Beggars Can’t Be Choosers – Or Can We?
Late last year a very misguided urban planning student from St. Louis University sent me the following email. At the time I decided to ignore his comments but I saved it for future use. [UPDATE 4/11: – the email was receieved on January 19th not late last year. I was in the midst of a campaign I didn’t take the time to respond] Below is the full text of his email to me:
I have been looking over your website and I have to say, I’m a bit confused as to what it is that you want for the City of St. Louis. Is there a development that has taken place in recent years that you supported or deemed as a pro-urban development?
I am firmly dedicated to city living, but I think that if the City were to chase away every new project that had any suburban flair, it’d start to get a reputation among developers for being too picky. And you know what they say–“beggars can’t be choosers.” While I agree with you that the alderman in these wards should vie for more urban-friendly developments, what do you do when someone hands you an investment in your starving and decaying city? In an area where “city” and urbanism are so often vilified, what makes you think anyone is going to want to develop new urbanism projects in the City? Why do you think there are so many suburban houses going up in North St. Louis? It’s obviously a retreat from the idea of “city” which has such a negativity around it in the STL Metro area. It is nearly impossible to sell the idea of re-urbanizing St. Louis when it seems to everyone here that suburbs are the American dream, the ideal, the good, the clean, the safe. Why would you want to remind people of the city’s urbanity when it was that very urbanity–the density, the dirt, the crime, the minorities–that moved people away in the first place?
Big boxes, as you call them, are a way to suburbanize the City, to resell the image of the City to the suburbs. It’s a way for the City to say, “Hey, you see, we’re not so bad…we look like you!” Look at East St. Louis. Even IT has some suburban subdivisions now. It seems the way to erase the past and all of the negativity and evils associated with urbanity is to add some tan plastic siding, subtract the originality and viola–you’ve got a “new city.” You’ll notice that all of these “new urbanism” projects are far from the core. It’s okay to look like a “city” in these places because these are places which create the artificial environment which filters out all the negatives…mainly, minorities. If anything, new urbanism in the suburbs is a more blatant showing of escapist sentiment.
So, yes, I agree with you that big boxes aren’t that attractive. They can be a waste of space. They can look very ridiculous in older neighborhoods. But they’re an investment…and we can’t scare them ALL away. Sadly, we’re not a progressive metropolitan area. Most people will cling to the suburbanization of the City even while urban purists put up their fights. I sincerely hope you (or we?) can change people’s minds without scaring everyone jumping on the new urban “trend” away.
Based on feedback I receive, most people get what I want for the City of St. Louis – a pedestrian & bicycle-friendly urban environment. From my posts you can sense that I seek good connections for pedestrians, street trees, and vibrant neighborhoods. To answer his first question, no, I wouldn’t deem any recent development as pro-urban. Most developments are bigger projects and we just don’t get those right. But, St. Louis has many great urban areas. Those just happen to be those that we haven’t destroyed yet.
I’m not sure if I can continue. The ignorance of his comments….
Beggars can’t be choosers? Starving and decaying city? This is from the same person that says, “I am firmly dedicated to city living.” Yeah, right. Is this what SLU is teaching young planning students? If so the future of cities is doomed.
I’m not begging anyone to come to St. Louis. We are not starving and decaying. People left the city because federal programs guaranteed loans for sprawl (and built new highways) while bigots wouldn’t drink from the same fountain as other humans. People all over the world are drawn to dynamic urban environments, not sprawl.
– Steve
You know, Steve…I’ve sat here for about 15 minutes trying to decide how to word what I wanted to write. That email is a written example of why I chose to live in the city…escaping life in the county.
The author tried to express his bandwagon desire to preserve city life, yet misses the complete point of what it will take to upbuild StL City. While they may state they are “firmly dedicated to city living”, they want to bring everything “suburban” with them. Comparing how much a success E.StL became by adopting that mentality further invalidates anything written by them.
