the central district.

G1.4C: Allow for transition away from heavy industrial uses that separate the Central Areas from neighborhoods to the north and south, with a focus on strategic points of connection between Central Areas and surrounding neighborhoods.

“Downtown is often the first impression of our city and work needs to be done to make it dynamic and attractive. It needs to be as active of a neighborhood as much as some of our other thriving ones.”

• City Resident

“Downtown is a place of potential. It is the heartbeat of the City, and already has incredible infrastructure.”

• City Resident

“[We] need to connect Downtown to adjacent neighborhoods and we need more people with modern [housing].”

• Steering Committee Member

G1.4A: Encourage development on surface parking lots, especially those near transit and those that act as barriers between the Central Areas and surrounding parts of the city.

Surface parking lots can create empty gaps that are difficult, unsafe, and unpleasant to pass through for pedestrians and cyclists. Because of this, they often act as barriers, preventing connectivity and mobility. Many of these parking lots are unused a majority of the time and could be redeveloped or reprogrammed into more productive, vibrant uses that would encourage connection rather than deter it. The City should prioritize development on surface parking lots around transit as well as in between the central district and surrounding areas.

⬚ figure

G1.4B: Continue to support the construction or improvement of safe, attractive paths for moving in and out of the central district.

St. Louis has several funded greenways and multi-modal or safety projects that will help provide connections between the central corridor and the rest of the city, but there are more opportunities for creating and enhancing paths to and from the central district. These could take the form of protected bike lanes, shared-use paths, greenways, rail trails, or linear parks. Connectivity may be achieved through the ongoing development of these new multi-modal amenities, but it will also benefit from active mixed uses along corridors entering Downtown. Examples of current developments near the edges of Downtown that help in bridging the gap to adjacent neighborhoods include the housing developing in Lafayette Square near Jefferson Avenue and Chouteau that had formerly been an industrial site, the proposed new mixed-use construction in the vicinity of Locust and 22nd Street, the complete redevelopment of the Victor (former Butler Brothers building) into 380 apartments, and the redevelopment just east of Jefferson on Locust and Washington Avenues.

G1.4C: Allow for transition away from heavy industrial uses that separate the Central Areas from neighborhoods to the north and south, with a focus on strategic points of connection between Central Areas and surrounding neighborhoods.

Within the Central Areas, a transition away from previously industrial uses has been underway for more than a decade. Spurred by previous planning efforts and stewardship from major St. Louis institutions, the Cortex district began re-imagining under-used industrial areas as drivers of new economic activity more than twenty years ago. This eventually led to other adjacent redevelopment of formerly industrial sites, including the construction of an Ikea store, the Foundry mixed-use entertainment district, leisure and entertainment destinations like Top Golf, and new housing and mixed-use construction such as the Edwin and Steelcote buildings. This trend has been driven by the changing industrial and manufacturing landscape in the United States, with many industrial users now favoring larger sites appropriate for trucking logistics. While this shift is a challenge for many cities like St. Louis, which were once manufacturing powerhouses, it has also presented an opportunity to build new housing types and to create unique development sites for events, entertainment, cultural activities, and commerce.

Still, industrial uses including manufacturing, construction, and supply are very much a part of the St. Louis economy. The variety of contemporary possibilities in this shifting land-use context are apparent along Chouteau Avenue from Grand Boulevard heading east into Downtown. In recent years, many types of development have occurred along Chouteau, ranging from new housing developments, expanded institutional uses, entertainment venues, consolidated warehousing locations and company headquarters, retail destinations, and unique repurposing of historic buildings, in addition to ongoing office uses that have changed little in the past decades.

The trend is clearly toward less heavy industry and more mixed uses that support a variety of housing types, commercial uses, and flex industrial spaces. These previously significant industrial sites now offer opportunities to add housing units and better stitch together neighborhoods that previously felt separated by this once industrial corridor. While this trend is likely to continue, not all of these industrial sites are easy to redevelop. Many sites will require incentives to prevent them from staying vacant for longer periods. Investment in appropriate infrastructure to support the need for sidewalk connections and safer street designs can also increase the cost of development but should always be a component of re-use to ensure these sites become attractive for housing and mixed uses.

The SLUP suggests that over time, the heavy industrial uses to the north and south of the Central Areas will continue to transition (particularly along Corridors), allowing a wider mix of uses and creating an environment that is more walkable. Long term, this will require guiding heavy industrial uses towards other, more optimal locations in the city and marketing and preparing new sites for these uses (see Thriving Goal 3 for more information). A balance must be struck of supporting industrial sites and employment in locations accessible to city residents while allowing the appropriate transition of areas that have become valuable for housing development.

“There’s room [along Delmar and 22nd in Downtown West] for mixed use housing, row homes infill, condos, apartments, affordable housing, etc, to piggyback off of the success of City Park. Unfortunately, the area is blocked by ugly warehouses that completely separate it from North City. [We] need to connect Downtown to adjacent neighborhoods and we need more people with modern [housing].”

• City Resident

G1.5 Invest resources, processes, and other assistance to support the city’s diverse urban agriculture community.

There are many different businesses and non-profit organizations that make up a network of urban agriculture in St. Louis. Urban agriculture helps localize food systems, provides access to healthy food options in underserved communities, creates local jobs, and contributes to vibrant, beautiful neighborhoods. It can also be used as a resiliency tool, creating more green space and mitigating the adverse effects of climate change. Community gardens, rooftop farms, hydroponic gardens, and vertical farms are all examples of urban agriculture.

Nearly 20% of all properties in St. Louis are vacant, and 65% of these properties are vacant lots. Vacancy presents an opportunity to put unused land back to productive use while also promoting local food systems through urban agriculture.

Besides parks and community open spaces, the SLUP’s framework plan identifies Other Open Spaces that can support many types of open space uses, including urban agriculture in a variety of forms. The following efforts are recommended to support expanding urban agriculture.

“There are efforts to maintain a greenhouse as well as other garden beds by Black farmers.... With the overabundance of vacant land in N. City neighborhoods, strategic efforts can be employed to support Black farmers and our communities needing fresh produce.”

• Steering Committee Member

“Gardens give a sense of ownership, and community farms!”

• City Resident

Proposed Efforts:

G1.5A: Add staff capacity at the City to support urban agriculture community.

G1.5B: Consider incentives (taxes or otherwise) for urban agriculture.

G1.5C: Set aside contiguous vacant parcels for long-term farming with adequate infrastructure.

G1.5D: Revisit processes for farmers and gardeners to purchase vacant land.

Vacancy to Vibrancy Local Projects

This map highlights community-led urban greening projects funded by the Vacancy to Vibrancy Small Grants program, including gardens, green infrastructure, public art, and more.

⬚ figure

To support additional transformation, the Vacancy to Vibrancy Small Grants program offers small grants for vacant lot beautification and activation in the city of St. Louis. This program is supported by the Green City Coalition, the Missouri Department of Conservation, and the St. Louis Vacancy Collaborative.

The Vacancy to Vibrancy resource guide also serves as a tool for neighbors and community organizations, containing project descriptions, site plans, budgets, and other tools to support activation projects on vacant lots.

Legend

• Produce Gardens & Orchards
• Green Infrastructure
• Naturescapes
• School Green Spaces
• Playgrounds & Public Art
• Clean and Green Lots
• Butterfly Gardens

Source: Vacancy to Vibrancy toolkit, STL Vacancy Collaborative

G1.5A: Add staff capacity at the City to support urban agriculture community.

Urban agriculture is essential to improving the city's access to and production of fresh, locally grown food, as well as increasing climate resiliency and supporting economic activity. However, the City does not currently have enough capacity to support urban agriculture in the city and should consider adding staff specifically dedicated to encouraging urban agriculture. This role could include supporting urban farmers to navigate city structures and policies, creating and maintaining resources for urban agriculture, and pursuing funding, such as grants available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This role could be supported by an advisory board of local leaders and experts in urban agriculture, bringing additional expertise and community engagement to this topic.

“For some USDA grants... it requires a city to apply for them, and I don't know if there's any capacity in the city to do that. A lot of money is getting missed because there's not capacity there.”

• Local Business Owner

CASE STUDY:

Philadelphia’s Urban Agriculture Plan

Philadelphia’s Urban Agriculture Plan, released in 2023, focuses on increasing food access, promoting environmental stewardship, and empowering communities by converting vacant land into productive urban farms and gardens. The plan emphasizes the need for equitable land access, with a goal of securing 400 acres for urban agriculture while supporting economic opportunities for local growers. A key success is its comprehensive approach, including policy changes and the establishment of infrastructure to support urban farmers. However, long-term land security, navigating complex land-use policies, and ensuring long-term land access for farmers remain challenges. Adding staff capacity at the City level has been crucial, with dedicated roles established to streamline zoning processes, manage land tenure, navigate legal frameworks, and connect growers with financial and technical support, thus ensuring the program’s sustainability and success.

⬚ figure

Source: The City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth Media Services for PA Department of Agriculture

G1.5B: Consider incentives (taxes or otherwise) for urban agriculture.

Recently, Missouri implemented a new tax credit program to encourage urban farming throughout the state. Through this program, new and existing producers can claim credit for startup and expansion costs. This initiative helps small farm business owners in St. Louis provide fresh produce in food-insecure areas while also localizing the food system and providing jobs. The Missouri Department of Agriculture and the USDA also offer resources for urban agriculture. St. Louis should consider ways to expand this kind of support for urban farmers in the city, either through tax credits or property tax adjustments.

G1.5C: Set aside contiguous vacant parcels for long-term farming with adequate infrastructure.

Urban farms can take many different forms, from a small backyard plot to upwards of 10 acres. However, larger farms are able to produce food more efficiently and at higher quantities, especially when they have adequate facilities such as consistent access to water for irrigation. One study found that on average, urban farms in New York City produce 1.2 lbs of vegetables per square foot of soil¹. St. Louis should be strategic about setting aside contiguous vacant land for larger urban farming. Sites that are designated as Other Open Space may be optimal locations for some farming operations. See G3.2 for more information (page 327).

G1.5D: Revisit processes for farmers and gardeners to purchase vacant land.

The costs and processes around obtaining vacant property can be prohibitive for small-scale farmers and gardeners looking to purchase land for production. In addition, vacant land is often unfit for agriculture and may require expensive and time-consuming preparation or decontamination. St. Louis should consider how to improve processes around acquiring and preparing vacant land for farming and gardening.

“We have been trying to buy our [community garden] lot for over a year.”

• City Resident

G2: Encourage development that builds from, improves, and enhances assets like parks, cultural and educational institutions, and the River.

St. Louis is a city brimming with assets. For example, parks and community spaces are important neighborhood and regional destinations that draw people together and help shape the culture of St. Louis. Yet, many of St. Louis’s assets struggle with a similar set of challenges, including disconnection from each other and the rest of the city and challenges with maintenance and upkeep in the surrounding area.

Land use can directly build from, improve, and enhance assets by encouraging development through Corridors, Nodes, and the Central Areas that support creating a complete city. For these land use efforts to be successful, the following recommended strategies introduce critical policies that support connection, upkeep, and long-term maintenance to help make the current and future assets of St. Louis shine.

Proposed Strategies:

G2.1 Improve physical, visual, and recreational connections with the Mississippi River and River Des Peres.

G2.2 Establish and/or update a citywide plan for green infrastructure, inclusive of parks, greenway systems, and other open spaces.

G2.3 Strengthen maintenance and investment in the public realm (including landscapes), with a focus on supporting existing and planned assets.

**G2.4 Continue to engage large institutions through their long-term planning to ensure that institutional growth and stewardship are aligned with community goals.

“Every time I’m by the river in Old North, I think ‘what a beautiful spot’. We’re an industrial city, which is important... but it’s polluting. And it would be great if we could remove pollution from the river and help connect greenways.”

• City Resident

G2.1 Improve physical, visual, and recreational connections with the Mississippi River and River Des Peres.

⬚ figure

Source: Good Development Group

The Mississippi River has been fundamental to St. Louis’s urban and economic development, yet the waterfront today remains largely inaccessible to the public. Although the St. Louis riverfront spans around 20 miles, there are a limited number of public access points. The waterfront is composed of primarily industrial or otherwise “unspecified” land uses, including manufacturing, logistics, e-commerce, and construction, as well as water and wastewater treatment facilities. St. Louis residents have expressed great interest in expanding public access to the river. While these industries are vital to the city’s health and economy, supporting St Louis’s industrial sectors and increasing public access to the waterfront is not necessarily a zero sum game. The following efforts describe two ways for the city to address the need for better riverfront access.

Proposed Efforts:

G2.1A: Introduce and enhance Waterfront Windows that strengthen the city’s connection to the river.

G2.1B: Plan routes that connect major nodes to Waterfront Windows.

“The beautiful view of the river and the land along it, with downtown in the distance, reminds me that the city is less divorced from nature than I might think. I take it as a reminder that nature can and should be incorporated into the city in ways that improve our lives. But it’s also a reminder of history.”

• Steering Committee Member

G2.1A: Introduce and enhance Waterfront Windows that strengthen the city’s connection to the river.

The plan recommends the creation of more quality physical and visual connections along the riverfront to allow for public views and engagement with the river. Creating these sites will require careful study of the river conditions, the floodwall, and access from the city. Past study of areas of opportunity, like Branch Street, can serve as the foundation for initial exploration. These windows should align with bike and pedestrian corridors that would provide safe, accessible routes through industrial zones.

Recent examples of similar work include the improvements to Chain of Rocks Bridge Park. These major upgrades create a welcoming environment at the north end of the north Riverfront Greenway and provide an excellent foundation for experiencing the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge, one of the most unique and majestic ways to view the Mississippi River in the Midwest. At a smaller scale, the trail linkage between Sister Marie Charles Park and Bellerive Park offers a window onto the Mississippi in south St. Louis. Some recent exploration has also occurred to improve boat access to the river below the Chain of Rocks.

Many past decisions have made access to the river or river-adjacent spaces more difficult. Streets have been vacated, removing access potential, and in many areas private property goes all the way to the edge of the river, preventing public access. Improvements will have to come with intentional actions by city government and partners. Opportunities do exist for better access at specific locations at several locations along the riverfront. At the far north border of the city, planning is underway for better access to the river north of I-270. The upcoming relocation of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) from its current riverfront location could create space for a new public connection to the river in the future. At various points along the riverfront, there may be locations managed by the St. Louis Port Authority that could be suitable for public uses. It is critical that future decisions about changes to right of way be viewed through the lens of preserving or increasing public access to the river.

“Take advantage of the natural feature of the rivers. Rivers surround St. Louis and the rivers movement bring the flow of energy. Build along the rivers and around them with fresh plans that make them more lovely and safe. There’s natural scenic beauty...that would make St. Louis the Gateway to West again.”

