New Signs for Gym Loom Over Sidewalk in St. Louis’ Loft District; Downtown Talk on Homeless
New businesses, such as gyms, are welcomed additions to loft districts such as the vibrant area in the 1300 block of Washington Ave in downtown St. Louis. We’ve seen some really great new signs of late at places such as Windows on Washington, The Dubliner, The Gelateria, Red and so on. St. Louis’ sign ordinance is about as modern as our 1947 zoning code so pretty much anything except uniform letters on the ends of boring awnings requires a variance. I’m quite pleased the city has worked with so many local businesses to allow the interesting variety of quality new signs.
But when it comes to the new signs at The Fitness Factory I am just scratching my head to think how anyone thought this was a good idea:
From the above angle you can’t even see the interesting sign for Flannery’s neighborhood pub to the west of the Fitness Factory.
To make matters worse, these are a matching pair!
From the opposite view, in front of Flannery’s, you can see the sign’s relationship to the buildings and sidewalk.
While the vinyl makes them look temporary (and cheap) the securing hardware makes them look more permanent. If I lived in the 2nd floor loft next door I’d be more than a tad upset about having my view up the street blocked to such an extent.
I’m going to see if Ald. Kacie Triplett (D-6th), shown at right, can take a look at these in person before her Downtown Talk on the homeless which starts at 7pm Monday August 13, 2007 at the beautiful St. Louis Central Library.
UPDATE 8/14/07 @ 7:30am:
The banners/signs for Fitness Factory are gone as one of the comments below indicates. This was not due to my argument against them but the storm that passed through town in the hours before I posted this.
Last night’s talk was very good. We didn’t really accomplish a whole lot other than have a pretty open and frank discussion about the needs of the homeless vs the quality of life for residents — but that is a huge step forward. Hats off to Ald. Triplett for handling such a controversial topic so well.
Too big and/or way too low . . .
My guess is, much like the other huge “temporary” banners on buildings downtown, these are considered to be “temporary”, as well (even though they’re really just huge new billboards!
ha! i just realised that Kacie Triplett was the lady who was supposed to rent her old place to me last year (good thing i just renewed my lease with a better place). thanks for including a photo.
Homelessness in cities is a fact of lfe. Homeless people congregate around services, and cities provides services. Our best deterrent to attracting the homeless is our extreme hot and cold weather. Visit California if you want to see shocking homelessness. They are overrunning the place. Imagine Forest Park a homeless encampment with hundreds/thousands of homeless people sleeping their every night. That’s what Golden Gate Park in San Francisco has become.
Good info on homelessness by people who know. Be sure to read the comments for politically unfiltered, neighbor/citizen discussion.
Both temp signs are gone today, victims (according to the workmen) of last night’s storm.
unrelated to this post: Steve,do you plan on doing a critique of the proposed mixed-use development soccer stadium project in collinsville, IL?
“Homelessness in cities is a fact of lfe. Homeless people congregate around services, and cities provides services.”
Solution: Don’t provide any services.
Would someone please tell Alderman Triplett at tonight’s meeting that the best way to solve the STL homeless problem, as Reggie Pennypacker says, is to deny services to the homeless. How do you think she would respond?
“Brilliant, by cutting off services these people will magically cease to be homeless!”
.
Ironically, some will. The others will scatter to the wind. So as a result, they won’t congregate downtown. Some will wander off to Kirkwood, others to Florissant, etc. They are like stray dogs – they will hang out where they are being fed. Stop feeding them, and they will go searching for food elsewhere.
.
The rest of your analogy is idiotic.
yep, all those homeless people who are just livin’ it up will say, “shucks, no more free services! guess i’ll go get a job and a living wage and buy a little house and start a family and mow my front lawn!” oh, except that the majority are mentally and/or physically disabled or ill and/or lack the resources to secure a job that pays a living wage. but you’re on to something reginald. since they are basically stray dogs we can just put them down. viola!
Andy Warhol did a thing in an art gallery where he built harnesses and hung people from the wall as art. Maybe we can do the same with the homeless, take down the fitness signs and hang the homeless from the walls of the city streets as art. Some rich millionaires come buy them for their walls, and hey, problem solved, no more homeless. Better yet they could hang around the new sculpture park in the mall.