The only statement that holds any water is people running to N.County because it may “feel safer”, but it sure isn’t because of no “minorities.” That’s why people move to way out west to where there is no hint of anything urban.
I guess that’s part of their hang up with how they view things. Or, since they are only a student, maybe they are simply reflecting their instructor’s view. Either way, many people that want to live in the city do so because they want to escape the isolation(ist mentality) of suburban life…big, boxy buildings and all.
[Danne, thanks for your take – I agree! The fact white people continue to leave North County is proof they are leaving for racial reasons as the area has no pretense of being urban. – Steve]
While I disagree with the authors sentiments I do understand them. As someone that grew up in a very suburban environment I also thought that plowing down decaying buildings and putting up new strip malls would quickly solve a city’s problems. Living in an urban environment will show you otherwise.
The author is very passionate or he would not have bothered to write the note. I’m assuming that because he is a student he is young. Over time he will come to understand that a city is not just a collection of buildings within the same boundry.
This is not meant as a slam but he most likely just moved out of his parents suburban home just a couple of years ago and lives with a couple of friends now. They talk about how they are going to change the world. Give him time. The overexhuberant passion will fade a little and life experiences will creep in and give him some wisdom. If he remains interested in urban living he may be a big help to the future of STL.
What’s so maddening about the ‘beggars’ cliché is that it’s a total misapplication when grafted onto St. Louis.
This is a city which, by virtue of its history, geography and former wealth, was able to create a built environment and a network of public facilities and institutions that yuppie wannabe cities like Denver can only dream about. When St. Louis was a thriving metropolis with a complex industrial infrastructure and a national presence, Denver was the cowtown it in many ways remains.
Yes, the Rockies are gorgeous, but have you visited the Denver so-called Art Museum? Even a new building by Ground Zero planner/architect Daniel Liebeskind cannot bring distinction to the ho-hum collection the building has been designed to house and display.
Yes, the skiing at Aspen and Telluride is fabulous, but try to find a one-family house comparable to even the most modest St. Louis red brick dwelling and you’ll pay not $75K or $175K but $375K or even $475K. And buildings of any real distinction go even higher.
What’s more, according to my son, who has lived there for more than a decade, many of the newcomers he meets arrive with their fortunes already made–or inherited. For those not so fortunate, the Denver economy doesn’t offer many of the kinds of jobs needed to survive in the increasingly expensive Denver market.
And the schools aren’t so great, either. My son has already seen a number of friends with school-age children depart for the ostensibly greener educational pastures of the suburbs.
Rather than acting like the poor relative of the region, St. Louis should be acting to protect and defend the precious urban resource that is itself–a resource whose value and importance are coming to be recognized by more and more of us within and even outside the region.
I will be graduating from the SLU program in a few weeks and a couple of things should be noted. It is a masters program in urban planning AND real estate development, providing a view of urban AND suburban development from architectural, planning, economic, legal, political, and business perspectives. As such it attracts a wide variety students with different backgrounds and views on urban development.
Students are from the city, suburban, and rural areas. Some are landscape architects, property owners or work for developers and neighborhood non-profits. Some graduates are working in suburban planning departments, other for developers doing great things in downtown.
I am happy to see class sizes increasing along with the diversity of opinions about planning and development. This diversity challenges students to deal with people who hold opinions different than their own, which is reflective of real world situations. It also helps each student develop their own perspective on urban issues.
The classes clearly emphasize urbanism, regionalism, and an anti-sprawl prespective, but it is not the job of an academic program to foster a singular opinion on issues. It would be pretty easy to read and memorize The Death and Life of Great American Cities (it was the first book we read) and leave it at that. Planning and development issues are rarely cut and dry, and that is what the program explores.
I didnÂ’t write the email, but I will post my thoughts on it later.
Steve,
Having seen how they operate urban groceries in Sacramento CA (where relatives live) I would LOVE to see a Traders in City of STL. Can you e-mail me off-site?