• City Resident

G2.1B: Plan routes that connect major nodes to Waterfront Windows.

Created with the support of the City of St. Louis in the year 2000, a core mission of Great Rivers Greenway (GRG) is to connect St. Louis residents to the rivers in the region, including the Mississippi. This vision has been realized in some locations, but access to the Mississippi still leaves much to be desired. Ongoing collaboration between the City of St. Louis and its constituent agencies, GRG, and other public agencies along the river is necessary to advance the mission of enhancing river access.

As residents continue to seek more opportunities to experience and enjoy access to the edge of the water, there are many barriers to reaching future Waterfront Windows. Access in many locations is complicated by the rail corridors, property ownership, poor connecting street and sidewalk conditions, limited right of way, and even seasonal variation in river elevation. Continued coordination efforts must preserve and enhance existing access, particularly from Nodes within the city, and seek to create new access routes to Waterfront Windows along the Mississippi.

Waterfront Windows

⬚ figure

G2.2 Establish and/or update a citywide plan for green infrastructure, inclusive of parks, greenway systems, and other open spaces.

St. Louis has a world-class park system, widely recognized for its variety, scale, and historical significance, with a wide mix of urban green spaces, cultural attractions, and recreational opportunities. It’s widely loved by residents, and about 95% of St. Louis residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. Throughout the over 200-year history of parks in St. Louis, there have been parks created at a wide range of scales and fulfilling many recreational, social, and ecological purposes.

In addition to the almost 3,000 acres of parkland in St. Louis, there are many other spaces and opportunities to support quality open space across the city. Parks and open space, when properly planned with a meaningful system of green infrastructure (spaces that use natural systems to improve the environment, such as improving air quality, managing stormwater, or mitigating heat impact). This can support stormwater control, the urban tree canopy, landscape interventions as a component of complete streets and pedestrian safety, while improving quality of life for residents.

The City’s disaster recovery efforts, funded in part by Community Development Block Grant Disaster Relief funds, issued following the 2022 floods, present one opportunity to further plan for and invest in a long-term plan for green infrastructure investment and maintenance.

The SLUP designates two types of Open Space: Parks & Community Spaces and Other Open Spaces. The latter designation — which is applied to areas that support stormwater detention or retention, renewable energy generation, urban farming or gardening, or habitat areas — is critical to increasing the amount of green infrastructure. But a citywide plan for green infrastructure, parks, and open space could do more. Specifically, it can do the following.

⬚ figure

Source: Trust for Public Land. ParkScore.

Proposed Efforts:

G2.2A: Outline a long-term road map for investments in parks, open space, and green infrastructure.

G2.2B: Increase funding for parks and open space maintenance

G2.2C: Develop clear processes and procedures for activating parks and open space via programming, vendors, and other means.

“PLEASE find a way to create bigger budgets and incentives to attract more parks and recreation employees. Our parks are wonderful, but many are falling apart due to deferred maintenance and neglect.”

• City Resident

G2.2A: Outline a long-term road map for investments in parks, open space, and green infrastructure.

The parks and open space plan created in 2004 established a cost of restoration and deferred maintenance of the city’s inventory of 105 parks, 10 recreation centers, and more than 100 park buildings, as well as needed investments. An updated plan for parks, and a citywide strategy for green infrastructure, can help align the priorities, planning, and resources for parks, recreation spaces, open spaces, greenways, and green infrastructure to work together.

Budgeting for parks, open spaces, and green infrastructure involves a wide range of departments and stakeholders, including Parks, Recreation, & Forestry, aldermanic-controlled Ward Capital, various parks conservancies, Great Rivers Greenway, bond proceeds, dedicated parks sales tax, the Capital Improvements Plan, Metropolitan Sewer District, the Missouri Department of Conservation, and other entities. These budgets often follow different timelines from each other and have different public input and review processes. Partners should work to coordinate budgeting for these types of assets according to a long-term vision to maximize investment and equitable maintenance of all community green spaces. In addition, these efforts should be carefully aligned with opportunities for expanding green infrastructure to address climate risks like heat and flooding.

Many opportunities exist to better link parks to each other and connect individual parks into a more cohesive parks system. Parks can also serve as key safe linkages and hubs of non-motorized journeys when their internal trail systems extend beyond the park edges. For additional detail about a road map for green infrastructure, see G3.1 on page 323.

G2.2B: Increase funding for parks and open space maintenance.

As part of an updated parks and open space plan, the city and its partners should consider increasing funding and capacity for parks and open space maintenance, especially in areas with less economic resources. In 2024, the St. Louis Parks Department budget was $13,295,535. The Parks Department maintains 2,956 acres of park, meaning that there is around $5,000 spent per acre.

Maintenance for some parks is funded in part by non-City conservancy organizations, which means that communities near parks supported by non-profit organizations often have better maintained parks. Equitable access to quality parks across the city should be a priority goal for an updated parks and open space plan, which can be addressed in part by increasing funding for parks and open space maintenance in areas that have less supplementary support. Rather than create individual conservancies for every major park, one potential model is to have existing major conservancies extend their reach to other parks — perhaps on a project-or plan-specific basis. This approach could bring existing capacity, expertise, and experience to create better environments in under-invested parks.

G2.2C: Develop clear processes and procedures for activating parks and open space via programming, vendors, and other means.

The processes around permitting and regulations for events, vendors, and other activities in the city’s parks, open spaces, and recreation centers can be confusing and restrictive. For example, there is no specific zoning designation for parks, and almost all parks are zoned either “A - Single Family Dwelling District” or “B-Two-Family Dwelling District,” which means that park improvements easily hit regulatory snags. St. Louis has a world-class parks system, and there are many unrealized opportunities for activation of these spaces. By clarifying these processes and making them known to interested parties, the City can maximize these assets and greatly benefit the community.

G2.3 Strengthen maintenance and investment in the public realm (including landscapes), with a focus on supporting existing and planned assets.

Maintenance of public space can cost cities millions of dollars and requires significant staffing. However, the upkeep of public spaces including parks, street landscaping, sidewalks, and street facades can help create a healthier, safer environment. In 2020, The Benefits and Costs of Urban Public Spaces (Pearsall et al.) study provided evidence suggesting that poor maintenance of public space negatively affects surrounding communities and attracts civil disorder. There is also a correlation between the degree of maintenance of public space and the value of nearby property. Well-maintained public spaces show an increased property value in the surrounding neighborhood. Disparities in public realm upkeep are often tied to socioeconomic patterns. Certain areas such as business districts or special taxing districts raise their own funding, meaning that more organized and/or prosperous areas often have better-maintained public spaces than those who rely solely on City maintenance budgeting.

Proposed Efforts:

G2.3A: Continue efforts to increase capacity for the City to maintain the public realm, in particular streetscapes.

G2.3B: Develop a plant palette of native plants that are lower maintenance.

G2.3C: Coordinate across City departments and with neighborhood groups, including CIDs and business districts, to align and leverage time and resources for quality maintenance.

⬚ figure

“More trees and landscaping... I want to live in a place that feels taken care of.”

• City Resident

⬚ figure

“Cherokee Street is already active with events and unique businesses, but the streetscape doesn't support pedestrians the way that it could and often feels rundown west of Jefferson whereas on the East of Jefferson side it is much nicer and more comfortable.”

• City Resident

G2.3A: Continue efforts to increase capacity for the City to maintain the public realm, in particular streetscapes.

Because streetscape improvements have been funded through a variety of sources, including Community Improvement Districts (CIDs), real estate developments, and other civic partners, a diverse array of design approaches and materials palette have been used in different locations. This has increased the complexity of maintenance across the city, in particular for under-capacity city agencies.

To support effective long-term maintenance, there must be an expected minimum standard met for pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, and other important features. Beyond these basics, an approach that uses more typical and consistent features (lighting, plantings, paving materials, signage, street furniture, etc) could allow for improved maintenance by public entities, with less burden falling to third parties.

Currently, there's limited capacity within the City to maintain streetscapes, including things like emptying trash, maintaining planting installations, and ensuring that investments in the public realm (particularly places for pedestrians) feel cared for. These responsibilities may be supplemented by a Community Improvement District or a Business District. To provide a more equitable experience of care, especially in areas that have been historically disinvested, there must be additional capacity to support this maintenance.

G2.3B: Develop a plant palette of native plants that are lower maintenance.

There are strategic ways to lessen the costs and efforts around maintenance, such as using native vegetation that is well adapted to the local environment and requires minimal maintenance after initial establishment. The Missouri Prairie Foundation’s “Grow Native!” program provides education and resources on native planting in the region. Transition from annual decorative plants to perennial plants that provide seasonal interest.

Simplified native plant palettes and planting designs that maintain all-season interest can further support streamlined maintenance. While native plants are not maintenance free, once established they provide many co-benefits, including stormwater absorption, drought tolerance, and cost reduction by reducing annual installation and less frequent maintenance. It is important to support workforce development of people skilled in native plant maintenance.

CASE STUDY:

Sustainable Backyards Program: Native Plants, Chicago, IL

The Chicago Sustainable Backyards Program is a citywide initiative designed to encourage the use of native plants in residential landscaping to promote biodiversity and reduce stormwater runoff. The program offers residents rebates on purchases of native plants, trees, and rain barrels, with the objective of creating sustainable, low-maintenance green spaces across the city. The program contributed to a reduction in long-term maintenance costs and improvement in air quality and urban biodiversity. A key challenge has been raising awareness and encouraging widespread participation, particularly in underserved neighborhoods where access to native plants and gardening resources is limited.

G2.3C: Coordinate across City departments and with neighborhood groups, including CIDs and business districts, to align and leverage time and resources for quality maintenance.

Because maintenance is expensive and time consuming, there should be strategic attention paid to preparing for it, following various city and neighborhood plans. In addition to the basic maintenance and repair for pedestrian access, including sidewalks, curb cuts, and lighting, some areas of the city may have enhanced features. A more consistent approach to these streetscape and public features could support more efficient maintenance. To ensure quality maintenance, there should be careful coordination in design, installation, and ongoing maintenance between the many entities involved, including CIDs, business groups, the City, and property owners.

G2.4 Continue to engage large institutions through their long-term planning to ensure that institutional growth and stewardship are aligned with community goals.

Large institutions, including campuses and businesses, play a special role as assets in St. Louis. Not only are these sites often places with quality infrastructure and upkeep, they provide substantial resources to the St. Louis community, including jobs, education, and services. Many institutions have a long-term vision for their land use; these visions, to the greatest extent possible, should align with community priorities for land use.

In addition to identifying the existing Campuses in St. Louis, the SLUP also identifies several aspirational locations that address a need or an opportunity. These locations offer an opportunity for a collective vision and a plan, to be created in collaboration with institutions and property owners to meet the unique needs of the surrounding community.

Proposed Efforts:

G2.4A: Leverage and/or adapt the Community Unit Plan zoning overlay and others tools to establish transparency for institutional expansion plans.

G2.4B: Engage institutions in neighborhood and district planning processes to support alignment with community goals, priorities, and intended institutional change and growth

“Midtown is a place of potential because it has a well-established institution: Ranken Technical College.”

• City Resident

G2.4A: Leverage and/or adapt the Community Unit Plan zoning overlay and others tools to establish transparency for institutional expansion plans.

Many large institutions have very long-range plans for their growth and change, which creates the potential for transparency and partnership in ensuring institutional growth aligns with community goals. The City should maintain, adapt, and/or establish regulatory tools that maximize transparency and alignment. For example, Community Unit Plans are a type of zoning overlay that allow owners (or groups of owners) of large areas to establish zoning regulations that are tailored to the unique land use and development opportunities in these areas. Like other zoning overlays, Community Unit Plans are first reviewed by the Planning Commission and then adopted by the Board of Aldermen via ordinance. This tool, or a modern and updated version of it, can be used as a means of establishing coordinated land use policy and increasing transparency and predictability—for institutions themselves and for the community at large—in how and where institutional growth and change is expected to occur. Community Unit Plans, however, are limited to areas with 15 or more acres of consolidated ownership. The zoning code overhaul should evaluate how this tool, and others, can be adapted to better meet community needs.

G2.4B: Engage institutions in neighborhood and district planning processes to support alignment with community goals, priorities, and intended institutional change and growth.

Large institutions can have a major impact on surrounding neighborhoods and communities, and proactively involving them in neighborhood and district planning process can help support alignment between the goals of surrounding neighborhoods and their plans for expansion. This involvement could happen at a variety of scales but should include consideration of planned changes in land use for institutions, as well as opportunities to expand services, amenities, and other priorities to surrounding residents and institutional users simultaneously.

G3: Guide growth and change in a manner that will help St. Louis more readily adapt to a changing climate.

St. Louis, like places around the world, is threatened by a changing climate, including intensification of storms, increased flooding, and increased heat. The increased risks from these threats are not equally distributed across the city — often, the areas with the highest heat, lowest tree cover, and least stormwater infrastructure reflect historic patterns of redlining and racial segregation. Some of these risks, like flooding, have long been part of the landscape in St. Louis, but in recent decades the city has seen flooding in locations that don’t follow the river-based patterns that St. Louis have come to expect. Changes in land use and development are an important component of supporting St. Louis to grow and sustain in the face of these risks, but these changes must also be paired with significant transitions in policy and practice in how St. Louis addresses flooding, heat, energy infrastructure, and other environmental conditions. The following strategies are critical next steps to ensure that the land use vision in the SLUP can be realized, and there is urgency to address these issues quickly. The impact of future storms, heatwaves, and other climate events may be significant, causing harm to human health and property, and St. Louis needs to be proactive in addressing these threats.

Proposed Strategies:

G3.1 Mitigate flood risk for new development and take flood risk into account in new developments, city grant, and incentive programs.

G3.2 Strategically use vacant land to absorb flooding and mitigate heat in a manner that protects residents from the impacts of climate change and supports nearby development.

G3.3 Ensure current and prospective property owners are aware of flood risks.

G3.4 Continue to invest in the urban tree canopy and other open spaces and infrastructure to strengthen the city’s resilience to extreme heat and flooding.

G3.5 Maintain and/or establish buffers between pollution-generating land uses and residential / public spaces.

G3.6 Invest in energy resiliency infrastructure.

“Climate change waits for no city.” -City Resident

“A focus on resilience, especially related to climate and the environment, positively impacts ALL the other [priorities for land use]... such as being community oriented, or having equitable decision-making.” -City Resident

G3.1 Mitigate flood risk for new development and take flood risk into account in new developments, city grant, and incentive programs.