Is America a great country or what?, so much compassion, so much empathy for fellow human beings. What a great opportunity this is for the homeless. The wealthy love art and the homeless are a form of art. Has there ever been a better marriage of interests?
let’s put a big homeless shelter on the pruit-igoe site
Take down Larry Rice and most of the downtown homeless will scatter.
If UR wants a really good post, it should check out what MoDOT and Richmond Heights are going to do to pedestrians that use Clayton Road this weekend. The only functional crosswalks on Clayton between Hanley and Skinker will be at those two streets plus Big Bend and Bellevue. The others (i.e. Boland, Highland Terrace) are being shut down for the weekend while Clayton Road is turned into I-64 during bridge demolition.
A rather humorous explanation for what pedestrians should do can be found on the Richmond Heights website under the Q&A section. Enjoy.
Adam, well you are right about many of the homeless being mentally or physically challenged, I think you missed the saddest part.
Many of the homeless are veterans which served as they were told (drafted) and now just tossed on the street like a cig. butt. Shame.
How does concentrating the homeless in one place (Larry Rice’s) solve the problem?
http://www.denvergov.org/CouncilDistrict7/HomelessnessinDenver/tabid/383233/Default.aspx
Homelessness is not a simple problem. The visible, chronically homeless many times have mental or substance abuse problems. Many are also veterans. There are also people who become homeless who are “regular” people experiencing financial crises and are less “visible”. Compared to many parts of the country, St. Louis does not have a major homeless “problem”, especially compared to places like Miami, San Francisco Los Angeles and Denver. Housing in St. Louis remains relatively affordable. You can put some sort of roof over your head, even if you’re making minimum wage. It may not be the Taj Mahal, but it will get you out of the weather, although it might be in a “scary part of town”.
That said, there’s a fine line between providing (needed?) services versus attracting a growing population of people who choose to come to a city seeking services. Personally, I do not give money to people with cardboard signs “working” street corners or exit ramps, yet I see many other motorists who do. This is a classic case of rewarding unacceptable efforts – they’re contributing absolutely nothing to society (including income taxes), yet they’re likely netting $10 – $20 per hour. Churches, especially some suburban ones, like to “reach out” to the homeless by bringing sandwiches to where the homeless congregate in the city. While they’re consciously “helping the needy”, they’re also consciously or unconsciously trying to keep the visible homeless an exclusively urban “problem” and out of their suburban pieces of paradise.
I believe we do have a duty to “take care of our own”. Mental illness and financial crises are NOT an exclusively poor or urban issues – they happen to “good” people in the suburbs, as well. We do not, however, as a city, have a duty to help all comers. We have limited resources, and the last thing we need to become known for (in addition to our other claims to fame*) is a haven for the homeless. Suburban areas cannot expect to solve their “vagrancy” issues by buying one-way bus tickets. Yes, the homeless are human. We just shouldn’t be expected to “pick up the slack” for the many areas who simply choose to “ignore” the “problem”!
*”most dangerous city in the country”, SLPS, fly-over country, etc.
Steve-The homeless issue you have identified, along with your update on last night’s proceedings, offer a great case study to see how effective we can be on dealing with a tough problem. You mentioned that Ald. Triplett did a good job running the meeting, however you say there was little accomplished other than having a good discussion. What’s next? The next challenges will be setting goals, measuring results, and engaging all of the players in implementing a meaningful solution. Ultimately, we should be defining terms of success. Having meetings and good discussions is a meaningful starting point, but ultimately, we need results. As we see in our public schools dilemma, few politicians want to enter tough issues. Kudos to Ald. Triplett for tackling homelessness, however, if in a few years (or less), nothing has improved, is Ald. Triplett opening herself up to criticism for “failing to deliver” on improving the homeless problem downtown? Further, should we be preparing ourselves with low expectations, listening through another multi-year, tightly controlled, and minimally effective cop/NSO/Citizen Service Bureau committee process, chaired by the Alderman, with little net positive result over the years? Concerned residents of DT, as well as business owners, homeless advocates, and downtown workers all have a major interest in this issue. How will the solutions unfold?
Was Larry Rice or anyone from NLEC in attendance?
