Built St. Louis documents a slow crime that residents of the near north side have watched unfold in the last several weeks: the destruction on five buildings on the 1900 block of Montgomery by brick rustlers. Need I add that these are the only five buildings on this block?
Apathy breeds neglect, and neglect of whole areas of a city is fatal. When our cultural leaders have had the chance to safeguard St. Louis Place and other near north side neighborhoods, they have chosen otherwise. When our leaders have seen dozens of buildings fall, they have offered apologies or ignored the destruction. When they have watched residents loose their sense of place...well, they haven't. Apparently a "sense of place" is germane only to the central corridor and the south side. North St. Louis gets fucked.
North St. Louis the region's shameful embarrassment, and the "Blairmont" solution will help us forget about some of it without having to do any real work for change. While we can't preserve a building whose walls have fallen to thieves and their eager fences, we can look back and see decades where we had the chance to prevent this tragedy from unfolding and instead we silently let it happen.
Of course, the reality is very disconcerting east of Grand: blocks with much vacancy also contain well-kept homes and apartments, smiling children and strong churches. Middle-class mythology renders the people who live here politically and culturally nonexistent, and that helps us to cope with our end of the problem. The harsh reality is that there is enough social fabric left to rebuild this area without wholesale clearance or mass relocation.
But the myths are easier: Oh, they don't care. Most of those buildings are past saving. Parts of that areas have places where you can't see a building for blocks around. Old North St. Louis is the only part of that area worth saving. No one wants to live there.
The reality is that despite fifty years of degradation and neglect the near north side retains its character and its sense of place. Thoughtful public policy for this area was impossible in the urban renewal age, but in our historic-tax-credit era seems equally impossible. The brick rustlers are committing a small crime with their own hands. Other more powerful parties have committed larger crimes with those of others. Sadly, it seems that the near north side will not fend off either assault, which seems likely to spread west of Grand after the "Blairmont" model is proven and embraced politically.
What then becomes of the character of the rest of the city? Are our self-serving myths worth the loss of a large part of the city's culture?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I fear you have become overtaken by a hyperbolic alien...
"Apparently a "sense of place" is germane only to the central corridor and the south side. North St. Louis gets fucked."
Not much of a sense of place when more than 50 percent of the buildings on a block have been demolished...
"..we can look back and see decades where we had the chance to prevent this tragedy from unfolding and instead we silently let it happen."
These are non-sequiter connnections...decades of abandonment and a chance to prevent don't click. (Think JVL)
"The harsh reality is that there is enough social fabric left to rebuild this area without wholesale clearance or mass relocation."
This statement defies reality on the ground. (Think JVL)
"The reality is that despite fifty years of degradation and neglect the near north side retains its character and its sense of place."
This is a major stretch. (Think JVL)
"Sadly, it seems that the near north side will not fend off either assault, which seems likely to spread west of Grand after the "Blairmont" model is proven and embraced politically."
Given the parochial nature of neighborhoodds, wards, and the city, what happens in one place does not transfer to the next. The fate of JVL does not shape the destiny of the Ville.
"What then becomes of the character of the rest of the city? Are our self-serving myths worth the loss of a large part of the city's culture?"
The character of the rest of the city is not a function of the outcome of redevelopment plans in JVL. How is redevelopment of JVL causing wholesale losses of a "large part of the city's culture"?
"Given the parochial nature of neighborhoodds, wards, and the city, what happens in one place does not transfer to the next. The fate of JVL does not shape the destiny of the Ville."
If the city is so parochial how is the Blairmont project happening?
We have an exurban developer going to the state legislature for help WITHOUT the support of the alderman whose ward includes 80% of the project. The mayor's office and deputy mayor are working behind the scenes with out-state Republicans and the lieutenant governor to pull off the financing for the project.
Meanwhile, not a single public meeting on the project has taken place in JVL, St. Louis Place or Old North. People are in the dark, the alderman is in the dark...yet the project seems inevitable.
It is an absurb statement that the state of JVL of St. Louis Place or Old North St. Louis typifies the need for a wholesale privatization of development policy in the hands of Paul McKee or one type of development. There is no correlation between abandonment on these blocks and the need for new subdivisions. The non-decision decision that is allowing this pig to gobble up land and building, force through unnecessary tax credits and eschew public processes that public support for projects is a wholly political one. There have been multiple instances within these neighborhoods where modest sized infill projects, including primarily new construction projects, have worked successfully on the scale of 1 to 3 blocks. It is only the meglomania of developers like McKee that insists on 70 acre projects; the existing pattern of development supports the smaller projects and makes a strong case of for them. Furthermore, to use JVL in this debate is the height of cynicism. The fact is that there is new housing being built in JVL right now and the scale and pace of that redevelopment is appropriate to that community. At no point in JVL's planning process, undertaken in 1998 and 1999, did residents ask to undergo a slow, gradual process of death, facilitated through the negligence of political leadership.
Last Anonymous,
I agree with you completely. Very well-put, especially the last sentence of your comment.
Not much of a sense of place when more than 50 percent of the buildings on a block have been demolished...
More small parks than any city in America.
These are non-sequiter connnections...decades of abandonment and a chance to prevent don't click.
(Non SEQUITER is Latin for "it does not follow.")
If abandonment of upper and middle class; than all your left with is poor. If poor neighborhood; silence / look the other way! seems totally 'sequiter' ro me.
This statement defies reality on the ground.
Code for: still too many poor.
This is a major stretch.
Clearance of neighborhoods is the better 'character' choice?
Soulard grows to Benton Park/ Lafayette Square and more... St Charles runs out of good farm ground and must resort to Flood Plains... I'd say neighboring neighborhoods have impact.
The character of the rest of the city is not a function of the outcome of redevelopment plans in JVL. How is redevelopment of JVL causing wholesale losses of a "large part of the city's culture"?
Is that where you're starting? We're in the dark...
Why do you own so many properties many miles from JVL also falling apart?
Hold out both hands, face up.
In the left hand, ask for good wishes, in the right, bullshit.
Which one do you think fills up first?
Now try the same exercise, only this time, subsitute good wishes for qualified developers and bullshit for pie-in-the-sky redevelopment scenarios.
Which do you think you will get more of? Qualified developers or pie-in-the-sky scenarios?
Feed the right pie in the sky to out of city politicians and you get 100 mil... worth of bullshit...
Post a Comment