St. Louis has always been vulnerable to flooding because of its location alongside the Mississippi River and its tributaries. In recent decades the city has seen flooding in locations that don’t follow the river-based patterns that St. Louis have come to expect, such as rain-driven flash flooding throughout the city, including many locations not adjacent to a river, and backups of the city’s underground pipes that are meant to convey rainwater away from the streets and sidewalks.

The storm that hit St. Louis on July 26, 2022, broke local precipitation records, dropping over 8” of rain in just seven hours. The flooding caused significant property damage and disrupted life in the city. Many community members are still dealing with the impacts of these floods. As climate change advances, rain events are expected to get more intense and more frequent. It’s imperative that planning efforts, including the SLUP, consider strategies to mitigate climate threats to St. Louis, including flooding vulnerabilities.

To address these risks, the SLUP has located Higher- and Medium-Intensity Nodes and Corridors in areas that are less likely to flood at this point in time. Yet there is still likely to be development that occurs in areas that are at risk, particularly in the event of superstorms. To prepare for that development, several additional efforts are recommended.

“We have great bones of a city for resilient urban planning. We should use that to promote resilience. Flooding is a huge issue in the area and with climate change we will see more. Proper urban planning and storm water management can be paired. Also people are important and we should balance the needs of the environment with the people.” -City Resident

Proposed Efforts:

G3.1A: Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence future land use decisions for development.

G3.1B: Develop a long-term road map and plan for green infrastructure and climate resilience.

G3.1C: Plan for flooding in higher-intensity areas that are at risk.

G3.1D: Explore how stormwater plans could support housing and commercial development.

G3.1E: Involve adjacent residents and the local community in assessing trade-offs and risks about land use and flooding through neighborhood and district-level planning.

G3.1F: Consider flood risk as a criteria to guide the use of public funds and resources in areas that are at risk of flooding.

G3.1G: Update historic codes to support mitigation and resilience measures.

G3.1A: Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence future land use decisions for development.

It is critical that flood risk is taken into account in future land use decisions. While the potential risk of flooding is factored into the strategies for locating areas of intensity in the overall framework of the SLUP, the current SLUP does not otherwise limit uses or intensity of parcels based on flood risk. Going forward, flood risk should be assessed through a variety of different means, bringing together many risk factors for flooding.

The SLUP introduces the Climate Readiness Priority Area (see page 334), which includes a set of parcels that meet several criteria for elevated flood risk based on MSD’s assessments, areas of historic flooding (including during the 2022 storm event), known sinkholes, and a buffer zone around the modern hydrological corridors. The SLUP recommends this zone as a priority area for future investment of civil infrastructure and green infrastructure, as well as an ideal place to pilot building-based flood protection strategies such as elevated first floors and placing parking and other non-occupied uses on the lower levels of structures. The SLUP encourages increased porosity, networked green infrastructure, and other climate-ready strategies citywide; these initiatives can have immediate protective benefits to life and property within this area.

In addition to the factors that are layered to create the Climate Readiness Priority Area, future land use decisions should incorporate other assessments of flood risk. For example, the FEMA Flood Map and the current Draft FEMA Flood Map both identify areas that the federal government considers at high risk for potential flooding. For many years, St. Louis has dealt with consequences of flood risk documented in the existing FEMA Flood Map, which sets flood insurance requirements for home or business owners with federally regulated or insured mortgages. As a result of this existing flood risk, the parts of St. Louis that are within the current 500-year and 100-year flood zones are primarily industrial. While there are some residential properties in established FEMA Flood Risk areas, development patterns have generally led to industrial uses and parks in low-lying areas. FEMA has published draft updated maps (see page 327) as part of regular updates to flood risk across the country; once adopted, additional areas of the city, including residential areas, may also be subject to Federal flood insurance expectations. In future development decisions and in future planning, these risk assessments should be considered.

G3.1B: Develop a long-term road map and plan for green infrastructure and climate resilience.

In close coordination with or as a part of a long-term road map for investment in parks and open space (see G2.2 on page 316 for more information), there must be a citywide strategy for climate-resilient nature-based solutions and flood resilience. This effort should include a citywide climate vulnerability assessment, analysis of the zone of elevated flood risk, identification of additional climate vulnerabilities, and recommendations of strategies, policies, and best practices for mitigating known risks. Policy should encourage best practices for stormwater management and heat mitigation throughout the city’s watersheds, including minimizing impervious surfaces, incentivizing street tree preservation and planting and other beneficial landscaping, and site-based stormwater retention solutions. These recommendations should also take into consideration the funding needed to maintain installed green infrastructure to ensure its long-term efficacy. This planning must align with other funding investments, including from Parks, Recreation & Forestry, the Metropolitan Sewer District, LRA, Board of Public Service, Streets, Great Rivers Greenway, Green City Coalition, Missouri Department of Conservation, and other public and private sources.

The Draft Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery - 2022 Severe Storms and Flooding Event calls for and allocates funding for a Flood Recovery and Mitigation Planning Program. The City is allocating planning funds to four planning activities to assess disaster recovery needs and mitigate flood hazard risks throughout the City. The four anticipated planning activities include a Regional Flood Mitigation and Green Infrastructure Plan, River Des Peres Feasibility and Design Study, Tenant-occupied Housing Assessment, and Flood Response and Resource Distribution Plan.

Acknowledging that historic inequity manifests as deficiencies in the built environment, the City is planning funding activities that will support efforts to identify and prioritize high-needs neighborhoods, particularly renter households, LMI individuals and households, housing-cost-burdened and low-income households, individuals with disabilities, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and other underserved communities. The City is using its EJI data, among other data and information resources, to identify and target high-needs neighborhoods and will continue to develop detailed demographic data analyses of the city to support geographically targeted outreach, data collection, and distribution of resources.

G3.1C: Plan for flooding in higher-intensity areas that are at risk.

Areas within the zone of elevated flood risk that are called out in the SLUP for Higher- or Medium-Intensity uses — especially those areas that currently have or are planned to receive significant investment in streetscape and public transit — must also receive significant investment in the civil infrastructure to support the existing or planned intensity of use and seek building-based resiliency solutions for new developments, such as locating building systems above potential flood levels, elevated first floors or non-occupied, or non-conditioned ground floor uses such as parking. It is best to plan for stormwater management at the watershed scale, which should be thoughtfully considered in a long-term road map and plan for green infrastructure and climate resilience. However, neighborhood and district-scale plans have the power to make neighborhoods safer and more resilient in the immediate term. Some of the ways they can accomplish this include maximizing opportunities for networked green infrastructure and developing stormwater master plans that align with MSD’s expectations. Best practices for building-based resiliency solutions should be considered in expectations for new construction, as well as strategies for adaptation to climate for reuse projects. These expectations may be captured in overlay districts or other tools that identify areas that would most benefit from these investments.

G3.1D: Explore how stormwater plans could support housing and commercial development.

Stormwater management can be handled at a larger scale than an individual building, and there may be an opportunity to develop collective stormwater plans through neighborhood or district-level planning. This process may allow a community to identify shared stormwater management strategies that may not be possible at the individual scale, and may relieve the pressure on individual sites that are priorities for development of housing, commercial uses, or other services and amenities. Again, thinking and planning at the watershed scale can increase opportunities for water infiltration before it contributes to flooding issues downstream. These plans must also address the need for long-term maintenance and upkeep for existing and planned green infrastructure.

“St. Louis needs to update major infrastructure including water and sewer. As climate change continues with more extreme weather shifts, it puts more and more stress on our city piping system. That needs to be addressed.”

• City Resident

G3.1E: Involve adjacent residents and the local community in assessing trade-offs and risks about land use and flooding through neighborhood and district-level planning.

The development potential of Corridors, Nodes, and Neighborhoods within zones of elevated flood risk requires additional study during Neighborhood Planning and other future city and regional planning efforts. The SLUP does not make land use recommendations for privately held parcels, whether vacant or occupied, within the Climate Readiness Priority Area, but when considering more targeted areas through neighborhood or district planning processes, these parcels should be included. Community members should be deeply engaged in assessing the trade-offs between different development options and flooding risk, including identifying appropriate green infrastructure, limiting impervious surfaces, and other considerations.

“It’s important to include all residents in the changes we are trying to enact.”

• City Resident

G3.1F: Consider flood risk as a criteria to guide the use of public funds and resources in areas that are at risk of flooding.

Investment of public funds should in part be guided by avoiding flood risk areas. This both supports protecting residents from the potential impacts of flooding while also making the most of the public money available. When considering the use of incentives or other public funding, flood risk, heat risk, and other resilience considerations should be incorporated into public benefit scorecards and other tools that guide distribution of resources. See G3.2 for additional detail about strategically utilizing vacant land to mitigate flooding and heat.

For buildings that are retrofitted and reoccupied through public funds and other programs, floodproofing measures should be considered as part of the program. When possible, first-time homebuyer programs and other homebuyer assistance programs could offer incentives, such as grants or low-interest loans, for homes located outside of high-risk areas that incorporate flood-resistant designs or include heat mitigation landscapes.

G3.1G: Update historic codes to support mitigation and resilience measures.

In some cases, the adaptation to existing building stock that is needed to make neighborhoods more resilient may be at odds with the current aesthetic and visual standards. In those cases, historic district standards must also support efforts to retrofit and redesign buildings with flood and heat mitigation measures. The standards should be updated to reflect the best possible compromise that meets mitigation and resilience goals while supporting historic aesthetics and preservation.

G3.2 Strategically use vacant land to absorb flooding and mitigate heat in a manner that protects residents from the impacts of climate change and supports nearby development.

The topography of the city gives clues to where St. Louis is most vulnerable to flooding. Generally, as water flows across urban surfaces from higher elevations to lower areas, the most low-lying areas have a higher risk of becoming overwhelmed with stormwater runoff. However, flood risk in the city is not equal. Over time, even though separate areas of the city have similar flood pathways, some areas have received more stormwater infrastructure investment to facilitate development, increasing the property values and the level of protection in these areas. Historic racist practices of redlining and continued disinvestment, especially in North St. Louis, resulted in significantly less stormwater infrastructure in vast areas of the city. Today, North City residents and property are much more vulnerable to flood events.

The greatest concentration of flood-impacted blocks from the 2022 floods are located in North St. Louis, where historic disinvestment and redlining has led to high vacancy rates and a lack of infrastructure that can sufficiently handle stormwater. It is important that any planning, redevelopment, and infrastructure decisions consider this history and how it impacts the current conditions of risk in St. Louis. In some areas, flood risk may have contributed to vacancy. When floods impact properties, basements, wooden frames, and other assets are susceptible to major damage. As communities still are affected by historical redlining, recovery after major flood events can be an even greater challenge. Flood impacts can further exacerbate health disparities in north St. Louis.

A potential asset in preventing urban flooding and heat spikes is open space: unpaved, unbuilt land—especially when it includes trees and plants with deep root systems—allows rainwater to percolate into the ground instead of running off into the streets or filling city drainage pipes. Vegetated open space can also mitigate urban heat island effect, which occurs in areas with extensive buildings, parking lots, and other surfaces that absorb more heat from the sun and increase the surrounding temperature. By connecting corridors of open space, the city can create strategic drainage channels that help move water away from vulnerable communities and streets much the way that drainage pipes alleviate rainwater flooding risk. Unlike underground pipes, these open space corridors can provide recreational amenities like trails and bikeways when they are not full of rainwater.

They can also cool the surrounding neighborhoods, mitigating urban heat spikes.

Around 8,000 of the vacant lots in St. Louis are owned by the City’s land bank, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). The excess of vacant lots in St. Louis offers potential for flood mitigation. Vacant lots with high flood risk can be strategically used for nature-based solutions such as rain gardens, hydroparks, urban forests, and other water-absorbing land uses requiring a lower cost of establishment than traditional civil-engineering-based flood solutions.

⬚ figure

Source: National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA

The greatest concentration of vacant land is in North St. Louis, offering the potential for robust green infrastructure development to protect against flooding and heat spikes. However, in recognition of the unjust histories that brought this concentration of vacancy and the uneven development of civil infrastructure that leaves this part of the city more vulnerable to flooding, the development of green infrastructure cannot come at the price of undermining other development goals and neighborhood revitalization priorities in these communities. Further, green infrastructure is only one tool among many for addressing St. Louis's climate vulnerabilities. As seen in other parts of the city, civil infrastructure, or hybrid solutions that couple hard-piped stormwater management with dispersed green solutions like bioswales and porous streetscapes, can also be used to manage stormwater. At the building scale, people and property can be protected in structures that are elevated on piers above the level of floodwater or that place automobile parking and other non-occupied functions on the floodable ground level.

The Other Open Space designation in the SLUP allows for vacant parcels to be actively used and maintained as green infrastructure for flood resilience, urban heat mitigation, and the creation of recreational amenities such as nature trails, forested habitat corridors, and bikeways.

To ensure active investment in these open spaces that supports reinvestment in the surrounding communities, planning around flood mitigation must be addressed at a more nuanced level than the SLUP can offer. Neighborhood plans and other detailed planning efforts should identify resilience strategies that respond to specific conditions at the community scale. To supplement these future planning efforts, the following efforts related to flooding are recommended.

⬚ figure

Proposed Efforts:

G3.2A: Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence reuse of vacant land.

G3.2B: Designate strategic high flood risk vacant parcels as Other Open Space uses.

G3.2C: Reflect existing non-park open spaces that should be preserved long-term through the Other Open Space Designation in the SLUP.

G3.2D: Highlight areas that should be prioritized for conversion into high-quality open space uses such as parks, urban farms, and other green spaces.

G3.2E: Remove impervious surfaces and unsalvageable vacant buildings on high-risk parcels to increase potential for water infiltration and decrease heat island effect.

G3.2F: Plan for networked green infrastructure, starting with publicly owned parcels.

G3.2G: Plan for networked green iPlan low-density green neighborhoods in areas that flood.

G3.2A Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence reuse of vacant land.

In addition to considering flood risk in development decisions (See G3.1, “Identify several types of geographies where flood risk should influence future land use decisions for development”), elevated flood risk must also inform the reuse of vacant land across St. Louis. Whenever there are opportunities to consider how vacant land is reutilized, including in neighborhood planning and green infrastructure planning, risk factors such as those that are considered in the Climate Readiness Priority Areas (see page 334), as well as any current or draft FEMA Flood Maps and topography data should be taken into account. These various data sources should be carefully assessed to understand not only what areas are at high risk for flooding but also where there are opportunities to intervene upstream in the watershed to mitigate more severe flooding downstream.

G3.2B: Designate strategic high flood risk vacant parcels as Other Open Space uses.