I can’t keep up with your rolls of film shot, but would be happy to share some if you’re interested.
Keep up the awesome work!
Two points about the SLU student: 1) the concepts of New Urbanism, Smart Growth, TND and the like are hardly “trends”…this is the natural way that cities formed before we had the two things that formed my nemesis (suburbia), the automobile and a federally subsidized sprawl…how could you even think that promoting sustainability in urban life is a trend? Let’s hope not. The student’s comment makes it sound like it is a fashion statement. Please! 2) FYI the way to lure people to the city is not by MAKING IT LOOK LIKE A SUBURB. For God’s sake, man, open your eyes. Big boxes ARE ugly. They are big. And moreover, they take everything away from any small businesses/mom and pop stores that are left here! So, I don’t think we have to whore ourselves out to developers, corporations and the like. Develop some character! I was impressed with your vocabulary usage, but let me tell you, that was all. St. Louis city dwellers are surely on the rise, if you open your eyes. People that are moving back to the city, or those just shifting neighborhoods–I can assure you they are not looking for the suburbs.Â
I am the SLU student who wrote the above email.
First of all, let me say that I wrote this email to “Steve” without any prior knowledge as to his plans to post my email on his website. Had I known this fact beforehand, I probably would have stated things differently.
To Steve: I do not appreciate your posting my email without my permission, and I am especially troubled by your comments as to my “ignorance”. You asked, “Is this what SLU is teaching young planning students? If so the future of cities is doomed.” I believe that your practice of taking a private email meant for private discussion and ignoring it only to later post it on your website is entirely unprofessional. Further, I believe you have grossly misapplied what I have stated.
[Herein lies the problem. We’ve got suburban lawyers corrupting young minds against the city. I hear it all the time how bad the city is. As someone who has applied for building permits is nearly every municipality in West County and the City of St. Louis I can say Olivette and Creve Coeur are the two worst to deal with. The city process is actually a breeze compared to many. Many natives of the region aren’t happy until they’ve pass along their notions of St. Louis to a new generation. Clayton would be so lucky as to have half the night life of downtown St. Louis. – Steve]
To Everyone Else: I am not a suburbanite. I have never been one. I have lived in the City of St. Louis all my life. I am young. I would even go so far as to admit I can be naive about things. After all, the above email was posted without my consent, and, not intended to have been made public, should serve as no form of a public statement. I was not intending to be right, to be intelligent, to be academic…merely to discuss perceptions of St. Louis with someone who seemed rather impassioned about the topic of St. Louis’s urbanity.
To all: Now, let me try to clarify what I said. Do I think that St. Louis should let any Wal-Mart or other big box that is willing to slap down money on the City have its way? NO. Let’s take at look at St. Louis Marketplace as a caveat to that method.
Do I think suburban developments look nice, clean and neat, and do I think that they are superior to more pro-urban developments? NO. Even if they appeal to suburbanites? NO.
My statement was based off of personal experience. As an attorney’s assistant, I serve three attorneys, all suburbanites, who have very negative, pessimistic views about the City. One proudly proclaims Clayton to be downtown’s (and, by extension, the dead City’s) successor. Granted these are just three people, but they are not alone. There are many suburbanites (as well as people within the City) who have given up on the City. St. Louis holds or has held all of the following distinctions: Murder City USA, #1 in Gonorrhea, #2 in Infant Mortality, Fastest Shrinking Major City in the Country. There’s a lot of negativity that critics of the City can throw at you and can use to justify writing the City off.
I believe the City of St. Louis is chock full of potential. Just driving through various neighborhoods, including a recent trip through Hyde Park in North St. Louis, I was utterly invigorated by the character of the housing stock, even when, in some places, it isn’t entirely intact. When the Final Four rolled into town, I was downtown each day snooping in on out-of-towners’ conversations, hoping I could help them find some tucked-away neighborhood bar or nightspot. I love St. Louis. I love its people. I want the best for it.
