Jump to content

OT: Midtown Development


Pistol

Recommended Posts

As a resident of the City, it really does not concern me much whether aging Boomers move from Chesterfield to O'Fallon or stay where they're at. I suppose it would make a marginal difference in some regional co-op efforts St. Chuck excludes itself from. And I can see how it would greatly concern people committed to areas like Kirkwood or Ladue. But I'm more interested in encouraging people my age or younger (especially with kids and especially from outside the region) to give the City a shot before Maplewood or U City. Obviously improving the schools one way or another would be a big help there. But I really don't see the City with its current boundaries as in very direct competition with West County for the types of residents who have already made their minds up about inner city crime, etc. If the City was still part of the County, then I would probably be more worried about those people moving further out.

A city-county merger is pretty far down on my wish list at this point. I think both entities have plenty to clean up in their own backyards before it makes much sense for either side to prioritize it. The City has schools and crime (both real and perceived) and the County has redundancy of municipal services and other fragmentation issues. In another 20 years, depending on how places like Chesterfield and Wildwood continue to age, it might make more sense. In the meantime there are lots of ways the City and County could improve their efforts at regional cooperation on things like economic development without consolidating or even without the City rejoining the County as municipality #94 or whatever it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

Nope, the metro as a whole has had the biggest population loss of any region:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-population-record-loss-met-20160324-story.html

That whole article strikes me as another case of the innumeracy of journalists. To wit:

"The Chicago area lost an estimated 6,263 residents in 2015 — the greatest loss of any metropolitan area in the country. That puts the region's population at 9.5 million."

That excerpt makes it sound like he's using gross numbers and not percentages. Well, yeah, a shrinking SMSA with 9.5 million people is going to lose more residents than an SMSA with, say, 2 million people. And 6,263 in a population of 9.5 million is basically rounding error. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bonwich said:

That whole article strikes me as another case of the innumeracy of journalists. To wit:

"The Chicago area lost an estimated 6,263 residents in 2015 — the greatest loss of any metropolitan area in the country. That puts the region's population at 9.5 million."

That excerpt makes it sound like he's using gross numbers and not percentages. Well, yeah, a shrinking SMSA with 9.5 million people is going to lose more residents than an SMSA with, say, 2 million people. And 6,263 in a population of 9.5 million is basically rounding error. 

Yeah, that's a fair point. But it's rare for a region that large to show a net loss of any sort, unless you're Detroit. That's why I posted.

Here's a more recent article that points out Chicago was the only top 10 metro to show a loss in 2016:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-census-population-loss-met-20170322-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is it that makes Detroit deserving of such an honor as being the city expected to lose gobs of population in a regular basis, if I may ask? So, your desire is to have young people with kids move into the city? Good luck there. 

Bonwich is correct, that is what makes fake news fake news. A loss of 6,263 people out of 9.5 M is loss 0.065% which is negligible, any interpretation to the contrary is fake news, in other words uninformed opinion or someone shooting from the hip to print something with minimal information and maximal fiction. Have I ever described my Facts / bull**** ratio in this board, assigning any significance to a population loss like the one described has a very low facts to bull**** ratio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Old guy said:

And what is it that makes Detroit deserving of such an honor as being the city expected to lose gobs of population in a regular basis, if I may ask? So, your desire is to have young people with kids move into the city? Good luck there. 

Bonwich is correct, that is what makes fake news fake news. A loss of 6,263 people out of 9.5 M is loss 0.065% which is negligible, any interpretation to the contrary is fake news, in other words uninformed opinion or someone shooting from the hip to print something with minimal information and maximal fiction. Have I ever described my Facts / bull**** ratio in this board, assigning any significance to a population loss like the one described has a very low facts to bull**** ratio. 