Through neighborhood, district, and green infrastructure planning, there must be a coordinated effort to identify vacant parcels that should be transformed long-term into Other Open Space uses. There may be particular opportunities to identify publicly owned parcels, including those held by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), that should be excluded from potential future development and reused to mitigate flood and heat impacts. These more targeted planning processes should work in close consultation with neighborhood groups and other community-based stakeholders to determine both which parcels should be used as Other Open Space and what types of Other Open Space uses are most appropriate in those areas. Use of Other Open Space for farming and growing should be considered through these planning processes.

This process of redesignation should identify properties that can be used to mitigate flooding risks for surrounding neighbors and uses (such as rain gardens, community gardens, and others) that could add amenities to the neighborhood. In addition, this process should expand beyond areas that are currently prone to flooding, looking at upstream opportunities to increase porosity, absorption, and retention, resulting in mitigation to potential flooding in more risky areas.

G3.2C: Reflect existing non-park open spaces that should be preserved long term through the Other Open Space Designation in the SLUP.

A range of efforts has transformed some vacant land that is prone to flooding into spaces that can proactively collect and retain stormwater. These sites are indicated as Other Open Space in the SLUP (see Other Open Space on page 126), giving the flexibility for addressing flooding risks while also serving the community. This includes flood buyout areas owned by the City or MSD, including detention basins. This also includes project areas led by the Green City Coalition (GCC), a partnership between City of St. Louis, St. Louis Development Corporation, Missouri Department of Conservation, and Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. The Carter Park Extension in Walnut Park and Peace Park in College Hill are examples of GCC sites that create community amenities through collaborative, neighborhood-driven processes.

There are a handful of community gardens that have been indicated as Other Open Space in the SLUP. These gardens have some indication that there's a long-term desire for them to be garden sites — such as being in the Gateway Greening Land Trust or inclusion in a neighborhood plan. Additional garden sites may be added through neighborhood planning.

G3.2D: Highlight areas that should be prioritized for conversion into high-quality open space uses such as parks, urban farms, and other green spaces.

The designation Other Open Space indicates areas with no or few buildings that are reserved for important social, ecological, or economic needs. These areas are sometimes less accessible to the public and may be fenced or enclosed. A factor for designating parcels as Other Open Space is their flood risk and their capacity for green infrastructure; most current parcels with this designation have already been converted into permanent open space and/or green infrastructure. For more information, see Other Open Space, page 126. Within neighborhood planning processes, communities should explore further opportunities to create new and alternative open spaces.

G3.2E: Remove impervious surfaces and unsalvageable vacant buildings on high-risk parcels to increase potential for water infiltration and decrease heat island effect.

Demolition funds should be allotted with priority to areas where the removal of buildings or other impervious surfaces (like parking lots) can enhance the capacity for the ground to absorb water or mitigate heat effects. Impervious surfaces prevent water from soaking into the ground and can increase the speed and intensity of flash flooding events. In addition, these surfaces can increase the surrounding temperature while vegetation decreases the temperature. These are also concepts that should be discussed with communities through neighborhood planning and other community-engaged processes.

⬚ figure Source: Metropolitan Sewer District

⬚ figure Source: Metropolitan Sewer District

“Urban planning can and should include nature. It makes living better for everyone inside the city. We need to prevent further damage from catastrophic climate change, especially heat waves. We shouldn’t approach climate change from the perspective of doing damage control. We need to prevent damage NOW.”

• City Resident

G3.2F: Plan for networked green infrastructure, starting with publicly owned parcels.

Networked green infrastructure are parcels that are connected along hydrological flow lines where water tends to run. These areas can collect stormwater and convey it away from areas of flooding risk. In addition to the flood mitigation benefits, these areas can be used as nature trails, bikeways, recreational amenities, and habitat refuges. Due to the plant life in networked green infrastructure, they can also buffer heat spikes. The Green City Coalition is in the process of creating networked green infrastructure in a number of neighborhoods in St. Louis. Planning for networked green infrastructure must include long-term support for maintenance and upkeep.

“I would add path or greenway in the neighborhood — flooding wouldn’t impact it that much, and it would be nice for the neighborhood and encourage an active lifestyle.”

• City Resident

CASE STUDY: Green City, Clean Waters, Philadelphia, PA

Green City, Clean Waters, launched in 2011 by the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD), is a 25-year initiative aimed at managing stormwater through green infrastructure to improve water quality, reduce flooding, and enhance urban sustainability. The program uses rain gardens, permeable pavements, and green roofs to capture stormwater on-site, reducing sewer overflows and urban flooding while enhancing green spaces. It has significantly improved water management, preventing billions of gallons of stormwater from entering sewers annually. However, challenges include securing long-term funding and integrating green infrastructure within the existing urban landscape, requiring multi-stakeholder coordination and addressing community concerns.

⬚ figure Source: JPG Photography, Philadelphia Water Department

CASE STUDY: Good Neighbor Stormwater Park, Miami, Florida

Good Neighbor Park re-purposes a small vacant lot — one of many in the flood prone Arch Creek Basin neighborhood of Miami — to capture rainwater that might otherwise flow into nearby homes and streets. When the park is not flooded, it offers a local recreational amenity and public art that makes the site’s climate vulnerabilities legible. It offers a model for purposeful redevelopment of vacant lots into green infrastructure that sustains the surrounding community rather than further eroding the neighborhood fabric.

⬚ figure Source: Tonkin, Howard. The Architectural League NY. 2022.

G3.2G: Plan for networked green iPlan low-density green neighborhoods in areas that flood.

⬚ figure

Where the SLUP calls for Lower-Intensity or Medium-Intensity Neighborhoods, Corridors, or Nodes within areas of elevated flood risk, strategic re-grading, planting trees and native perennials, and furnishing (with things like paths, lighting, benches, etc) of vacant parcels can offer multiple benefits to these neighborhoods, including water management and flood protection, urban heat mitigation, recreational amenities, and connected pedestrian and bike trails. These options should be discussed through neighborhood planning processes to ensure that community members have a direct voice in shaping the vision for potential green neighborhoods. Long-term ownership and maintenance strategies must be a core part of these conversations.

When major flood-related disasters occur, the City has previously and may continue to have access to resources for voluntary buyouts. These resources can help some residents relocate to safer locations, but are limited and not consistently available. It also cannot be overstated that relocation conversations are very fraught, as many residents have history, relationships, and culture tied to their neighborhoods and current homes, which in many cases are passed down through generations.

“I wanted to prioritize the people who were displaced due to flooding to stay in the neighborhood.”

• City Resident

G3.3 Ensure current and prospective property owners are aware of flood risks.

Flooding has been a pressing issue in recent years and will likely become more urgent in the future as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. In 2022, when St. Louis experienced devastating flash flooding, 750 homes were damaged and 500 more were affected by the high water. Certain areas of the city are more vulnerable to flooding due to factors like hydrology and existing MSD infrastructure.

Therefore, flood risk should be a main consideration in all long-term property investments. Current and future property owners should be made aware of flood risks, and City grant and incentive programs should take flood resilience into account when allocating public funding. The following recommendations describes how the City can expand awareness about flood risk and resilience.

“We need to understand that where there is a lack of resources there will be a lack of knowledge on most of the subjects at hand [when it comes to resilience].”

• City Resident

⬚ figure

Source: The City of St. Louis

Proposed Efforts:

G3.3A: Inform and educate the public about flood risk to inform their decision-making.

G3.3B: Continue to develop and encourage participation in programs that facilitate community stewardship and other care of vacant lots.

Climate Readiness Priority Areas

The SLUP identifies a zone of Climate Readiness Priority Areas, where interventions within the urban fabric can have an immediate, positive impact on climate vulnerabilities such as flash flooding and urban heat spikes. This zone was established by looking at all the known areas of vulnerability (including the FEMA flood zone, sites that have previously experienced flooding, and areas identified by MSD as problem spots), as well as areas that we can reasonably predict may have elevated vulnerability in the near future (such as the topographic flowlines that collect urban runoff and the immediate areas around these hydrological corridors, as well as areas that are under consideration to be added to the FEMA flood zone). The designation of a parcel within the Climate Readiness Priority Area does not alter its Land Use, but it does call out that Neighborhood Planning and other allied planning processes should prioritize actions and investments that mitigate vulnerabilities.

⬚ figure

Climate Readiness Priority Areas are also ideal places to pilot building-based flood protection strategies such as elevated first floors and placing parking and other non-occupied uses on the lower levels of structures.

The SLUP recommends that the highest priority for investment in civil infrastructure and green infrastructure is the Climate Readiness Priority Zone.

⬚ figure

Source: The City of St. Louis, Metropolitan Sewer District, Green City Coalition, National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA

G3.3A: Inform and educate the public about flood risk to inform their decision-making.

Up-to-date flood risk information should be widely provided to residents, potential land purchasers, and developers to assist in their own decision-making. In addition to education about flood risk, options for mitigation must be clearly accessible and supported, including programs that expand access to sewer backflow protections for homes and businesses that have elevated flood risk. Targeted public education can encourage best practices for stormwater infiltration throughout the city’s vacant lots and side lots, improving resilience in all of St. Louis, not just in areas that are already vulnerable to flooding.

“I know there’s money to help homeowners with repairs from flooding, but I don’t know how to access it.”

• City Resident

G3.3B: Continue to develop and encourage participation in programs that facilitate community stewardship and other care of vacant lots.

Programs that allow neighbors to become stewards for vacant land that may otherwise be unmaintained can help encourage the use of lots for mitigating flooding and heat effects. This includes programs like the Side Lot program, which allows adjacent owners to annex vacant lots next to their property. Participation in these types of programs should be encouraged and supported, and owner-stewards should be connected to resources and knowledge to support rainscaping and landscaping that mitigates flood and heat risks.

“St. Louis must first take on the spirit of stewardship, taking responsibility for itself and its development.”

• County Resident

G3.4 Continue to invest in the urban tree canopy and other open spaces and infrastructure to strengthen the city’s resilience to extreme heat and flooding.

The Urban Tree Canopy plays an important role in creating comfortable spaces and mitigating the effects of climate change. Urban trees help to reduce air pollution, reduce the urban heat island effect, absorb stormwater, provide shade, increase property values, and improve quality of life. St. Louis had an existing UTC of 20%, which is slightly lower than comparable cities, including Cleveland, OH (25%), Minneapolis, MN (29%), Washington, DC (29%), and Pittsburgh, PA (33%).

The City of St. Louis Forestry Division, Forest ReLeaf, STL Neighborhood Forresters, and the Green City Coalition are examples of existing departments, programs, and organizations all working hard to improve St. Louis’s climate resiliency through green infrastructure, ecologically vibrant community spaces, and the Urban Tree Canopy.

The SLUP designates two types of open space: Parks & Community Space and Other Open Space. Both of these offer the potential for a wide range of green infrastructure and urban tree canopy improvement throughout the city, especially in areas that are most vulnerable to climate-related issues.

Proposed Efforts:

G3.4A: Create a plan to protect, replant, and maintain trees and forests throughout St. Louis.

G3.4B: Prioritize beauty in the design of functional infrastructure to add community benefit and visual appeal.

G3.4C: Allow for permeable pavement or green infrastructure allowance, with sensitivity to maintaining accessibility of pedestrian access routes.

“We need more greenery to combat climate change. We have to get rid of all this concrete. We need to introduce water sources and aquatic life, places for creatures to live alongside us and contribute to the reintroduction of biodiversity in an ecologically dead city. We need to absorb the excess carbon that is spewed on a daily basis, the pollution in the air and water that is killing us all. We need native grasses, we need trees, we need places for people to live and rest.”

• City Resident

“I believe that climate resilience is one of St. Louis’ greatest assets both as a result of geography and the robust parks system. Investments in green infrastructure and the possibility of St. Louis being a healthy place to live for current and future residents is a sustainable path towards growth that could support a wide swath of the city.”

• City Resident

Existing Street Trees

The green dots represent trees along the right-of-way, or street trees.

⬚ figure

Street trees are important for building a robust urban tree canopy to mitigate heat as well as improve walkability and quality of life.

Street trees are not evenly distributed across the city. Some areas have trees densely spread along the street grid while others have very few trees.

Certain neighborhoods such as The Ville that have experienced disinvestment tend to have less trees.

Areas with higher-density development like Midtown also have less trees.

Source: The City of St. Louis

G3.4A: Create a plan to protect, replant, and maintain trees and forests throughout St. Louis.

The establishment and maintenance of tree cover throughout St. Louis is integral to its resilience to climate change and extreme weather patterns. A specific plan to protect and increase the existing canopy should also identify the locations of opportunities for tree cover expansion and replanting. Input from City departments including Streets, the Board of Public Service, and Forestry, as well as Ameren and Spire, is crucial to ensure that trees are preserved during hard infrastructure improvement (sidewalks and streets). The City’s Tree Ordinance should be reviewed to ensure it meets the changing needs of the city.

“I’d also have more trees planted along the roads, main roads, side, and neighborhood roads. The trees help to keep the area cool so during the summer, one may not get too hot when walking which could also be a deterrent to walk places.”

• City Resident

CASE STUDY:

Green Cincinnati Plan, Cincinnati, OH

The Green Cincinnati Plan includes a major initiative to expand and maintain the city’s tree canopy, aimed at reaching 40% citywide coverage, with specific targets for residential, mixed-use, and industrial areas. Key strategies include planting native tree species, particularly in neighborhoods most affected by the urban heat island effect, and prioritizing areas with historically low canopy coverage. Partnering with local nonprofits like Groundwork Ohio River Valley and Cincinnati Parks ReLeaf Program, the program engages communities in climate resiliency through tree planting and workshops. The Plan has produced various tools and assessments to document tree canopy inequity across neighborhoods and reforestation priorities. This includes the Tree Canopy Assessment, Tree Canopy Inventory, and the Climate Equity Indicators Report.

CASE STUDY:

Forest ReLeaf of Missouri, St. Louis, MO

Forest ReLeaf enriches communities through growing and planting trees through a variety of programs and efforts. Through programs like Priority ReLeaf and Project CommuniTree, Releaf offers free trees to residents, particularly in areas that are underserved in their tree canopy or have been impacted by disaster. They also lead efforts like Treesilience, a “growing national initiative focused on removing the barriers to a healthy urban tree canopy by removing dead, dying trees and replacing them with healthy ones.” In a 2-year pilot of this program, ReLeaf planted over 500 trees and helped over 50 homeowners. In addition to this tangible support, ReLeaf provides education and resources to help residents, students, and more to learn about and care for trees.

G3.4B: Prioritize beauty in the design of functional infrastructure to add community benefit and visual appeal.

Infrastructure planning can go beyond just efficiency and sustainability by prioritizing aesthetic appeal as well. Beautiful spaces can help attract residents and visitors to the city, generate a sense of place, and improve quality of life for everyone.