But let’s not pretend we don’t have the problems. Let’s not pretend we’re a walking city. Yes, let’s try to attract developments that foster the growth of a more pedestrian-friendly city, but, please, let’s not claim that we’re there yet.
[This, my friend, is entirely the point of Urban Review St. Louis. I want to show what it is we are doing wrong as we redevelop our great city. We are not a walking city and if we continue building anti-walking sprawl we never will be. You don’t attract pedestrian developers, you make them be pedestrian if they want to build in your city and make a profit. They won’t run just because of a few requests. Saturday night I was talking with a friend who is a pharmacist for Walgreen’s. I was complaining about how in other cities they locate in older buildings or build more urban stores. His response was dead-on – those cities have better codes. Walgreen’s isn’t going to pull out of St. Louis if we start requiring more urban things from them – they make way too much money to leave. To be a better city we have to have higher expectations for ourselves. – Steve]
We have undeniable problems with crime and with our public school system. Let’s not pretend like a grassroots effort to drive out a “big box” is going to fix those.
I could comment more, but I am still shaken by the nerve of Steve to post my email on his website. I should not have to be defending myself right now. In the future, I will let fellow SLU students know who NOT to address any questions to. With your zealous attitude and condescending tone, Steve, I fail to see how you could offer any help to our great city.
[I’m sorry you feel that way. – Steve]
Thank you,
Matt M.
[I want to offer you something I have not offered anyone else, a chance to write a guest piece on Urban Review – St. Louis. The only requirements I have is that you use your full name, your actual email address and that you share your thoughts on urban planning in the city. Specifically, where do you see the city in say 20 years and what are your thoughts on how we get there? No more than 1,000 words. I will publish it unedited. – Steve]
I thought I would reply to this when I knew who wrote it, expecting it to be a grad student, but now that I know it is a classmate, and not just another student I may or may not know, I don’t think I will.
I wasn’t even sure how I was going to reply. But I do have this question now. I didn’t originally think about it this way, but why did you use a private email like this without permission? Getting permission wouldn’t just be a simple courtesy to Matt, that would be what you should have done, period. It was sent to you in confidence that it was for personal consumption, and not to be published for you to use to make your points. I consider my emails to be private. That is unlike postings like this that are public and can be used for whatever you damn well please.
I am not trying to stand up for someone I know, I am asking this as a legit question. It just bothers me when people do stupid things like this, like it supposedly bothered you to read the email.
[As I indicated above, email communications are not considered private. It is a form of communication just like a phone call or a written letter. – Steve]
Steve –
The issue at hand is not whether emails are “considered” private or public. You used my email which you knew was meant for you. You instructed me to email you only AFTER I had sent you a PRIVATE message on the urbanstl.com forum, claiming that you’d prefer to respond in email form. You then not only ignored my email for months, but posted it later on a website, which, ironically, I found in an internet search for a school project! You call me “ignorant” and “misguided” without ever so much as contacting me so I could know that I was being criticized left and right. Not to mention the fact that a fellow classmate to whom I talk every day is a witness to all this.
Let me give you some background so you can feel even better about yourself: I’m 19 years old. I’m in my FIRST semester of Urban Affairs, not even Planning. I was formerly an English major.
So, in a couple years, I’ll call or write or email with an academic argument for you, knowing that at any time it could be used against me.
I for one understand why Steve posted the email. It doesn’t matter that you (the original email author) are only 19, and have just begun an urban planning course. The types of comments that you made are a perfect example of the BAD planning ideas and opinions that are being pounded into St. Louisans brains constantly, city resident or not. From what I gather, this is the sole reason Steve started this site, to fight this type of suburban development in our urban neighborhoods.
The statements made in the original email pissed me off as well, and had me shaking my head. This type of “lets please the suburbanites so they’ll move back” attitude is what destroyed the city to begin with. If these type of people don’t want to live here, than we don’t need them. It is that simple. We as a city should not, EVER, destroy our urban fabric just to draw a few county people back into the city limits. It is not necessary. The city is exploding WITHOUT their help and despite the fact that they constantly express their hatred for the very city that allows their suburb to exist.