This Tribune thing is misleading as hell but factual. Windy city did indeed lose that number of residences 

 Fake news is claiming that the greatest country in the history of the world is unable to verify if one of the two main candidates running for president was born here or claiming that 3,000,000 fraudulent votes were cast this last election  (all for same candidate)despite less than triple digits of cases of fraud recorded in modern times, or whatever this hoax just revealed about leftist blog which passed on hysterical B S about Trump, (as if that's needed) that turns out to be prank. The fake news expression was coined to refer the propaganda spread by Putin and alt-right nut jobs like A Jones during primaries. Before most knew what they were talking about the term was co-opted by the right and is now being used to paint the whole mainstream media as fake. Same with Science. Stepping stones to totalitarian takeover happening right before our eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

Oh please, the Harlond Bartholomew-as-antichrist meme is even more exaggerated than the interstate-highway-act-as-bugaboo meme. But more importantly, this is a false dichotomy. Local planners did stupid (and sometimes racist) things, so that means federal policy makers didn't? There's plenty of blame to go around, both on an individual project level like the Arch and on the nationwide level of interstate siting and mortgage policy. FWIW, Bartholomew and other professional planners working for the City had almost nothing to do with the push for the monument that became the Arch in the first place, and even less to do with the design and construction of it once it was greenlit.

I assume you've read Mapping Decline. It does a good job of tracing the factors that made St. Louis a special case within the broader trends that were driving development nationwide. The real question is what happened to mid-American cities over the course of the 20th Century. St. Louis is an exemplar of what happened to cities all over the Midwest and the nation. The question shouldn't be what St. Louis did individually that failed, and the idea that one individual planner screwed St. Louis over is just silly. The idea that "overly complex" zoning is what screwed St. Louis is especially ridiculous. If anything, the lack thereof is helping hold us back today.

Bartholomew's disciples or Bartholomew himself were wrote many of those cities long term plans in the 30's.

Bartholomew wrote the principles for the location of interstate highway system in urban areas for the Fed's.

His championing of Euclidean zoning set industrial cities up for failure as zoning rules couldn't respond to changing business and demographic realities.

Bartholomew started the JNEM by using eminent domain and WPA funds to clear the riverfront. The monument itself isn't what is wrong with the Arch.  The location and what Bartholomew destroyed is what is wrong with the Arch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

Bartholomew's disciples or Bartholomew himself were wrote many of those cities long term plans in the 30's.

Bartholomew wrote the principles for the location of interstate highway system in urban areas for the Fed's.

His championing of Euclidean zoning set industrial cities up for failure as zoning rules couldn't respond to changing business and demographic realities.

Bartholomew started the JNEM by using eminent domain and WPA funds to clear the riverfront. The monument itself isn't what is wrong with the Arch.  The location and what Bartholomew destroyed is what is wrong with the Arch.

 

This is an interesting riff on the Bartholomew as antichrist meme. Earlier you said the feds weren't to blame because Bartholomew was such a devil at the local level. Now you're shifting gears and blaming him and his "disciples" for federal policy over the course of several decades, which is a little like blaming Teddy Roosevelt for the failures of every Republican administration since.

You're just dead wrong about Bartholomew being to blame for either the conception or design of the Arch. Earlier you took issue with local leaders lobbying the federal government for the monument in the first place. That was mostly Luther Ely Smith, Mayor Dickmann, and U.S. Senator Bennett Clark, with assists from local business leaders like AB. It was the Board of Aldermen who allocated local funding for the lobbying effort, not the planning department. FDR himself also championed the project because he remembered hanging out at the original Old Rock House, and insisted the site include what was left of it. Bartholomew and his "disciples" in the planning department had nothing to do with it.

Now you're shifting gears and blaming Bartholomew and local planners for the location and eminent domain process. But Bartholomew and his disciples in the planning department had even less to do with the site selection process after the feds took over. The eminent domain process was started by the NPS, not the City, after NPS chose the site and FDR approved it through executive order. Even then, the demo on the riverfront wasn't completed until after WWII, over a decade after NPS started acquiring land. Bartholomew is not the one who destroyed the Riverfront site the Arch is built on.