For a little perspective we should remember there are shantytowns around major cities around the globe, especially in third world countries. Nor should we forget the great depression, when thousands of people were out of work. Those who feel smug in their place should be thankful for their fortune.
Admittedly homelessness is a problem. I have to agree that the whole region needs to pitch in. Just because Ladue is not a focus of the homeless does not mean there is not a responsibility. Steve you may want to contact Tom Burnham at St. Peter and Paul in Soulard. He has been working with the homeless for over 20 years; in addition he is on the Community Advisory Board set up by the Post Dispatch.
Finland has had success in combating homelessness, to quote, “Perhaps the most concerted and successful effort to deal with homelessness is in Finland where, after the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless in 1987, the Government devised a multifaceted response to the problem. It included building of social housing, the creation of social welfare and health care services, and setting a target to provide a dwelling of minimum standards for every homeless person. The number of single homeless persons at that time was approximately 18 000. In just 10 years, the number of homeless in Finland was cut in half.â€
Contrast homelessness in Missouri; with approximately the same population as Finland, there is around 34,000 homeless. The current number of homeless in Finland, even with programs mentioned above in place is around 10,000, or less than a third of Missouri. In any case it looks a comprehensive effort can help induce change. But it is going to take a broader effort than Ald. Kacie Triplett is going to be able to handle by herself.
GMichaud……………………….If I became homeless in Finland, I would not be staying in Finland very long!
Malcom Gladwell wrote a thought provoking piece about homelessness that was published in The New Yorker about a year ago.
He cited studies that show that only 10% of the homeless are “chronically homeless†– meaning that they are on the streets for an extended period of time. These chronically homeless are the ones who take up most of society’s resources such as jail space and medical bills.
The rest of the homeless are people who have hit hard times in their paycheck to paycheck existence and who work themselves back to a roof over their head within months.
According to Gladwell, Denver began focusing on the chronically homeless by spending money on them in the areas of counseling, treatment, and free housing. The program had staggering success and was cheaper than dealing with the side-effects of the chronically homeless (the aforementioned unpaid medical bills, etc.)
But, such programs face harsh political opposition. Most hardworking taxpayers don’t do a simple cost/benefit analysis when forming their opinion of such a program (and I’m not saying they necessarily should). Instead, they see a person getting the proverbial “free ride†while they struggle to make money to pay their mortgage holder or landlord.
Yes Finland is cold, but so is St. Louis. Actually I think most of the homeless in Finland are south in Helsinki and along the Baltic coast. Craig is correct, any program to help the homeless is a tough sell. It just depends on what people want to do though, try to solve the problem or just shuffle the problem around. There is no question the homeless in and around downtown and in the city in general is an issue that gets people talking, concerned and often hot under the collar. Universal health care and excellent mass transit are a couple of public expenditures that would benefit everyone while helping the homeless problem, so there would be no “free ride”. There is no easy answers, but simply pushing the problem into another district is not an answer.
Some of the homeless are Vets! Don’t forget that…especially since FREEDOM isn’t FREE!
They’re most likely homeless vets because they have one or more “problems” (mental, substance abuse, criminal, etc.) . . . is this a city-service issue or a symptom of bigger problems with the VA and how we treat all our veterans?!
Craig – Denver reached a tipping point where ever-increasing services (both public and non-profit) weren’t keeping up with an ever-increasing population of street people. It’s easier to convince taxpayers to invest in alternatives when many of your major intersections have a cardboard-sign guy on every corner and aggressive panhandlers downtown. Fortunately, we’re not at that point, yet. Unfortunately, without the daily, in-your-face barrage, it will be hard to redirect our limited resources here to focus on the root of the problem. As you point out, perception is reality, much like thinking that filling our jails with drug users will solve our drug problem . . .
I’m late to this thread but, just got back from Denver, specifically the LoDo (lower downtown) redeveloped area and it was clean, safe and agressive panhandler-free. If anyone out there can post a link to a site explaining how this was accomplished, it would be much appreciated. One of the amusing items about LoDo: they have red “parking meters” scattered about that one is encouraged to put change in rather than directly to panhandlers, (which, as stated, are nowhere to be seen anyway.) The money is distributed to social services agencies via the givabetterway.org. P.S. When in Denver, be sure to visit the Tattered Cover bookstore. Makes a B&N look lame. Peace.