We don’t have to suburbanize the city in order to make it feel cleaner and safer for these people.
Nobody in this city pretends that their aren’t problems. But in any city, there are going to be areas that aren’t great and urban problems will exist. That doesn’t mean it isn’t and can’t be a great city as it is. People don’t move here or live here because they want the same kind of suburban life they can get in ballwin, or wherever. They live here because they have a love for the city. The only reason these claytonites and others have this disdain for the city is that (and I feel strongly about this) they have racist tendencies (to put it nicely), and that is the one and only reason. As the original author even put it, minorities are one of the negatives when looking at the city. We do NOT want these kind of people here, and don’t need to cater to them.
A few months back, when I first encountered the URBAN ST. LOUIS forums, I would write to Steve, fuming over the make-nice-to-the- suburbs sentiments I read again and again–sentiments like those expressed by Steve’s e-mail correspondent.
The premise of such sentiments is that St. Louis is one of a dying breed–the industrial city–a fatally wounded animal whose life can be extended only by enhancing its appeal to middle-class tastes by making it more suburban.
But as ARCH CITY CHRONICLE observed in its coverage of the recent aldermanic and school board elections, there is developing in this city a new sort of middle class whose lifestyle choices are NOT animated by concerns about race or class–the traditional levers of white flight. This growing, affirmatively urban community wants greater density, greater diversity, enhanced walkability, greater intensity and intimacy–all of which the City of St. Louis is perfectly positioned to provide.
This development should shock no one. It is a demonstration that St. Louis, like many American cities, has begun the task of redefining itself AS A CITY and has attracted increasing numbers of younger people who live in the city by choice, not just for its reasonable cost of living–with all the attractions and challenges such a life entails.
These people, and the greater numbers their presence continues to attract, are preserving, renewing and redefining an urban environment of quality and real distinction. It is that URBAN environment that will attract people precisely because it’s NOT like everything else.
As for Steve’s decision to publish the text of the student’s e-mail, I think he honored his responsibility by maintaining his correspondent’s anonymity.
I am not trying to say that the City should sell out to appeal to suburbanites. I’m trying to grasp the reasoning behind such policies. You can tell by my original email that I was writing with a tone of sarcasm to the whole idea of suburbanizing the city. With that out of the way, the questions asked within it are valid questions. If we’re public policymakers, is it not hard to resist the demands of constituents to put a brand new “big box” in a neighborhood when such a development will generate revenue and jobs? Granted I know that in many “big box” issues–the Loughborough Schnucks as a case in point–the residents are against the box, but it’s rarely for reasons of urbanity. The notion of pedestrian-friendly developments in a city as hurt by urban sprawl as St. Louis is a tough sell to developers, in my opinion. I don’t think any “big box” would agree to build up when you could build out. Why? People are used to driving to the suburban shopping malls. We have a predominantly automobile dependent society. Even in the poorer portions of our city, developers choose to emulate suburbia.
Someone tell me why this is. Is it really because developers are just SO uninspired that they can think of no other way to build than the suburban example? Or is there some deeper reason?
[Matt H. has touched on some good areas above. First, constituents don’t demand big boxes. In general the proposals for a development start at the developer level. In some cases the city is involved at a certain property by sending out an RFP. Matt H. is correct that when residents oppose big boxes it is not generally because they ae demanding urbanity instead. However, in the case of the Southtown Famous site the opposition was largely urban based. Developers agree to the minimum required of them – they are highly uninspired. Seldom do you have developers that are enlightened about pedestrian issues. They know the suburban model and nothing else. Without zoning laws requiring something more enlightened we will get sprawl. Without vocal citizens, militant urbanists if you will, demanding something better we will get nothing better. New big box developments can be both car & pedestrian friendly as numerous examples from other cities can attest. – Steve]
That was what my email was meant to get at. I never signed up to be the apologist for Wal-Mart or any other big box. My only concern is that militants like Steve believe that the issue can be so simply solved. I believe that other changes need to take place first.