Your history is just 100% off here. The project was completely conceived of and carried out by elected politicians and unelected, self appointed philanthropists,  not by Bartholomew or any professional planners at the local level .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder why so much effort is wasted in finding the cause for things going wrong and in assigning the blame to an individual or individuals. I wonder if it might not be much better to try and find out what went right what worked and build upon it. I suppose that in order to do that we must stop feeling victimized by all that goes wrong, and start feeling satisfied by all that goes right. There, this is an expanded explanation for the glass half full and the glass half empty theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old guy said:

And what is it that makes Detroit deserving of such an honor as being the city expected to lose gobs of population in a regular basis, if I may ask? So, your desire is to have young people with kids move into the city? Good luck there. 

Bonwich is correct, that is what makes fake news fake news. A loss of 6,263 people out of 9.5 M is loss 0.065% which is negligible, any interpretation to the contrary is fake news, in other words uninformed opinion or someone shooting from the hip to print something with minimal information and maximal fiction. Have I ever described my Facts / bull**** ratio in this board, assigning any significance to a population loss like the one described has a very low facts to bull**** ratio. 

Yes, my desire is to attract more people under 40 with small children to the City. I am one of those and socialize mostly with other people in that category who made that choice. I even take credit for encouraging several of them to move here, so I appreciate your well wishes in that regard. Best of luck playing out your string in West County before you get scared out to Union or Sullivan

You're totally missing the point with Chicago. The trivial factoid of the precise percentage or number of regional population loss is not the issue. The fact that the region is in the red in terms of population is. The whole issue originally arose because you said Chicago was growing. It's not growing, either at the municipal or regional levels. Then you said it wasn't doing well because it grew through recent annexation, when there simply hasn't been any recent annexation. The whole point is that your two claims are wrong, but you can't even focus long enough to remember what you said to raise the issue in the first place. Instead you start the "fake news" tourettes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you are a planning professional, but I am going to tell you that Chicago's real problems are primarily of a financial and fiscal nature. They simply have multiple obligations they cannot pay for, period. They have enrolled the whole state's finances in a bailout  that is more of a bandaid in nature and that will not only not bring back fiscal and financial prosperity to Chicago, but will wreck it for the rest of the State. That is a major problem any way you want to approach it.

I am also not an expert about the history of Chicago's development, the information I used that you now claim is wrong came from yourself primarily. However there is no point in continuing this discussion any longer. Chicago is Chicago and St. Louis is St. Louis, I really care a lot less, if anything, about Chicago than about St. Louis (the whole area not the City of course). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Old guy said:

I know you are a planning professional, but I am going to tell you that Chicago's real problems are primarily of a financial and fiscal nature. They simply have multiple obligations they cannot pay for, period. They have enrolled the whole state's finances in a bailout  that is more of a bandaid in nature and that will not only not bring back fiscal and financial prosperity to Chicago, but will wreck it for the rest of the State. That is a major problem any way you want to approach it.

I am also not an expert about the history of Chicago's development, the information I used that you now claim is wrong came from yourself primarily. However there is no point in continuing this discussion any longer. Chicago is Chicago and St. Louis is St. Louis, I really care a lot less, if anything, about Chicago than about St. Louis (the whole area not the City of course). 

This is too funny. First Chicago was growing, then it wasn't growing because of annexation, then it really was growing but the fake news was suppressing the growth. You didn't get any of those brilliant theories from me.

I don't know about "fake news," but your posts here certainly reflect the increasingly popular desire to make up "alternative facts" to support whatever deeply held but uninformed opinion you latch onto about a subject you're unfamiliar with. If you don't know something, it's perfectly okay not to have an opinion on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say something that of course you will find very funny: It is not viable to move a family with kids to an area that cannot provide decent public schools. You either wind up doing the work of schooling your kids yourself or have to pay for private schooling which are quite expensive. Of course, an even better solution to this problem is to mooch the money from the elderly and useless boomer grandparents of your children. In a nutshell, the conundrum of how to pay for these issues may come around to plundering people you consider obsolete and ridiculous except for their financial resources. HA! well planned I would say. 

