• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SShoe

  • Rank
    Listener of the Streets
  • Birthday 02/01/1982

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tower Grove South

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Billiken
    Erwin Claggett
  1. I used to decry the complete demolition of MCV and the historic architecture that was lost, but it's hard to know if that area would have ended up becoming another Soulard/Lafayette Square or not. The central location would suggest that gentrification might have eventually occurred, but that hasn't been true for much of the areas immediately surrounding DT and Midtown. Similar vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of uses are now almost entirely gone with few remaining buildings, and most of which are in poor condition. The frustrating part with SLU is that while planning theory and land use strategies changed considerably since the 1960s and 1970s, the school's approach did not. Large-scale demolition and renewal-style planning continued to be a favored tool and the surrounding neighborhoods did not benefit from the school's growth. The SLU med campus is the best example of that. I'm hopeful that they've changed their approach and initial plans for the med school suggest that's the case. I think it's also hard to ignore the parallels between SLU and Wash U. While the neighborhoods surrounding the campuses are clearly very different, Wash U has focused their redevelopment efforts in areas that many would have considered "unsafe" 20 years ago (some may still consider it "unsafe", see the Mary Queen of Peace v. Our Lady of Lourdes debate). The school's efforts greatly helped to stabilize those neighborhoods and now the school is actively developing property in the Loop. In their minds, a vibrant and safe Loop is a huge recruiting tool for them. I think SLU should take a similar approach with Grand Center. For example, they currently sit on two corner lots at the intersection of Grand and Lindell. Activating those lots with new mixed-use projects (student housing above first floor retail) would be a great start. Instead, we have dog parks and fountains, which would be fine if these were not key opportunity sites.
  2. I recall Soderberg had a similar over-the-top house and had trouble selling it.
  3. It's typically held in January or February.
  4. I certainly won't complain if we continue to upgrade the roster, but I generally agree with this. I don't think Ford will make Crews-like additions, because I think Ford is a better judge of talent, but I think the staff should aim towards making 2017 the start of something special and sustainable. I also think overloading with transfers can be problematic. People also shouldn't underestimate roster construction. A good PG is a must in today's college hoops and while I'm hopeful Bishop can be that guy, I think it'd be a mistake for the staff not to target one in the fall.
  5. True, but if there are 1 or 2 JUCOs also close to committing, someone else will.
  6. 2017 Roster Sr: DR, MB, AG, AH* Jr: JB, MN, Bess^, Henriquez^, Foreman^ So: JJ, EW, ZM Fr: 2 spots *Walk-on ^Redshirt transfers I still feel as if 2017 is a critical class. Additional transfers from the program are certainly possible, but we currently have 2 schollies to give for that class.
  7. Another transfer or a 2017 recruit?
  8. Good question. The building is kind of a dump (doesn't mean I don't love it) and the site is much larger than the building footprint, so I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying land was worth nearly as much as the building. At that point, demo becomes feasible.
  9. I've heard that he's playing AAU this spring and has been playing well. I also heard the staff has seen him play recently in a tournament and liked what they saw. I saw him play during his sophomore year and he's not Jolly. I didn't see one fade away.
  10. Good post.
  11. I agree with this. If there is a 5th year transfer that can help, fine, but we're not going to be any good next year regardless of who walks in that door and 2017 class will be very important for the program. Good players are also far more plentiful in the fall.
  12. Sorry, walk-on that plays.
  13. Even if HInes' scholarship is taken back, he can still provide depth as a preferred walk-on type.
  14. Foreman is definitely an upgrade from RA, but even if he wasn't, I'd take another Reggie to help bridge the gap between now and 2018 (breakthrough season).
  15. Sure, let Bess play Jolly and Henriquez play Hines.