G3.4C: Allow for permeable pavement or green infrastructure allowance, with sensitivity to maintaining accessibility of pedestrian access routes.

There are many different types of permeable paving that can be used as an alternative to traditional paving. These surfaces might include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, paving stones, or interlocking pavers. Permeable paving allows for water to flow through the surface and into the aggregate layers or soil below, helping to reduce surface runoff. Permeable surfaces can also help filter pollutants out of the water. Any installations must meet accessibility standards, allowing wheelchair users, people walking, and many others to access the route. Sometimes it’s feasible to put traditional concrete down the middle of a walk and pervious solutions on either side.

“Sometimes the sidewalks are raised up because of trees, with damage, or there are places with no sidewalks. I’ll have to go back and go into the street instead [in my wheelchair].”

• City Resident

G3.5 Maintain and/or establish buffers between pollution-generating land uses and residential / public spaces.

Many people in the city have expressed a desire to have more separation between pollution-generating land use and residential or public areas. St. Louis was ranked the 27th most polluted US city in terms of year-round particle pollution. Industries and power plants, vehicles, highways, and building demolitions all contribute to poor air quality in St. Louis. Most sources of air pollution are in neighborhoods that have higher percentages of residents of color (see above).

Polluting activities and land uses should be buffered from residential and public activity, especially in majority Black neighborhoods that have suffered from environmental racism in the past and present.

The SLUP addresses this in part by using the Flex Industrial designation to separate residential and commercial activity from heavy industrial activity.

Proposed Efforts:

G3.5A: Introduce Flex Industrial designation.

“I appreciate the effort wherever possible to separate the uses of neighborhood and heavy industrial. My one suggestion... any neighborhood adjacent areas should at least have a flex industrial designation.... Where [mixed use areas and industrial areas] abut they should be designated flex-industrial both to protect neighborhood health and beauty, and necessitate that heavier industrial uses meet higher standards of approval.”

• City Resident

G3.5A: Introduce Flex Industrial designation.

Flex Industrial allows for uses that are less intensive than Core Industrial and may include the possibility to transition to mixed use, including housing and commercial, in the future.

The Flex Industrial designation will support research and development uses, as well as light industrial uses. These uses will have less environmental impact than the full range of industrial uses permitted in areas designated with Core Industrial. For more information, see Industrial Areas on page 114.

“We do need to keep our industrial, but right now it’s laid out that it goes straight to [heavy] industrial. There’s no way the [other] side of the street will improve if [that] side is heavy industrial.”

• City Resident

CASE STUDY:

TechTown, Detroit, MI

TechTown is a tech and innovation hub housed in a former GM research facility in Detroit. The hub provides many options for spaces that are aligned with flexible industrial spaces, including office, lab, and maker spaces, for startups, small businesses, and manufacturers. TechTown has supported over 2,000 businesses and created thousands of jobs, playing a central role in Detroit’s economic recovery. It offers business incubator programs and support services alongside flexible workspaces, but continuing to provide affordable space and resources as the area develops is crucial.

⬚ figure

TechTown, Detroit, MI

Source: TechTown Detroit

G3.6 Invest in energy resiliency infrastructure.

The City’s 2017 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) states the objective to “Accelerate Clean Renewable Energy.” Many residents have expressed an interest in upgrading energy infrastructure to be more renewable and resilient. Recent City efforts to realize these renewable energy goals include the Solar-Ready Ordinance, the Solar Workforce Development Pilot, Solar Rebates and Community Solar offered by Ameren, and Residential and Commercial discounted solar panel purchase programs. These efforts can help make St. Louis a resilient city in the face of threats posed by climate change. The ongoing Sustainability Plan update can further develop and explore these ideas and will likely suggest additional strategies for energy resilience.

The SLUP’s framework plan addresses the need for renewable energy through the Other Open Space designation, which can support energy resiliency infrastructure like solar farms, and limited utility infrastructure in many other areas. Additionally, the following efforts are recommended.

“The largest impact as a city that we can have on the environment in the long-term is to connect ourselves to renewable energy in such a way that makes our energy consumption 100% renewable.”

• City Resident

“Climate change is a serious issue, and I think that... working to make this city greener (such as moving away from coal and natural gas) is vital.”

• City Resident

Proposed Efforts:

G3.6A: Develop design guidelines that inform the location, form, and implementation of needed utilities, such as substations, solar installations, etc.

G3.6B: Work with Ameren to develop robust electrical infrastructure, including back-up, around community hubs and electrified transportation routes.

G3.6C: Continue to explore changes to state policy that would allow community renewable energy generation and storage at the block or neighborhood scale.

G3.6D: Update historic codes to allow for the use of solar panels and other green infrastructure.

Urban Heat Island Effect & Vacancy

Spaces with plants, including trees, can help reduce the temperature in the surrounding area, mitigating the effects of heat increases due to hard surfaces like buildings and parking lots. As a result, some areas of the city that have a large number of vacant lots have lower heat severity.

Heat severity shows where certain areas are hotter than the average temperature across the whole city. This map shows a snapshot based on a thermal, infrared sensor of St. Louis during the summer.

⬚ figure

Areas with high numbers of vacant lots (such as the Walnut Park West, Walnut Park East, and Mark Twain neighborhoods) have low heat severity.

Severe heat is most pronounced in industrial areas and mixed-use areas.

Parks like Forest Park with robust tree canopies correlate with cooler areas.

Legend

Heat Severity Vacant Land

Source: “Heat Severity-USA 2021.” Heat.gov.

G3.6A: Develop design guidelines that inform the location, form, and implementation of needed utilities, such as substations, solar installations, etc.

The City needs a framework for installing and maintaining resilient utility infrastructure where it is most needed, based on the future vision for land use in the SLUP and on other city plans. This will help strengthen the utility system and improve overall resiliency. There should be design guidelines and input from neighborhoods regarding aesthetic considerations around substations.

“Our energy sources need an upgrade.”

• City Resident

G3.6B: Work with Ameren to develop robust electrical infrastructure, including back-up, around community hubs and electrified transportation routes.

Developing robust energy infrastructure with back-ups in strategic places that can benefit the public in multiple ways. By working in a coordinated way between the City, Ameren, and Metro to identify strategic locations for additional infrastructure investment, energy can be available when and where it’s most needed. This might include areas where there are large investments already, such as electrified transportation routes, or where there could be substantial need in event of a disaster, such as community hubs. These infrastructure improvements could also include renewable sources, as well as back-up power sources that can provide a critical resource and improve resiliency.

G3.6C: Continue to explore changes to state policy that would allow community renewable energy generation and storage at the block or neighborhood scale.

St. Louis should work with the State of Missouri to allow block-and neighborhood-scale renewable energy generation. This type of energy generation can help supplement the City’s electricity system, improve resiliency, and provide residents with essential utilities in case of emergencies.

G3.6D: Update historic codes to allow for the use of solar panels and other green infrastructure.

The most recent update to regulations regarding solar panel installation in historic districts was made in 2013 by the Preservation Board. This policy outlines two approaches to solar installation depending on the historic district. Some districts have a “no visibility required” standard and others have a “visual compatibility required” standard. These standards are outdated and require an update to address the city’s current climate resiliency needs.

Vision Theme

Thriving

A thriving St. Louis is one where all people, institutions, and businesses have what they need to flourish, succeed, and be part of a strong community.

Residents see thriving as directly connected to improving the quality of life for current and future residents. A city that serves families, children, and people of all ages by providing access to housing and amenities and creating safe and walkable spaces is seen as a place that will both attract new people and support current residents. Walkability and safety allow people to access well-paying jobs and services, which allow people to rise out of and stay out of poverty.

“Supporting families and children is the most important, because this is a population we are losing in droves.” -City Resident

“Focus on current residents and how we can support each other... [then] more residents will come.” -City Resident

“Putting people’s needs first is crucial, after that all other aspects will fall in place.” -City Resident

Thriving Goal 1:

Ensure that all residents have convenient access to the things they need to thrive, including food and healthcare, without relying on a car.

Being able to thrive in St. Louis requires being able to access key amenities and needs, like groceries, employment, and healthcare. In many areas across St. Louis, residents feel that their current access is challenging and often too reliant on using a car. Many people want—and often need—to be able to get to the things they need by walking, biking, wheeling, or taking transit.

Thriving Goal 2:

Foster community and public spaces that feel family friendly, safe, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities.

For St. Louis residents to feel connected and supported, a sense of safety for people of all ages and abilities is important. Safety comes in many forms, but many people share an understanding that spaces can support a sense of safety by feeling well cared for and accessible. This is particularly important in our shared areas, community and public spaces, where we gather, interact, and ideally feel not just comfortable but proud to be in the city we share together.

Thriving Goal 3:

Foster an environment that supports the growth of jobs at a wide variety of future-facing businesses and organizations across the city, particularly in Nodes, Corridors, Central Areas, Campuses, and Industrial Centers.

For residents to thrive, there must be opportunities for well-paying jobs that are accessible and available long-term. These opportunities are an important part of what residents identify as supporting people to rise out of and stay out of poverty, helping to strengthen the city. Businesses and organizations are also critical to attracting new residents, adding to the population, and sustaining the economic needs of the city and the region.

Vision Theme

Thriving

"Please make St. Louis less car dependent! Cars cost the average American family $11,000 annually. Just think about what a massive financial burden this is on so many struggling families in St. Louis. If we can increase walkability, bike friendliness, and transit coverage in St. Louis, we can greatly increase the quality of life of thousands of struggling people."

• City Resident

T1: Ensure that all residents have convenient access to the things they need to thrive, including food and healthcare, without relying on a car.

Being able to thrive in St. Louis requires being able to access key amenities and needs, like groceries, employment, and healthcare. In many areas across St. Louis, residents feel that their current access is challenging and often too reliant on using a car. Many people want—and often need—to be able to get to the things they need by walking, biking, wheeling, or taking transit.

While land use can build on the existing, historic grid and encourage walkable development in many ways, many of the existing challenges faced by residents relate to investment in infrastructure for safe mobility between and through neighborhoods. These strategies point to opportunities to invest in infrastructure and development that will improve access for residents now and into the future.

Proposed Strategies:

T1.1 Establish and sustain core services and amenities that improve quality of life for residents.

T1.2 Promote pedestrian and bike connectivity through infrastructure investment and by avoiding land uses that divide neighborhoods.

T1.3 Promote transit-supportive development around existing and proposed Metrolink stations and high-frequency bus routes.

T1.1 Establish and sustain core services and amenities that improve quality of life for residents.

Across the city, residents want to be able to live near the basic amenities they need, especially groceries, healthcare, and other basic services. However, population decline and changes in distribution and retail markets make it challenging to have the kinds of retail amenities that residents want. For example, pharmacies are closing all over the country as trends in drug prices, consumer purchasing habits, and other factors have made stand-alone retail locations less profitable. Yet, having access to these services is critical to residents' ability to thrive.

The SLUP supports locating these core services and amenities near where people live through the thoughtful placement of Corridors and Nodes throughout the city. Corridors, Nodes, and Central Areas all also support a wide mix of uses, including retail for these types of core services. The following additional efforts are also recommended:

⬚ figure

"To live in this area without a car, we need more supermarkets. Not like a giant Schnucks, but like a corner store, with fresh fruit. Supermarkets are the biggest thing holding St. Louis back from being livable in a small area."

• City Resident

Proposed Efforts:

T1.1A: Investigate effective means to increase access to quality food retail.

T1.1B: Support alternative methods to distribute needed services in areas where transportation and access is limited.

"Every neighborhood should have the fundamentals in place, in order to be healthy and vibrant. Of course cafes and restaurants are important. But there needs to be a corner market, bodega or pharmacy. Also a specific amendment delineating essential services and non-essential services, and incentives put in place to attract essential services."

• City Resident

T1.1A: Investigate effective means to increase access to quality food retail.

In places where the market will not support the creation of grocery stores or other healthy food retail, there may be effective options for supporting, encouraging, or incentivizing quality food retail that increases access to healthy food options. Efforts to incentivize or subsidize grocery stories in cities of a variety of sizes have had mixed results, with some groceries fostering substantial community support while others struggle to sustain long-term. Evaluation of programs like New York City's Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) point to the need to identify the specifics of food access needs through community planning that prioritize specific locations and to offer healthy food through food purveyors beyond supermarkets, including through smaller retailers. The city, with food access and health partners, should assess options to increase access and carefully design any proposed support to align with community needs and to be sustainable in the long term. This may include strategies that support proactive investment in these critical amenities, aligned with areas where there is a high need, identified by data-driven tools such as the Economic Justice Index (see more on page 275), or other tools that emerge.

“Every neighborhood should have the fundamentals in place, in order to be healthy and vibrant... there needs to be a corner market, bodega or pharmacy. [We need] incentives put in place to attract essential services.”

• City Resident

T1.1B: Support alternative methods to distribute needed services in areas where transportation and access is limited.

Where transportation and access to critical amenities (such as groceries and pharmacies) are limited, delivery programs and mobile services can help close the gap, especially for older adults and people with transportation limitations. Operation Food Search (OFS) is currently piloting a program known as Fresh Rx: Community Nutrition, a partnership with GreaterHealth Pharmacy. The program delivers food bags to homebound seniors who are receiving diabetes or hypertension medication through the pharmacy. OFS also operates St. Louis MetroMarket, a mobile grocery store that brings fresh and local produce to partner sites in the community. Services like these can increase access and improve the quality of life for residents.

Zero Vehicle Households

Around 19% of households in St. Louis are zero-vehicle households compared to 6% in St. Louis County. About 6% of workers in the City of St. Louis commute by public transportation compared to only 2% of workers in St. Louis County.

⬚ figure

The darker areas have a higher percentage of zero-vehicle households.

The planned MetroLink Green Line will help serve areas with lower access to cars.

Source: ACS Community Survey 2023, Metro St. Louis

T1.2 Promote pedestrian and bike connectivity through infrastructure investment and by avoiding land uses that divide neighborhoods.

Safe, accessible, and connected sidewalk and bikeway routes benefit all residents, improving quality of life and access to core services. Regardless of a person’s typical mode of travel, all people need and use connected sidewalk networks. The vast majority of locations in the city should be accessible to people without the necessity of using a car.

The city’s current infrastructure, traffic patterns, and certain roadway designs and conditions can pose risks for cyclists and pedestrians. Throughout both the SLUP and Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP) public engagement efforts, residents consistently expressed a desire for safer, more accessible streets. Residents also report experiencing a culture of dangerous driving and reliance on automobiles.

To improve safety and comfort for all users, the City of St. Louis continues to evolve in its approach to roadway design and funding. In the past decade, spending on roadway improvements and reconstruction has dramatically increased, but there still remains a large backlog of streets and sidewalks that need investment. Significant efforts and investments are currently underway to improve safety

Proposed Efforts:

T1.2A: Create bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets and sidewalks.