Now enlarge the planning scenario expanding it to a much vaster scale. Is the process described above not similar what planners do in real life? Planners do what they do and then cover their mistakes or boo boos by 1) blaming others that were involved in ways that differed from what they wanted to get, or others that did not wish participate in the process, and 2) Finding new sources of money to fund the boo boos by getting it, usually via taxation, from those ridiculous and obsolete people that actually did work hard to get and save the money in the  first place. 

By the way I see you have exactly the same desire to make alternate facts to support whatever deeply held ideas you have about subjects, as I and everyone else does. We are not so different from one another, do you realize that? So, to finish this pleasant and entertaining exploration of real life, let's find who is to blame for the present "alternate facts" universe. I firmly believe we may ultimately blame Al Gore since he was the self proclaimed father of the internet, the single tool that caused the proliferation of belief based news that we know and love presently. Good bye Walter Cronkite, HELLO belief based news.

Welcome to the XXI century where image and followers are all important! Truth has become a matter of individual preference, the miraculous wonder produced by the net. Believe whatever you want, then find others that believe the same thing as you do. Shut the door on people of opposing views. Then find the money to pay for your beliefs elsewhere, preferably from the government (which after all prints money), or from someone else that may be taxed for it. This is reality as we live it, a real pretty picture pregnant with possibilities, and with vast new horizons that open up to those who know how to use the potential of the net.

Finally to give you a highly placed source that agrees with what I said about internet based "news" I bring you no other than Claire McCaskell, US Senator for Missouri, who said the following at a meeting I attended, to quote:  "Nowadays people follow the news to get affirmation (of beliefs, my addition) rather than information." 

Toots my good man, hope you can get your kids into Burroughs. Enjoy the NEW WORLD where everything is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldguy, I'm not interested in a debate over whether Al Gore invented lying or not, and I don't agree with Claire McCaskill that making things up is cool just because everyone does it. But if you think I made up alternative facts somewhere, please let me know so I can correct it.

You say it's not "viable" for families with kids to move to the City. I don't know what you mean by "viable," but I assure you that a number of my former SLU classmates and I did just that. It's not a matter of opinion or alternative facts. We did it. I already said it doesn't concern me whether retirees stay in West County or move to the exurbs, so it's a little strange to me that you are still so concerned with convincing me of the "viability" of younger families' choices.

And believe it or not, I am a product of public schools (in both the City and the County) all the way through 12th grade. We're not a Burroughs family (not that there's anything wrong with that!). We're a Mullanphy/Kennard/Malinkrodt family, but I do hope to get my son into a school like Metro (#1 high school in the state, and a part of the St. Louis City Public system, no less!), so I again appreciate your well wishes. I hope your grandkids enjoy school in Parkway (great district) or Fox or New Haven or wherever they end up. No sarcasm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

Oldguy, I'm not interested in a debate over whether Al Gore invented lying or not, and I don't agree with Claire McCaskill that making things up is cool just because everyone does it. But if you think I made up alternative facts somewhere, please let me know so I can correct it.

You say it's not "viable" for families with kids to move to the City. I don't know what you mean by "viable," but I assure you that a number of my former SLU classmates and I did just that. It's not a matter of opinion or alternative facts. We did it. I already said it doesn't concern me whether retirees stay in West County or move to the exurbs, so it's a little strange to me that you are still so concerned with convincing me of the "viability" of younger families' choices.

And believe it or not, I am a product of public schools (in both the City and the County) all the way through 12th grade. We're not a Burroughs family (not that there's anything wrong with that!). We're a Mullanphy/Kennard/Malinkrodt family, but I do hope to get my son into a school like Metro (#1 high school in the state, and a part of the St. Louis City Public system, no less!), so I again appreciate your well wishes. I hope your grandkids enjoy school in Parkway (great district) or Fox or New Haven or wherever they end up. No sarcasm!

