The 1970s Plan to ‘Deplete’ North St. Louis
Over on PubDef.net Antonio French linked to a story he wrote back in 2002 regarding some history from the early to mid 1970s. This is a fascinating read and it certainly fills in some gaps in my knowledge.
French talks about a couple of reports and plans prepared in the early 70s. One is known as the “Team Four” plan, from French’s story:
The Plan recommended that each area of the City be grouped into one of three groups: Conservation, Redevelopment, and Depletion, these distinctions being based on factors including age, physical qualities, loan policies, public service level and population stability. Race is not mentioned specifically.
Apparently much of the older areas of North St. Louis were designated as “depletion.” French quotes from the plan how to deal with the depletion areas:
“Efforts must be made to adjust services and public investments so as to provide for those who are remaining in these areas. Yet these efforts should be pursued without encouraging new investment until the City determined that Redevelopment can and should begin.”
Fast forward 30 years and we can see the results of not encouraging new investment. I haven’t read these plans yet but I will be getting copies to review. In case you missed the link above, click here to go to the post on PubDef.net. The city’s website has a simple summary of various planning documents here.
– Steve
The Team 4 story is something that many could point to as institutionalized racism at its finest.
Others might say, “the planners were right; had we followed the recommendations in the plan, we’d be better off right now”.
I think it’s more interesting to consider the epilogue of the Team 4 plan in terms of what it means to us today.
For example…
…neighborhoods and local community organizations were empowered and did not allow a plan of benign neglect to choke out their neighborhoods.
…aldermen do provide a last line of defense for neighborhoods when larger, more powerful, monied interests might have other goals.
…if you want to succeed in St. Louis, you need to engage neighborhood residents and local leadership.
Aldermen are hardly reliable lines of defense. In McRee Town, residents looked for help in preserving their homes. Their alderman, Joseph Rodd (D-17th), was spearheading the effort to destroy their homes and force them out of their neighborhood (and his ward). Now, with CORTEX on the table, Roddy is helping the interests that want to squash small longtime businesses in his ward.
In Ward 11, Ald. Matt Villa sold out homeowners livining in the Loughborough Commons area.
Ald. Phyllis Young (D-7th) didn’t listen to downtown residents opposed to the demolition of the Century Building, which diminished the downtown area’s beauty.
Up in Ward 5, Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin has been all too eager to work with city agencies and outside developers who want to tear down cultural resources and oust residents.
Likewise, in Ward 3, residents have found Ald. Freeman Bosely a disrespectful and hostile force when their homes have been threatened with eminent domain by chruch-backed development plans.
Don’t count on your alderperson to help your house or neighborhood when it’s threatened!
[REPLY – My thoughts exactly! The aldermen are often the force behind the destructive efforts. Bosley Sr comes to mind as well! – SLP]
By the standards promoted by some, when an alderman no longer represents the interests of his or her community, the recourse afforded voters is recall.
Ergo, if there is no recall, then residents endorse the efforts of their alderman.
If you polled the residents of the 11th or 17th wards, odds are you would find the majority of ward voters support both the Botanical Heights and Loughborough Commons projects.
neighbor, I strongly disagree with you on your last statement and would love to see that backed up.
I am in the 11th. I asked around, as the Loughborough Commons lawsuit was proceeding. The consensus I found was: people were (some hestitantly) glad a Lowes was coming. But when asked about the eminent domain proceedings, most people I talked to supported the efforts of Howard & family to fight. The 11th Warders I talked to encouraged the family to get every penny that they could from the land-grabbers.
Furthermore, I bet if you asked any 11th warder how they would feel if an Alderman succeeded in condemning a neighborhood – without even writing letters or personally communicating with said neighborhood – they would agree that this is out of line. If Matt Villa was pushing a plan to take my house, I sure hope he’d be adult enough to let me know ahead of time.
St. Louis history is the story of the little people versus the shortsighted jackasses.
And lo and behold, the Team 4 jackasses got what they deserved: an empty, third-tier city.
I just received my regular copy of the “Carondeletter” newsletter from the Carondelet Community Betterment Federation (CCBF).
They count Loughborough Commons as one of the areas long list of neighborhood accomplishments for 2005.
Drive around more of the city, and you’d hear lots of neighborhoods jealous for a similar project in their neighborhood.
And was anyone ever bought out by emiment domain?
No. It is my understanding that every seller reached a negotiated settlement with the developer (under threat of eminent domain, yes.)
it’s still not right to take things from people without asking
I strongly disagree with the above opinion that lots of neighborhoods want a Loughborough Commons. While all neighborhoods desire more retail within the neighborhood, I know of nobody who wants these suburban type developments in our urban neighborhoods. We don’t live here because there are strip malls close by, we live here because of the pedestrian aspect of the city. More retail is desired, but in a more pedestrian scale.
Not my neighbor-
For purposes of understanding, which is your neighborhood?
You and your neighbors might not want a large, suburban-style shopping center, but what about neighbors in…
Hamilton Heights, Marine Villa, or College Hill?
And as far as Loughborhough Commons goes, was there a loud outcry against the development in Carondelet, Boulevard Heights, or Holly Hills?
I sure never heard it.
neighbor, who do you single out Hamilton Heights, Marine Villa and College Hill?
Marine Villa and College Hill because they are similar to the I-55/Loughborough Commons site inasmuch as both neighborhoods are located adjacent to 55/70 with similar highway access and visibility.
Hamilton Heights because it has the much depleted MLK strip running through it, and shares a boundary with Wellston, both areas severely underserved by full-service, decent, neighborhood shopping centers.
Some would say that TIF-assisted commercial redevelopment plans in these areas are financially reasonable and appropriate uses of TIF.