[Urban isseus are quite complex. Some simple solutions, however, can greatly improve developments. New projects such as Gravois Plaza could have accomodated pedestrians from the adjacent neighborhood with very little cost. It still would have been a big box development but it would have been far more urban. We must ask for what we want and hopefully doing so won’t get us labeled as militants. – Steve]
I’d love to ditch my car, but I can’t. I live off of Gravois and I go to school on Grand, and then I have to go to Clayton after school. Now maybe if they’d extend Metrolink through South (and North) City, maybe I’d be able to actually use public transit to go everywhere. Let’s beef up mass transit. Let’s tighten up the bus schedule and post better signage. Let’s extend “Bike St. Louis”.
[As I am trying to look at using the bus system I think it is intimidating. I have concerns about getting stuck somewhere. Biking from around Gravois, to SLU to Clayton is a pretty easy ride. – Steve]
Let’s keep pointing out to people that crime is on a sharp downward trend in the City. People won’t walk (or bike) anywhere without a feeling of safety if they don’t have to (Yes, I know, I just quoted some stats about how St. Louis is #1 in murders…but that is the obvious perception of the City to many outsiders).
There are several changes which should take place before the pedestrian and bicycle-friendly developments start proliferating, because, I believe, by themselves, they just aren’t going to do that much good.
[This is the classic chicken vs. egg debate. Sadly, urban developments will never start until we require them to. The longer you wait the harder it is to require urban development. No is the time. – Steve]
For the record, my dream is to move downtown and become reliant on Metrolink/Bus to travel everywhere. So, Steve, I’d be in the same boat as you ideologically if not for your aggressive and yet “misguided” personal attack.
[My intention was to illustrate a persepctive, not to make any personal attacks. – Steve]
–Matt
I just saw your offer, Steve, regarding the guest piece. Thanks, but I will confine your attempts to belittle me to just this one page.
You and I both know that I am not qualified to make any assessment as to where this city will be in 20 years in any sort of academic sense. And surely you would not want to endorse the ignorance of this SLU planning student.
–Matt
“A few months back, when I first encountered the URBAN ST. LOUIS forums, I would write to Steve, fuming over the make-nice-to-the- suburbs sentiments I read again and again–sentiments like those expressed by Steve’s e-mail correspondent.”
Dan, I just want to let you know that the people on urbanstl, at least the core people, do not feel that we should bring the suburbs to the city, or make nice to them. We love the city for what it is, an irban area that can be rough around the edges, but still our city. The most important part of that is that it is an urban area, distinct from the suburbs. That is what we all want, to be a true city, and St. Louis already is a great urban area, it just needs a little nudge here and there, to remember that it is an urban area. What I have encountered in St. Louis though, is that many people in the city have a suburban mindset, because that is where they have seen the success. Steve is trying to change that thinking, and I applaud him for that, I just think he goes about it the wrong way sometimes. His posts on ivanhoe or Cherokee or suburban addresses for example are good, but posts like this, and others that are similiar, aren’t helpiong anything except to make him look like an arrogant, well I’ll stop myself. But back to the original topic, (this post has become rather discombobulated) we don’t try to make nice to the suburbs, we try to be nice to the people that live there, because we don’t want to run them off based on whether they live in a certain 61 sq miles. Even one of my fellow mods lives in Chesterfield/Florrisant (With parents). Basically what I am saying is that we are very urban oriented (just look at how the board is split up, the only reason the suburb sections are there is because another forum was merged into this one before anyone but basically the mods knew about it. And there can be very urban thing in the suburbs), but we accept everyone.