Funny, I am actually concerned about what the boomers do en masse during the next ten years, as they're still the biggest generation in the country and nearly all population growth is expected to be in the 55-75 year old crowd.  While the millennials have been a primary driver for real estate development during the past decade or so,  it's my belief that boomers will drive development during the next decade.  What they do as their kids leave the nest will help determine what gets built and where.  If they still want large lot homes or villas, we'll just get more of the same.  But, if a greater proportion of them (couple percentage points) decide to downsize and move to more urban locations (doesn't necessarily have to be the city),  we could get a lot more medium to high density development.  

Ultimately, my guess is that most will just stay in their existing 3,500 SF homes retrofitted for their lifestyles, but that just drives up the cost of housing in the most marketable locations and pushes younger homeowner types to look in more affordable places (i.e. the city, exurbs, or less desirable parts of the county).  Throw in the proliferation of driverless cars and the impacts of climate change and who knows what development patterns will look like in 20 years.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SShoe said:

Funny, I am actually concerned about what the boomers do en masse during the next ten years, as they're still the biggest generation in the country and nearly all population growth is expected to be in the 55-75 year old crowd.  While the millennials have been a primary driver for real estate development during the past decade or so,  it's my belief that boomers will drive development during the next decade.  What they do as their kids leave the nest will help determine what gets built and where.  If they still want large lot homes or villas, we'll just get more of the same.  But, if a greater proportion of them (couple percentage points) decide to downsize and move to more urban locations (doesn't necessarily have to be the city),  we could get a lot more medium to high density development.  

Ultimately, my guess is that most will just stay in their existing 3,500 SF homes retrofitted for their lifestyles, but that just drives up the cost of housing in the most marketable locations and pushes younger homeowner types to look in more affordable places (i.e. the city, exurbs, or less desirable parts of the county).  Throw in the proliferation of driverless cars and the impacts of climate change and who knows what development patterns will look like in 20 years.    

In broad terms and on a national scale, of course it matters whether Boomers en masse move back to cities, stay where they're at, or continue sprawling outward. What I said earlier was in response to the narrow scenario oldguy laid out--seniors in the St. Louis suburbs who have no interest in the City debating between staying in West County or moving to St. Chuck. As a City guy, that narrow choice doesn't affect me much. Now, older people in St. Louis willing to consider a broader range of options interest me a lot more. My parents (who recently moved back to the City from West County in their mid 50s) fit that category.

But regardless, my point in the last post was that I'm not about to tell anyone their plan isn't "viable." West County's not for me, but just because I don't like being surrounded by strip malls doesn't mean it's not a viable option over the next 20 years. Now, whether it's sustainable much beyond that point is another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SShoe said:

Funny, I am actually concerned about what the boomers do en masse during the next ten years, as they're still the biggest generation in the country and nearly all population growth is expected to be in the 55-75 year old crowd.  While the millennials have been a primary driver for real estate development during the past decade or so,  it's my belief that boomers will drive development during the next decade.  What they do as their kids leave the nest will help determine what gets built and where.  If they still want large lot homes or villas, we'll just get more of the same.  But, if a greater proportion of them (couple percentage points) decide to downsize and move to more urban locations (doesn't necessarily have to be the city),  we could get a lot more medium to high density development.  

Ultimately, my guess is that most will just stay in their existing 3,500 SF homes retrofitted for their lifestyles, but that just drives up the cost of housing in the most marketable locations and pushes younger homeowner types to look in more affordable places (i.e. the city, exurbs, or less desirable parts of the county).  Throw in the proliferation of driverless cars and the impacts of climate change and who knows what development patterns will look like in 20 years.    

This sure sounds like a planner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

but I do hope to get my son into a school like Metro (#1 high school in the state, and a part of the St. Louis City Public system, no less!), so I again appreciate your well wishes.