T1.2B: Continue to build quality bike infrastructure to connect Corridors and Nodes.

T1.2C: Identify and establish more strategic and equitable models for public infrastructure funding.

T1.2D: Preserve the grid system of streets and sidewalks.

T1.2E: Reconnect and re-open streets where context allows.

and accessibility, including the reconstruction with safer designs of some of the city’s most dangerous roadway segments.

Since zero-vehicle households account for nearly 19% of households in St. Louis, walkable and bikeable access to essential goods and services is vital. Increasing pedestrian and bike connectivity is also important for maximizing the effectiveness of public transit investments by expanding the reach of the transit system and increasing transportation options. Many projects are already underway that will help promote pedestrian and bike connectivity, including the Brickline Greenway, the Tower Grove Connector, 20th Street reconstruction and the Hodiamont Greenway. The Transportation and Mobility Plan will help prioritize additional investment in the future. The SLUP aims to concentrate development along Nodes and Corridors in strategic locations, which can help create the urban conditions necessary for walkability and bikeability. The following efforts may promote bike and pedestrian connectivity.

St. Louis Commuting 2022

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates

T1.2A: Create bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets and sidewalks.

St. Louis is currently making significant investments in multi-modal infrastructure, but more can be done to improve safety and mobility for all residents. Parallel to the SLUP process, the City of St. Louis has also been developing a citywide Transportation and Mobility Plan (TMP). It is expected that the completed TMP will be adopted into St. Louis’ Comprehensive Plan in 2025. In recent decades, the city has not had a transportation plan that covered the entire city geography. The TMP will help set a course for future projects and policy. In that planning process to date, values that residents rate highly include transportation safety, accessibility for all users, and equitable investment across the city.

St. Louis is already using a design approach that prioritizes safety in all major roadway projects. However, there is significant work to be done in ensuring investment is sufficient to create and maintain a network of accessible sidewalks and connected bikeway networks. Various existing policies work against a systematic approach to planning, construction, and maintenance. The TMP is currently engaging with these policies and will make recommendations that could improve planning and project delivery in the future.

“Unfortunately, many of St. Louis’ roads have transformed into mini-highways and these seas of costly, impervious asphalt have become unsafe for motorists and pedestrians alike. Whether it be wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, tree-lined medians, or trams/streetcars, our city needs a road diet!”

• Steering Committee Member

“For the love of god, fix the traffic system in this city. I’m sick of nearly getting pancaked by a car every time I have to walk somewhere. Slow everything down. Install more strict speed limits, more pedestrian lights, more crosswalks. Get rid of these awful giant roads and shrink them. Make them small streets that force people to respect the community. Give more space for plants to grow and flowers to bloom. Space for children to play and feel safe. For everyone to feel safe.”

• City Resident

T1.2B: Continue to build quality bike infrastructure to connect Corridors and Nodes.

The City of St. Louis has over 200 total miles of bike infrastructure, including 95 miles of marked and signed roadways, more than 50 miles of shared-use paths, and around 50 miles of bike lanes. Significant additions to the protected bike network are currently planned and many are funded, including in key Corridors and Nodes. In the region, the City is also partially connected to a network of Great Rivers Greenway and other park and municipal trails that stretch to over 200 miles. In Illinois, there is a trail network of over 150 miles in Madison and St. Clair Counties, although most is not directly connected to the Missouri side of the Mississippi. The City should continue to connect existing trails with high-quality bike infrastructure to support mobility throughout the city and larger region, especially between Nodes and along Corridors.

CASE STUDY: Seattle Bike Master Plan, Seattle, WA

The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan aims to make bicycling a safe and integral part of daily life by improving connectivity, safety, and ridership. Key recommendations include creating a citywide network of protected bike lanes, greenways, and shared-use paths, with a goal of adding over 450 miles of new and improved bicycle infrastructure. The plan prioritizes connecting neighborhoods, business corridors, and key transit hubs and improving infrastructure for cyclists of all ages and abilities. Notable neighborhoods include Capitol Hill, Ballard, and West Seattle, which are linked to the city's wider bike network. Major corridors like 2nd Avenue in downtown Seattle and Dexter Avenue provide crucial protected bike lanes that improve safety for commuters. Additionally, the plan prioritizes connecting cyclists to transit hubs such as Seattle’s King Street Station, Westlake Station, and Sound Transit Link Light Rail stations, facilitating multimodal transportation options throughout the city. Success is measured by a 62% increase in bike ridership since the plan’s inception, though challenges remain in securing long-term funding and balancing community feedback on road redesigns.

T1.2C: Identify and establish more strategic and equitable models for public infrastructure funding.

Currently, funding for public infrastructure such as street and sidewalks come from a wide range of sources, including aldermanic-distributed Ward Capital funds, STL Works funds, funding distributed by East-West Gateway Council of Governments, funding for the federal government, the Missouri Department of Transportation, and taxing districts like Great Rivers Greenway. Historically, not all these funding streams were aligned around a shared direction for infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance. Following guidance provided by elements of the Transportation and Mobility Plan, including the Safety Action Plan, project priorities should be structured to align with the vision in the Comprehensive Plan to equitably create and enhance public infrastructure that supports safety and multimodal transportation.

T1.2D: Preserve the grid system of streets and sidewalks.

The majority of the City of St. Louis is laid out in a grid pattern of streets, with a general hierarchy of streets from lower volume residential streets to higher volume connectors and arterials generally supporting more diverse uses. The current TMP planning process is identifying a more nuanced classification of street types in the street design framework. The grid street pattern promotes connectivity, especially when it includes quality pedestrian infrastructure. Development that disrupts the grid pattern, such as cul-de-sacs or large developments that with internal circulation and increased block size, reduce the number of connecting streets and break up neighborhoods. The City should encourage development that preserves the grid layout, especially by supporting pedestrian access between neighborhoods and Corridors and Nodes where services and amenities are concentrated.

⬚ figure

“Things need to be connected so everything else can fall into place.”

• City Resident

Grid Interruptions

⬚ figure ⬚ figure

⬚ figure Laclede and Taylor

⬚ figure Penrose and Blair

T1.2E: Reconnect and re-open streets where context allows.

An important benefit of a street grid system is its ability to efficiently connect residents without creating the need for significant out-of-direction travel and the resilience it creates by offering alternate routes during periods of construction, events, or other unforeseen closures. This is especially important for non-motorized transportation, when adding distance to someone walking or using a wheelchair can significantly increase the time spent traveling. Over time, there are many instances where the street grid has been interrupted by temporary or permanent closures or street / right-of-way vacations. Many of these closures are implemented due to concerns about traffic safety on individual neighborhood streets. However, the systematic result is longer travel distances to avoid closures, and in some cases "problems" are just shifted to another location or nearby street. When done in a coordinated way, access management techniques can be appropriate to manage traffic through residential areas. However, preference should generally be given to traffic-calming strategies that preserve access. In all cases where an intersection may be closed to vehicular traffic, access to pedestrians and cyclists should be maintained, with special attention paid to ADA compliance when closures are implemented.

At the larger scale, while the street grid will undergo some changes over time, it is important to fundamentally maintain the grid system as the basis for the city’s transportation and mobility network. A grid offers the most opportunities for connectivity, for property access, and to facilitate the ability of people walking and biking to cross streets where needed and access destinations. The grid system is the building block of an urban environment and a key differentiating factor between cities and suburbs built pre-automobile era and those built after. There are recent instances where the city has taken steps to re-establish the grid where it was lost during past development or to re-establish connections where closures were previously implemented. Thurman Avenue under I-44, Clara Avenue at Delmar, and the reconnection of Clark Avenue and 22nd Street in Downtown are three recent examples at different scales and contexts of reconstructing or re-opening streets to restore better access and connectivity. Potential future closures and applications to vacate streets should be assessed against the reductions in access and connectivity that they would create.

“There’s a lot of places with bollards or cul-de-sacs, where I think if they were just removed, and everyone could access the streets, it would be a better experience for people driving, biking, or walking in those areas.”

• City Resident

T1.3 Promote transit-supportive development around existing and proposed Metrolink stations and high-frequency bus routes.

Nearly 19% of households in the City of St. Louis are zero-vehicle households and almost 7% of workers commute by public transportation. However, St. Louis public transit has struggled to maintain ridership in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented decline in transit ridership in the region. This ridership decline was compounded by challenges in hiring and retaining bus drivers, which led to significant service cuts. An additional factor in ridership decline was the explosion of remote work, especially in office and administrative jobs in the central corridor, where workers may have previously used transit for their commute. These ridership challenges are consistent with national trends, many residents have expressed that St. Louis public transit does not live up to its potential in large part because of a lack of development around transit stops (especially in St. Louis County), poor connection and access to transit, and inconsistent or infrequent service.

Since its lowest levels in 2021, transit ridership has been recovering slowly as remote work has slowly declined and as Bi-State has been able to restore some of its pre-pandemic service frequency. Still, ridership in the region is below pre-pandemic levels.

Despite these challenges, Bi-State and the City of St. Louis continue to invest in and plan for future expansion of the transit network as a means of creating a better-connected, more reliable system that better serves all parts of the city. Many riders identify the perception of safety as a detriment to ridership, and Bi-State is currently investing significantly in access management and fare gates on the Metrolink system. The City and Bi-State’s planned north-south MetroLink expansion (now called the Green Line) is currently in engineering. The Green Line would extend MetroLink light rail service to residential and mixed-use neighborhoods in north and south St. Louis.

Thoughtful land use planning around transit (both bus and light rail) can increase ridership, improve walkability and connectivity, and encourage a mix of uses in strategic locations, all of which better support existing and potential transit users. Transit-supportive land uses also help strengthen St. Louis’s competitive position alongside other cities that provide convenient, walkable, car-optional environments. Transit use also aligns with environmental priorities, including reducing automobiles on the road to improve air quality.

The SLUP aims to encourage transit-oriented development by placing Nodes and Corridors along existing and planned transit hubs. Additionally, the following efforts can promote transit-supportive development.

Proposed Efforts:

T1.3A: Encourage and allow appropriate flexible, dense, and mixed-use development in locations near existing and future transit stations.

T1.3B: Align infrastructure investments to encourage bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets near transit stations.

T1.3C: Support high-frequency bus service, particularly on routes that serve Corridors and Nodes.

“St Louis has good bones for public transportation, but land use around certain frequent transit lines remains poor. For example, Chippewa has 20 minute bus service, yet has large parking lot ‘craters’ where instead there might be apartments, groceries, clinics, and other necessities for living in the city that would make taking public transit more appealing.”

• City Resident

T1.3A: Encourage and allow appropriate flexible, dense, and mixed-use development in locations near existing and future transit stations.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a land use and development strategy that encourages residential, commercial, and other types of development around and near public transportation. Often TODs support land uses that increase residential population, creating relatively greater density, which allows more people easy access to public transit as a primary mode of transportation, reducing reliance on cars and automobile-centric development. The City of St. Louis has used multiple development and incentive strategies around MetroLink stations as tools to facilitate transit-oriented developments. Significant developments have taken place around the Skinker, Delmar, Forest Park-DeBaliviere, Central West End, Cortex, Grand, and Stadium Stations in recent years. Advanced planning in the Green Line alignment has already resulted in a zoning text update to reduce parking requirements and allow more flexibility for housing development along the route. The development of the updated SLUP also points the way toward a citywide zoning code update that is expected to facilitate transit-oriented development. Ongoing TOD investment would also benefit from a focused approach in the area by the city’s development agencies, as recommended in prior TOD studies.

While the City has engaged in many planning and development efforts based on proximity to light rail stations, it has not been proactive in capitalizing on or facilitating development around areas with quality bus service. Being more intentional in this area in the future could better support bus ridership and get more value from ongoing investment in the existing bus routes. In addition to the design recommendations to support access to transit outlined in the SLUP designations, existing development review processes, such as for redevelopment plans, zoning variances, and planned unit developments, should consider opportunities to maximize transit accessibility and pedestrian movement. These reviews may identify opportunities to better integrate transit infrastructure and transit access. The Transportation and Mobility Plan may provide additional guidance.

“If more people are to utilize public transit, the stations must have welcoming development that is easily accessible immediately upon arrival.”

• City Resident

CASE STUDY: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) TOD efforts, OH

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is actively pushing for transit-oriented development (TOD) in partnership with public agencies. RTA has developed TOD Guidelines to assist stakeholders in planning and implementing TOD projects. These guidelines emphasize principles such as increased density, mixed-use development, and pedestrian orientation around transit stations. The Cuyahoga County TOD Zoning Study, conducted in partnership with RTA, assessed existing zoning along transit corridors and recommended best practices for TOD implementation. Additionally, the Cleveland City Planning Commission is working with RTA to identify large tracts of vacant or underutilized land that exists around current and future rapid transit stations and encourage high-density residential development around transit stations.

CASE STUDY: Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor, Arlington, VA

The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor was developed along the Washington Metro’s Orange Line, transforming a previously low-density, car-centric area into a high-density, walkable, mixed-use urban environment. The corridor has seen a 50% increase in population while traffic has decreased, demonstrating the effectiveness of TOD in shifting travel behavior. It has become a model of urban planning that prioritizes transit access, walkability, and sustainable growth. However, balancing high-density development with the preservation of affordable housing has been an ongoing challenge as the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor becomes more attractive to developers.

T1.3B: Align infrastructure investments to encourage bike-and pedestrian-friendly streets near transit stations.

While transit-oriented development can do a lot to create walkable areas around transit stations, it is also important to have infrastructure that supports this type of activity. Active modes of transport go hand in hand with public transit use and must be supported by the City through investment in pedestrian-and bike-friendly street design that safely connects places where people live to transit stations.

T1.3C: Support high-frequency bus service, particularly on routes that serve Corridors and Nodes.

To capitalize on a robust public transit system, there must be a complete network where the headway (the time between two vehicles arriving on the same route) is short enough that people can rely on it to get where they need to go. Many transit agencies indicate high-frequency buses as those with 15-minute or shorter headways, meaning a bus comes to a stop four times an hour. In 2024, only one bus route (#70 Grand) had headways that would be considered high-frequency. Past operations plans (such as the 2019 Metro Reimagined service plan) implemented 9 high-frequency routes, many of which follow proposed Corridors in the SLUP. Due to bus driver shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic, Metro was forced to reduce the number of high-frequency routes. Every effort should be made to increase service, which would support more people using transit to access what they need.