[I have no problem saying much of the new development in the city or our suburbs is anti-pedestrian and should have been done differently. I’m anti-sprawl and anti-suburbia. I’m not going to sugar coat it. But I’ve talked nice about Dardenne Prairie because they are trying to be less sprawl oriented and New Town St. Charles is designed by the best planners, DPZ. Both are in St. Charles County. I want the entire region to be pedestrian & bicycle friendly.
I risk offending the person in Chesterfield that loves their ranch with front facing garage and vinyl siding. OK with me if they are offended. I’m offended by their hidious house. I’m offending them with words, they are offending me with a big plastic covered shrine to their SUV.
The Matts are certainly free to think I’m going about my message in the wrong way. They won’t be the first or the last to say so. I think others are too nice or accepting in their blogs/forums. Still others label me as a zeolot, extremist, preservationist, and purist – all intended to deomonize me. I speak ill of suburbia and sprawl as generalities hardly ever making reference to the persons in an attempt to demonize them.
Be very careful when pointing the “arrogant” finger. – Steve]
I sent Matt M a long email tonight. In the email I acknowledge that I I could have handled his email to me differently. I could have taken the time to email him back and perhaps through such a conversation I might have seen a different side of him.
Even though I was protective of his identity I can see how a different outcome would have been possible. This is part of living and learning.
– Steve
Thank you, Steve.
I only reacted in such a harsh manner because I was a little surprised to find my email while researching for a school project.
As Matt said above, I find your posts interesting even if I question your approach at times. I don’t want to see St. Louis turn into a suburb–though I do see regionalism as a big role in St. Louis’s revival. I do believe St. Louis is on an upswing and is progressing quite nicely, even if not quite as fast as some of us would like to believe.
To everyone else, all things considered, this led to an interesting conversation at least.
In line with the topic, how do you feel about the design of the new Hampton Village Target store?
–Matt M.
I want to say thanks to the participants of this discussion, and add a couple of observations. Number one, this forum is very positive in the way it provides a city-centered perspective on development issues. Through that prism, we are able to discuss issues from a w-i-d-e variety of perspectives.
The SLU Matt is one of them. He’s a young guy. Bright, and seemingly inspired. Me? I’m an old guy by comparison, probably twice Matt’s age-at least.
[Actually Rick, I am twice his age. You are a bit older than twice his age. Depressing huh? – Steve]
SLU Matt has witnessed a renaissance in St. Louis, and still, for him, he mentions how things are progressing too slowly for some of us.
Those of us that are older, realize that the last ten years are exponential in progress compared to the previous thirty.
Ten years ago, very few St. Louisans were debating issues of density, urban scale, pedestrian friendliness, big box stores, 2-1 conversions, etc.
Now those discussions are going on every day. Just the fact that these are the topics of today says something very positive about our city.
RB
[Rick thank you so much for your excellent observations. We all enter these discussions with our own experiences which can be vastly different. I was 23 when I moved to St. Louis and 24 when I moved to Old North St. Louis. That was 14 years ago. I’ve been discussing the issues you list above with anyone that will listen for well over 20 years. It is only in the last five to ten that I’ve seen a shift so that I am not one of a few. The internet has greatly aided such exchanges of ideas. – Steve]
Again, Steve, I do agree with much of your posts, it’s just some that I don’t. I disagree with you, you disagree with me sometimes. We’ve done this before, and probably will again. I like what you are pushing for, and will definately continue to read this, after all, we have essentially the same goals. I’m just not afraid to voice my opinion when I don’t agree with something, just like you.
And the arrogant thing, do I think you truly are arrogant? Not really. Sometimes I say things because the word I want is not coming to me. I actually wanted to use another word, but it atill hasn’t come to me.
And like Matt said, this has been an interesting discussion. I think the fact that no tone is present in writing can hurt things like this. Just so you know, my posts were written like I was just having a discussion, not yelling at you attacking you.
BTW, I’m only a semester ahead of Matt M, only because I came into SLU knowing what I wanted to do.