Can you tell me a bit about Metro? That is awesome that a city school is doing so well, hopefully their success can be repeated in other areas of the city.

This isn't directed to you, but I don't understand the city vs. county mentality. I moved from the city to Chesterfield, so I see it from the other side as far as people who live in the city or near the city talking . I don't engage because I don't care, but an odd thing I have experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hsmith19 said:

In broad terms and on a national scale, of course it matters whether Boomers en masse move back to cities, stay where they're at, or continue sprawling outward. What I said earlier was in response to the narrow scenario oldguy laid out--seniors in the St. Louis suburbs who have no interest in the City debating between staying in West County or moving to St. Chuck. As a City guy, that narrow choice doesn't affect me much. Now, older people in St. Louis willing to consider a broader range of options interest me a lot more. My parents (who recently moved back to the City from West County in their mid 50s) fit that category.

But regardless, my point in the last post was that I'm not about to tell anyone their plan isn't "viable." West County's not for me, but just because I don't like being surrounded by strip malls doesn't mean it's not a viable option over the next 20 years. Now, whether it's sustainable much beyond that point is another question.

Fair enough.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

Can you tell me a bit about Metro? That is awesome that a city school is doing so well, hopefully their success can be repeated in other areas of the city.

This isn't directed to you, but I don't understand the city vs. county mentality. I moved from the city to Chesterfield, so I see it from the other side as far as people who live in the city or near the city talking . I don't engage because I don't care, but an odd thing I have experienced.

I don't have any personal experience with Metro other than knowing a couple younger grads of the SLU planning program who went there. Both really smart people. One from a family that could have sent her anywhere if she hadn't gotten into Metro. The other one would have ended up at Roosevelt High. Not sure how repeatable it is across the City but it sure is an attractive option now.

My mom's a school administrator who's worked everywhere from Kirkwood to Parkway to StL Public to charters. She just took a job with Normandy this school year. I went to public magnet schools in the City as a kid but ended up at Kirkwood High when my mom was in their district. So I've heard the city-county stuff from both sides too, not to mention the charter school/voucher debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

I don't have any personal experience with Metro other than knowing a couple younger grads of the SLU planning program who went there. Both really smart people. One from a family that could have sent her anywhere if she hadn't gotten into Metro. The other one would have ended up at Roosevelt High. Not sure how repeatable it is across the City but it sure is an attractive option now.

My mom's a school administrator who's worked everywhere from Kirkwood to Parkway to StL Public to charters. She just took a job with Normandy this school year. I went to public magnet schools in the City as a kid but ended up at Kirkwood High when my mom was in their district. So I've heard the city-county stuff from both sides too, not to mention the charter school/voucher debate.

And there is an increasing number of good public options in the city, even beyond the gifted magnet school track.  The Collegiate School of Medicine and Bioscience, for example, is getting rave reviews.  So is CityGarden Montessori.  I've even anecdotally heard of improvement at neighborhood schools like Buder, Mann and Mason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

This is an interesting riff on the Bartholomew as antichrist meme. Earlier you said the feds weren't to blame because Bartholomew was such a devil at the local level. Now you're shifting gears and blaming him and his "disciples" for federal policy over the course of several decades, which is a little like blaming Teddy Roosevelt for the failures of every Republican administration since.

I didn't say they get blame for federal policy, although Bartholomew and his ideas played a large role in the housing acts of 1937 and 1949.  He and his firm wrote the the long term plans for over 500 cities and counties.  That is how he and his disciples were "devils" at the local level.

Quote

 

 

You're just dead wrong about Bartholomew being to blame for either the conception or design of the Arch. Earlier you took issue with local leaders lobbying the federal government for the monument in the first place. That was mostly Luther Ely Smith, Mayor Dickmann, and U.S. Senator Bennett Clark, with assists from local business leaders like AB. It was the Board of Aldermen who allocated local funding for the lobbying effort, not the planning department. FDR himself also championed the project because he remembered hanging out at the original Old Rock House, and insisted the site include what was left of it. Bartholomew and his "disciples" in the planning department had nothing to do with it.