“I am very frustrated that I live only 2.5 miles from my work, and there is no viable public transportation to take. It would take me nearly an hour to take the bus. Our public transportation is basically unusable. When buses run once an hour it’s just not efficient... If effort was put into making public transportation more usable, then it would help those marginalized individuals, but it might attract more of us that would be open to using it more of it wasn’t just a pain to use.”

• City Resident

Vision Theme Thriving

“[I want] more family friendly spaces like museums, places for kid sporting activities... [I want this for] my kids to have more options to live, learn, and play.”

• City Resident

T2: Foster community and public spaces that feel family friendly, safe, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities.

For St. Louis residents to feel connected and supported, a sense of safety for people of all ages and abilities is important. Safety comes in many forms, but many people share an understanding that spaces can support a sense of safety by providing a feeling of being well cared for and accessible. This is particularly important in our shared areas, community and public spaces, where we gather, interact, and ideally feel not just comfortable but proud to be in the city we share together.

Land use plans can suggest design standards for creating quality shared spaces, like sidewalks and open spaces, but more is needed beyond suggested standards. There’s opportunity to improve maintenance of existing open spaces and parks and to consider other ways to add additional locations for connection. In addition, new practices, investments, and policies for streetscape and parking can help support a feeling of safety and accessibility across St. Louis.

Proposed Strategies:

T2.1 Increase access to parks and quality open space, with special attention to comfort and maintenance.

T2.2 Promote pedestrian-oriented public realm through infrastructure investment and land use policies that cultivate a walkable environment.

T2.3 Reduce the burden of parking costs on new development by rightsizing or eliminating requirements and by allowing and encouraging shared parking arrangements.

T2.1 Increase access to parks and quality open space, with special attention to comfort and maintenance.

About 95% of St. Louis residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. However, residents in low-income neighborhoods have access to 10% less park space per person than those in the average St. Louis neighborhood and 37% less than those in high-income neighborhoods.

Creating and maintaining parks in a way that promotes equitable access to all St. Louis residents should continue to be a priority for the city. Additionally, the following efforts are recommended to increase access to parks and open space.

Proposed Efforts:

T2.1A: Support and preserve pocket parks and parklets.

T2.1B: Encourage publicly accessible green space as part of larger private developments to encourage access and reduce maintenance burden.

“It’s wonderful to have small community parks, because they are maintained and young people have something positive to do.”

• City Resident

“St. Louis has a lot of thriving parks and that makes us very special. Not just the big parks, but there are so many small neighborhood parks all over the city in a way I haven’t seen in other places. I would hate to lose that green space that sets us apart.”

• City Resident

Open Space

Most people in St. Louis have good access to parks, but some pockets have few open spaces or open spaces that are hard to access.

⬚ figure

Almost 95% of all city residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park.

Most of the areas that lack parks and open spaces have few residential buildings.

The size and quality of parks and open spaces vary. Proximity to open space does not necessarily give the most accurate description of accessibility.

One area in the south of the city has a high concentration of residential blocks but low access to open spaces.

Legend

• Residential Building Footprints
• 1/2 Mile Buffer Around Parks (10 minute walk)

Source: The City of St. Louis

T2.1A: Support and preserve pocket parks and parklets.

As recommended by the 2013 St. Louis Sustainability Plan, the creation of pocket parks and parklets can increase overall access to recreational green space across the city. Neighborhood “pocket parks” and community gardens can be incorporated into new development projects, funded by the developers. This is particularly important in the Central Areas, where larger-scale and more concentrated buildings can lead to spaces with limited access to parks and greenspace.

“While this neighborhood is lucky to have a few great parks, several smaller parks would do a lot to build more community. A small park or playground within a thousand ft or so of every home would allow neighbors to meet and socialize more organically.”

• City Resident

CASE STUDY:

People St., Los Angeles, CA

The People St. initiative transforms unused street space into small-scale public parks and plazas. It focuses on high-density areas and aims to create community hubs by incorporating features like seating, shade structures, and plantings. St. Louis, with its car-centric layout and areas of underused street spaces as well as its vibrant arts scene, could benefit from the People St. approach, with emphasis on high-density and mixed use areas like Delmar Loop and downtown. The People St. program has successfully activated several underutilized spaces, increasing foot traffic and providing vibrant gathering spots for communities, with partnerships that engage local artists and community groups. Sustaining community involvement and maintaining the infrastructure amidst fluctuating municipal budgets have been ongoing hurdles, requiring continuous partnerships and creative funding solutions.

CASE STUDY:

Pocketparks, St. Louis, MO

⬚ figure

Pocketparks is an organization that helps reimagine and redevelop unused plots of land to create active and beautiful recreational spaces. Pocketparks has added temporary park-like spaces in multiple locations across St. Louis, including Laclede’s Landing, Downtown, and Midtown. These spaces have included recreation activities, art, and lounge spaces. The Pocketparks organization has also hosted activities that bring vibrancy, people, and attention to these spaces and others across St. Louis.

Source: Pocketparks.co

T2.1B: Encourage publicly accessible green space as part of larger private developments to encourage access and reduce maintenance burden.

A lack of funding for park construction and maintenance can be alleviated by incentivising developers to include green spaces in new projects. Development requirements for green spaces — either within zoning regulations for larger developments and planned developments or within the context of a redevelopment plan — can help increase access to parks and open spaces by supplementing the City park system.

CASE STUDY:

Boston’s Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) program

Boston’s POPS program is managed by the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) and was created through the City’s development review process. POPS are spaces that, while privately owned, are accessible for public use and include plazas, courtyards, interior spaces, and parts of the Harborwalk. These spaces are meant to enhance urban life by providing accessible outdoor and indoor areas for relaxation and interaction. The BPDA offers an interactive map that highlights these spaces, categorizing them by type (e.g., Harborwalk, plazas) and location. However, one challenge is ensuring public awareness and access, as some property owners do not prominently display that these areas are open to the public, reducing their visibility and usage.

⬚ figure

Source: City of Boston Planning Department

T2.2 Promote pedestrian-oriented public realm through infrastructure investment and land use policies that cultivate a walkable environment.

Beginning in the mid 20th century, St. Louis became more auto-oriented due to a number of factors. One of these was the creation of the 1947 Comprehensive Plan for St. Louis, which, along with support from the Federal Housing Act of 1949 and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, led to construction of the city’s major highways, including I-70, US 40/I-64, I-55, and I-44. This encouraged the use of the car and stimulated suburbanization. Urban sprawl and the decentralization of retail business were other outcomes of the rise of the automobile. Ultimately, the plans for St. Louis from 1947 were greatly overscaled compared to the city’s actual growth, and the construction of major roads destroyed existing neighborhoods and damaged the city’s urban fabric.

To create a pedestrian-oriented public realm and more connectivity throughout the city, St. Louis can employ strategies to lessen car dependency, facilitate walkability, and eliminate unnecessary or harmful auto-centric infrastructure.

One of the main objectives of the SLUP is to preserve and create the qualities that make St. Louis urban, including a pedestrian friendly public realm. The following efforts are recommended to cultivate a walkable, pedestrian-friendly public realm.

“Please remove all surface parking lots. Surface parking lots take away from spaces that could be used for grocery stores, health facilities, affordable housing, parks, and more. Parking lots and car-oriented infrastructure destroys cities. They make me want to move away from Missouri, because we have a heavy reliance on cars compared to other areas.”

• City Resident

Proposed Efforts:

T2.2A: Support the creation, maintenance, and preservation of a tree canopy, particularly for creating shade along pedestrian routes.

T2.2B: Reduce the impact and shrink the footprint of existing highways.

T2.2C: Update the zoning code to prevent off-street parking in front of residential or commercial developments.

T2.2D: Limit drive-thrus and curb cuts while allowing walk-up windows.

T2.2E: Encourage ground-floor activation in commercial Corridors and Nodes.

T2.2F: Require commercial buildings like big box stores to have safe and comfortable pedestrian access to sidewalks and bus stops.

Saint Louis Major Street Plan 1947

⬚ figure

Source: The City of St. Louis

In 1947, the St. Louis Planning Commission predicted that by 1970, there would be about 230,000 automobiles and trucks owned by St. Louis residents. This assumption guided the Major Street Plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Major Street Plan designated certain streets to be widened up to 8 lanes to accommodate expected future traffic. Because the city’s expected population growth into the 21st century was much lower than forecasted, many of the roadways were over-scaled.

T2.2A: Support the creation, maintenance, and preservation of a tree canopy, particularly for creating shade along pedestrian routes.

The Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) of a city is important in reducing air pollution, reducing the heat island effect, and absorbing storm water. In addition, trees along pedestrian routes provide important shade and improve quality of life. See Growing Goal 3, Strategy 4 (page 336) for more information about investing in the Urban Tree Canopy.

“The presence of people always walking or biking about creates a sense that this place is worth being at and makes it feel safe and pleasant.”

• City Resident

T2.2B: Reduce the impact and shrink the footprint of existing highways.

Many of St. Louis’s highways were constructed based on the 1947 comprehensive plan, which greatly overestimated the growth of the city, resulting in an overscaled roadway system. The construction of these highways displaced many residents and left neighborhoods disconnected. In addition, highways produce air pollution and asthma rates are highest close to highways. These effects are still felt today in many communities, and the City should pursue strategies to reduce the impact of the existing highways in order to create a better connected city and appropriately-scaled transportation system.

Cities with the highest estimated miles of highway per capita

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2018.

In Downtown, I-44 serves as an access barrier between the core of Downtown and the Riverfront, including the Arch grounds, Laclede’s Landing area, and the area south of the Poplar Street Bridge. Other highways divide neighborhoods, have limited locations to cross the highway corridor, or reduce the enjoyment of amenities (such as the south edge of Forest Park).

In the past decade, St. Louis has been involved with two major projects to reduce the impact of existing highway infrastructure. These were the addition of a “lid” in the CityArchRiver project, capping I-44 in downtown St. Louis to better connect the Gateway Arch National Park grounds to downtown, and the Jefferson / I-64 interchange reconfiguration, which reduced the highway footprint by over 30 acres in downtown St. Louis and allowed for the construction of the MLS Stadium campus, a multi-use trail where an exit ramp had been, and the reconnection of several Downtown surface streets. The Missouri Department of Transportation’s Future64 project has already identified preferred options to reduce the ramp footprint between Grand and Compton, which would “release” land for future development and improve the connections to and within the Central Areas. Future planning by MODOT is likely to present opportunities to reduce the footprint of the I-44 / I-55 interchange between the Lafayette Square and Soulard Neighborhoods and to change access patterns between I-44 and the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge. In recent years, the city has also sought Federal funding to plan to reduce the barrier effect created by I-44 in Downtown and by I-70 near Goodfellow Boulevard. Changes to highway or ramp configurations are major projects that often present significant complexity, but there can be other ways to reduce the effects of highways, such as sound walls and improved, safer crossing points at ramp locations.

T2.2C: Update the zoning code to prevent off-street parking in front of residential or commercial developments.

Parking lots in front of residential and commercial developments prioritize car mobility, creating a dangerous environment for pedestrians. They also create a streetscape that is unpleasant and uninviting for foot traffic, deterring pedestrian commercial activity. An alternative to this is placing parking lots behind developments, allowing for a safer and continuous street facade.

T2.2D: Limit drive-thrus and curb cuts while allowing walk-up windows.

While drive-thrus and curb cuts can decrease walkability and safety, walk-up windows make commercial areas more pedestrian friendly. In a more car-centric city like St. Louis, key commercial corridors like the Delmar Loop and Central West End may be a prime location for pilot programs that could demonstrate the benefits, gradually shifting St. Louis’s car-centric culture toward more walkable, mixed-use developments.

CASE STUDY:

Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Minneapolis, MN

The Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan and resulting city council ordinance that was adopted in August 2019 established a citywide ban on new drive-thrus and gas stations to support walkability, reduce vehicle emissions, and address environmental concerns. Prior to adoption of this ordinance, drive-thru facilities were already banned in 17 of the 23 primary zoning districts. The drive-thru ban is part of the Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design policy. It focuses on promoting walkability by reducing vehicle-oriented infrastructure, limiting drive-thru facilities, discouraging multi curb cuts within a development, encouraging multiple storefront bays with direct connections to the sidewalk, and enhancing pedestrian and cyclist accessibility across the city.

CASE STUDY:

Seattle’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning Plan, Seattle, WA

The plan limits drive-thrus and curb cuts in key commercial corridors to prioritize pedestrian safety and enhance walkability. The plan allows walk-up windows for businesses, encouraging active street frontages while reducing car-centric infrastructure. By minimizing curb cuts, the city creates continuous sidewalks, improving accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists and supporting transit-oriented development. This approach has revitalized neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, fostering a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly environment. Challenges included balancing business needs with pedestrian safety and ensuring adequate access for deliveries without compromising the walkable design.

T2.2E: Encourage ground-floor activation in commercial Corridors and Nodes.

Ground-floor activation helps to create a walkable and vibrant streetscape by providing an interesting and inviting pedestrian environment. The ground floor is often occupied by retail establishments, but as retail markets have been impacted by the rise of e-commerce, there is less demand for retail than there once was. However, there are many other ways to activate ground floor spaces, including co-working spaces, classrooms, community spaces, and art exhibition spaces. Ground-floor residential uses can also be designed in a way that contributes to a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience through the inclusion of porches, balconies, stoops, and other spaces that mediate the transition between public and private.

CASE STUDY:

16th Street Mall, Denver, CO

The 16th Street Mall is a pedestrian-friendly commercial corridor that prioritizes walkability by restricting car access and integrating a free shuttle service. This approach could be applied to key St. Louis commercial corridors, like Washington Avenue, parts of the Delmar Loop, and areas along Jefferson near planned light rail stations, to boost foot traffic and create a safe, vibrant environment that encourages ground-floor activity. The 16th Street Mall has successfully activated ground-floor spaces with a mix of local retailers, restaurants, and entertainment venues, supporting economic growth and creating jobs, while considering vendor affordability with temporary kiosks, food trucks, and seasonal events. This model aligns with St. Louis’s goals of enhancing its small business ecosystem and revitalizing its urban core through local entrepreneurship.

T2.2F: Require commercial buildings like big box stores to have safe and comfortable pedestrian access to sidewalks and bus stops.

Commercial buildings like big box stores are specifically intended to serve car owners and generate a lot of auto traffic. As a result, these types of land use can be very dangerous and difficult to access by foot or transit. To create a more walkable environment where these stores are located, the buildings should provide pedestrian access to sidewalks and bus stops without making people walk through dangerous parking lots and driveways. This might include separated paths, clear curb cuts for wheelchairs and strollers, lighting, and trees.

“On top of the poor land use, the pedestrian access to [our neighborhood grocery store] is very bad. When pushing a stroller or a cart, there is no option but to enter the parking through the same entrance that cars use. If this store was more inviting to pedestrians, I think fewer people in the neighborhood would drive there and more would walk.”

• City Resident

T2.3 Reduce the burden of parking costs on new development by rightsizing or eliminating requirements and by allowing and encouraging shared parking arrangements.

An excess of parking decreases walkability and encourages car dependency. For example, St. Louis currently has around 46,000 parking spaces available in garages and on surface lots throughout Downtown. Additionally, the City offers street parking, some with curbside parking meters, throughout the city. Parking mandates also place a burden on developers and can discourage new development. At the same time, businesses need parking to thrive, allowing people to come and go easily.

One parking space in a covered garage can cost anywhere from $27,000 to $45,000 to build, and without parking mandates, developers can construct new housing for as much as 20% less overall cost. The SLUP helps address this by specifying where parking should be limited, especially in the front of and to the side of buildings, to maintain urban qualities like walkability and connectivity. The following efforts may help reduce unnecessary parking in new development.

Proposed Efforts:

T2.3A: Encourage shared parking arrangements within districts or larger developments.

T2.3B: Support municipal and subsidized parking in Corridors and Nodes to support commercial activity.

T2.3C: Reduce or eliminate parking minimums and explore further parking maximums in strategic areas.

"Overall, I want to see better connectivity, less car dependency, less restrictions on what that can be built based on parking... We need to STOP allowing the de-urbanization of St. Louis, especially outside of the central corridor. We are laid out as a dense, old school urban city, and we can absolutely use that to our advantage."

• City Resident

"Adding parking lots to a district can make it a regional destination, and then people can choose where they go within the district."

• City Resident

"Currently, in some areas the market demands 1:1 parking requirements, and [for apartments] the City requires it. But if you’re developing in high density areas, they don’t need a 1:1 parking requirement and a garage is very expensive, so it means you’re spending money where you don’t need to."

• Local Developer

T2.3A: Encourage shared parking arrangements within districts or larger developments.

Shared parking is a land use and development strategy that optimizes parking capacity by allowing complementary land uses to share spaces rather than producing separate spaces for separate uses. In St. Louis, many destinations have their own individual parking lots, increasing the surface parking lots, impervious surfaces, and curb cuts. While St. Louis already permits shared parking arrangements in some instances, it could do more to formulate this as an affirmative value and policy.

CASE STUDY:

Pearl District Shared Parking Plan, Portland, OR

The Pearl District, a former industrial area redeveloped into a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood, implemented a shared parking strategy to optimize parking space usage across residential, commercial, and office developments. The district encouraged businesses and residential buildings to share parking facilities rather than build separate garages, maximizing land use efficiency and reducing the overall number of parking spaces needed. This approach minimized land dedicated to parking, reduced congestion, and promoted walkability and transit use. It also lowered construction costs and freed up space for green and mixed-use developments. Challenges included coordinating agreements between property owners and establishing a regulatory framework to ensure accessibility and security for all users.

CASE STUDY:

South Grand Parking Lot, St. Louis, MO

The South Grand Community Improvement District (CID) built and manages a parking lot at 3500 Hartford, just behind the South Grand Business District. The lot includes 95 free parking spaces, lighting, planting, and walkways back to the business district and can double as an event space with electric and water hookups.

T2.3B: Support municipal and subsidized parking in Corridors and Nodes to support commercial activity.

Municipal or subsidized parking in areas with high commercial activity can be beneficial compared to private parking lots. Municipal parking can be used by a variety of users at different times, allowing for more efficient use. Municipal parking fees are also beneficial to the public because they can be funneled back into funding for the creation and maintenance of City infrastructure projects. Subsidized parking can lower the cost of parking for the end user and encourage more commercial activity.

“It’s important not to put the [need for parking in commercial areas] entirely on the backs of developers and individual business owners. The City could and should have some onus there.”

• Local Developer

CASE STUDY: Downtown Parking Strategy, Ann Arbor, MI

The initiative is part of Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority (DDA) strategy to support local businesses and maintain downtown vitality. The program offers nearly 8,000 parking spaces spread across parking structures, surface lots, and on-street metered spaces. The program focuses on increasing parking accessibility in areas like Main Street and South University Avenue, where commercial activity is concentrated. However, subsidizing parking tends to increase private vehicle use unless combined with strong alternatives and strategies to transition users toward public transit. Ann Arbor is trying to balance the demand for parking with the city’s sustainability goals, which include reducing carbon emissions and encouraging public transit use.

⬚ figure

Some surface parking lots in Downtown Ann Arbor can be repurposed during times with less parking demand

Source: Parking Management Plan, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

T2.3C: Reduce or eliminate parking minimums and explore further parking maximums in strategic areas.

By reducing (or even eliminating) parking minimums, developers can decide when parking is needed for projects on an individual basis without being forced to include unnecessary parking. Without the added burden of parking minimums, developers may be more incentivized to build more affordable housing in St. Louis and to pursue more urban development forms. In addition, recent changes to stormwater policy means that landowners must pay more for additional impervious surfaces such as parking lots. St. Louis has already reduced the parking requirement compared to the underlying zoning regulations in the Forest Park Southeast Form Based Code District and in the MetroLink Green Line corridor through a zoning text amendment. In recent years many other cities across the country have moved toward reducing parking mandates, and St. Louis could benefit from doing the same across more of the city.

Vision Theme Thriving

“Attracting economic investment will hopefully lead to growth in better paying jobs, which will hopefully attract new residents, some of whom might be families.”

• City Resident

T3: Foster an environment that supports the growth of jobs at a wide variety of future-facing businesses and organizations across the city, particularly in Nodes, Corridors, Central Areas, Campuses, and Industrial Centers.

For residents to thrive, there must be opportunities for well-paying jobs that are accessible and will be available long term. These opportunities are an important part of what residents identify as supporting people to rise and stay out of poverty, helping to strengthen the city. Businesses and organizations are also critical to attracting new residents, adding to the population, and sustaining the economic needs of the city and the region.

Land use sets a vision for where new or expanded businesses and employment centers could locate, but to cultivate existing employers to scale up and to attract new ones to St. Louis, additional attention and investment is needed. These strategies point to next steps in enhancing site preparation and supporting innovative forms of business that will support future jobs.

Proposed Strategies:

T3.1 Prepare sites for business development through marketing, remediation, and infrastructure coordination.

T3.2 Support innovative forms of business throughout the city.

T3.1 Prepare sites for business development through marketing, remediation, and infrastructure coordination.

The degree of site preparation is a major factor that businesses take into account when choosing to relocate. St. Louis has a high rate of abandoned and vacant properties, many of which are brownfields or lack essential utility systems such as electrical capacity, natural gas lines, or wastewater facilities. Because of this, it is vital that the city works toward increasing the stock of uncontaminated, serviced sites available for appropriate development. In some cases, these sites could be appropriate for a new, modern industrial or commercial use; in other cases, mixed-use or housing development may be more appropriate.

St. Louis has various tools that aim to return underutilized and contaminated sites back to productive use, including the City of St. Louis Brownfields Program, the 2013 City of St. Louis Sustainability Plan, and the Missouri Environmental Site Tracking and Research Tool (E-Start) created by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The SLUP also identifies Core Industrial and Flex Industrial areas where site remediation and preparation should be considered to support new development. The efforts below suggest how the city might do this.

“Businesses need site preparation and readiness. They don’t want brownfield remediation risk, or regrading — they want a site that’s ready to be redeveloped. There are other places that don’t have that risk, so places with half-buildings get disqualified really quick.”

• Local Industry Stakeholder

Proposed Efforts:

T3.1A: Increase capacity for remediation by continuing to aggressively pursue EPA grants.

T3.1B: Take a systemic approach to infrastructure improvements to ensure safe, quality infrastructure is available to support jobs.

T3.1C: Create an inventory of available sites, particularly larger sites, and work with regional leaders to market these for development.

T3.1D: In alignment with neighborhood and district plans, gain site control of large sites to support the relocation of large employers.

CASE STUDY: SteelStacks Redevelopment, Bethlehem, PA

The SteelStacks project transformed the former Bethlehem Steel plant, a 1,800-acre industrial site, into a mixed-use cultural and business hub. The redevelopment included significant brownfield remediation, infrastructure improvements, and environmental controls. These include extensive soil remediation, asbestos abatement, and advanced stormwater management systems to address industrial contamination while modernizing electrical, natural gas, and water infrastructure to support new uses. Public-private partnerships, funding from the EPA’s Brownfields Program, and state grants facilitated these efforts, with utility companies collaborating to upgrade essential services. The site now hosts arts venues, parks, and business incubators, generating economic growth and job creation while maintaining the industrial heritage. The water retention systems and infrastructure upgrades support sustainable development. Remediation was complex and costly, requiring coordination between multiple public and private entities to secure funding and manage environmental concerns.

CASE STUDY: City Foundry STL, St. Louis, MO

City Foundry St. Louis is a 15-acre mixed-use development that reused the former Federal-Mogul foundry site. Located adjacent to rail lines, the area was full of warehouses and manufacturers of machinery, shoes, and brewing products before it became vacant in 2007. The site was contaminated with volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and lead-based paint. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provided assistance through their Brownfields Voluntary Cleanup Program (BVCP), which is supported by EPA funding. The first phase of the development opened in 2021. The site currently includes a food hall, entertainment spaces, offices, luxury apartments, parking, retail, and a grocery store. In addition, coordination with other infrastructure projects has lead to nearly $10 million of investment by the U.S. Department of Transportation to support construction of a greenway crossing of I-64/40 near the Foundry. This crossing will support greater access for residents, visitors, and employees to and from the Foundry site.

⬚ figure

Source: Lawrence Group thelawrencegroup.com

T3.1A: Increase capacity for remediation by continuing to aggressively pursue EPA grants.

In 2023, St. Louis received $500,000 from the EPA for community and environmental cleanup efforts in the city through the EPA’s Brownfields Assessment Grant program. The grant focused on the neighborhoods of Fountain Park, Greater Ville, The Ville, Jeff Vanderlou, St. Louis Place, College Hill, Fairground Neighborhood, Wells Goodfellow, Walnut Park East, Hamilton Heights, and Chouteau’s Landing. The grant money has been used for things like environmental site assessments, developing seven cleanup plans, and providing staff training. Pursuing similar funding opportunities in the future can help St. Louis continue this important work toward site preparation, environmental justice, and overall community wellbeing. This type of funding can be particularly important in supporting proactive plans for reinvestment in areas that have a high need, identified by data-driven tools such as the Economic Justice Index (see more on page 275), or other tools that emerge.

T3.1B: Take a systemic approach to infrastructure improvements to ensure safe, quality infrastructure is available to support jobs.

Business groups, including industrial users, cite the quality of infrastructure, especially streets and roads that provide truck access, as particularly important when considering the location of their operations. Historically, St. Louis has not had a systemic approach to maintenance of roads, relying on ward-based investment for things like paving and safety improvements. A more holistic approach to maintenance would support improved safety and quality, supporting job creation and retention. A similarly systemic approach to investment in energy and sewer infrastructure is also critical to ensuring sufficient capacity is available in the right locations.

T3.1C: Create an inventory of available sites, particularly larger sites, and work with regional leaders to market these for development.

As the city builds its inventory of remediated and prepared sites, it is vital that developers know about these opportunities. This might include a tool that shows up-to-date information on development-ready sites and the timeline and progress toward site preparation. This tool could take the form of a digital dashboard, interactive map, or something else. Industrial users report looking for sites that have a 1 to 2 year relocation timeline. This effort should be coordinated with regional organizations, such as the St. Louis Regional Freightway and Greater St. Louis Inc, that market sites and coordinate with potential employers.

T3.1D: In alignment with neighborhood and district plans, gain site control of large sites to support the relocation of large employers.

To encourage the role of St. Louis as a regional economic hub, there is an opportunity to provide sites that are primed for large employment centers, particularly in locations designated as Core or Flex Industrial or as Nodes and Corridors. By strategically gaining control of these sites, many of which are currently vacant or underutilized, the City will be better positioned to guide employers and businesses toward locations that are served by transit, do not disrupt existing residents, and can be long-term sustainable. Sites that provide this opportunity should be identified through neighborhood planning whenever possible, so there is strong community buy-in and participation.

“St. Louis needs jobs! People can’t help themselves and be involved in other things if they aren’t gainfully employed. We need new companies!”

• City Resident

T3.2 Support innovative forms of business throughout the city.

St. Louis has a diverse economy, with around 9% of residents employed in manufacturing, 9% in retail trade, and over 9% in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services.

St. Louis’s inventory of vacant retail, office, and industrial properties provide the opportunity for redevelopment into new business development.

The SLUP can help support a range of business development in strategic locations. The SLUP identifies Flex Industrial areas that allow diverse forms of industrial and commercial land use while maintaining a buffer between residential and Core Industrial land uses. The designation of Nodes and Corridors also allows for low-impact forms of manufacturing and development throughout the city. Described in further detail below are two efforts that can help support various forms of development throughout the city.

“There’s a whole class of industrial uses like micromanufacturing... we obviously have a lot of excess space that is used for offices now, but there are some instances where it could be converted to garment or clean manufacturing uses.”

• Local Business Development Stakeholder

Proposed Efforts:

T3.2A: Allow low-impact forms of manufacturing and development throughout Nodes, Corridors, and Industrial areas.

T3.2A: Allow low-impact forms of manufacturing and development throughout Nodes, Corridors, and Industrial areas.

Allowing certain types of manufacturing and development alongside other land uses encourages the development of innovative forms of businesses mixed in with residential, commercial, and other uses. This might include small, local production and manufacturing, such as furniture making, textile making, baking, coffee roasting, small-batch brewing, vertical farming, or 3D printing. These sites may adhere to site or architectural designs that consider need for parking, production, and safety accommodations while integrating well into the surrounding parcels and community. This aligns with several adopted plans and initiatives in St. Louis, such as St. Louis Makes and the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center (AMICSTL), both of which seek to expand innovative, forward-thinking manufacturing and production in St. Louis.

“New, innovative manufacturing and industrial processes are currently limited in where they can be, but it would be better if uses like research, clean manufacturing, or clean production were more mixed and relevant to our city.”

• Local Economic Development Stakeholder

CASE STUDY: Artisan Zoning, Indianapolis, IN

As part of a zoning update in 2012, the Indianapolis Division of Planning created two new zoning designations: Artisan Manufacturing and Artisan Food and Beverage. These designations allowed small manufacturers to locate in non-industrial areas and reactivate vacant spaces. This action has helped spur economic growth and encourage infill development in formerly vacant properties, generating tax revenue for the City and increasing property values in the surrounding neighborhoods.