Now you're shifting gears and blaming Bartholomew and local planners for the location and eminent domain process. But Bartholomew and his disciples in the planning department had even less to do with the site selection process after the feds took over. The eminent domain process was started by the NPS, not the City, after NPS chose the site and FDR approved it through executive order. Even then, the demo on the riverfront wasn't completed until after WWII, over a decade after NPS started acquiring land. Bartholomew is not the one who destroyed the Riverfront site the Arch is built on.

 

Any plans Luther Ely Smith was pushing always had Bartholomew's finger prints all over it.  Smith is the one who brought Bartholomew to St. Louis.  Bartholomew was in charge of assembling the land and clearing the riverfront for JNEM with the money made available from the WPA and 1935 bond issue. Bartholomew was a longtime proponent all clear the riverfront.  He was the first to suggest completely leveling the whole central riverfront area (he even wanted to relocate the Old Cathedral) and replacing it with the a plaza.  Bartholomew's proposed plaza in 1928 was mostly massive parking garages, subway terrminals and a huge multilevel expressway.  It would have been a total nightmare.

14-1-1024x596.png

https://nextstl.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Plan-for-the-Central-Riverfront_St.-Louis-1928.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Bartholomew was in charge of assembling the land and clearing the riverfront for JNEM with the money made available from the WPA and 1935 bond issue.

No. Just no. The National Park Service acquired the land through condemnation, with the blessing of the federal courts after a long legal battle. Not Bartholomew. Yes, he was obsessed with planning for cars (along with Eisenhower, who you've defended and who was as much a Bartholomew disciple as anyone ln the subject of transportation). And yes, he wanted to clear the Riverfront long before the Arch was thought of. But he wasn't in charge of the condemnations that made way for JNEM, as happy as I'm sure he was to see the original French street grid get plowed over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very informative hsmith, I hope you get your kids into Burroughs. Otherwise, if I was you I would personally check the Metro school before getting my kids in it. Remember "The Big Short" movie about the crash of 2008? Well all of those worthless mortgage backed securities were certified at AAA ratings by Moodys and the SP. What do you think makes the places that rate schools more trustworthy than Moodys or the SP were? Even better, why don't you  repeat your own life history and send them to Normandy where your mother now has the power to see they get in. You know by your own life experience that they will be well cared for and receive a lot of educational perks as long as their grandma is in there. 

Reading about your life history and pilgrimage made me shed no tears, for I had my own pilgrimage through life starting at a hell of a lot lower level than you did. And nope, I did not have a school administrator mom pulling me into public magnet schools or a premium high school like yours did. I did fine with my education and work phase, note the word DID was used in this context. Now I have become an irrelevant boomer good only for my stash of money.

As sshoe said the boomers control what can be called "a lot of money" that they have hoarded through years of hard work and disappointments. I called it "a lot of money" in a weak attempt to avoid hurting your sensitivities which appear to be many. Politicians, planners, and our own kids salivate after this money, but they do not like the rest of the package that goes with it. Too bad millennials do not understand this.

And just so that you know it and do not think I am making this stuff up, this is the post I am referring to. Please deny that you ever never received special treatment as a student of Kirkwood High. I also assume that you  did not live in Kirkwood at the time you went to high school, did you?

 

26 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

I don't have any personal experience with Metro other than knowing a couple younger grads of the SLU planning program who went there. Both really smart people. One from a family that could have sent her anywhere if she hadn't gotten into Metro. The other one would have ended up at Roosevelt High. Not sure how repeatable it is across the City but it sure is an attractive option now.

My mom's a school administrator who's worked everywhere from Kirkwood to Parkway to StL Public to charters. She just took a job with Normandy this school year. I went to public magnet schools in the City as a kid but ended up at Kirkwood High when my mom was in their district. So I've heard the city-county stuff from both sides too, not to mention the charter school/voucher debate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...