The Most Important Single Project For St. Louis Is…
Readers have started leaving comments about this week’s poll on unrelated posts. So here is a poll-specific post. The question is simple: Which of the following do you think is the most important future project for St. Louis?
- Improved Arch connection
- Riverfront
- Gateway Mall
- St. Louis Centre transformation, removal of skywalks
- Ballpark Village
- Kiel Opera House
- Tucker bridge
- Mississippi River bridge
- Chouteau’s Landing
- Chouteau’s Pond
- Bottle District
- None of the above
- Unsure
I didn’t include Paul McKee’s NorthSide project because I view that as more an overall framework to guide numerous projects. The poll is in the right sidebar until Sunday 8/2/09.
– Steve Patterson
I voted for the Riverfront. A city being located on a waterway is a huge scenic and civic asset. It’s very difficult to access the river from downtown St. Louis. I grew up in Portland, which might be a model in this regard. It used to have an ugly expressway running along the Willamette River in downtown. It was torn up in the 1970’s and replaced with a wonderful park that is very well used by its citizens (in the dry summer months at least). Unfortunately pulling up I-70 is probably much harder than to do (Portland’s Harbor Drive had become a tertiary freeway after I-5 was completed).
-The Riverfront has been studied and I don’t see anything significant happening around where the Arch is. The current is too strong and flooding too common. Perhaps north or south of the downtown, but no one is even suggesting that.
-Gatewall Mall will continue to disappoint as long as there is no residential component along Market, which there isn’t and is not even in the planning. If you brought back residential by Union Station maybe….
-St. Louis Centre is an important project, but the most important? I can’t go that far considering what Wash Ave has achieved so far without it.
-Ballpark Village will be filled with chain restaurants and more bland office space. Still nothing there to make it a neighborhood.
-Kiel Opera house is just one building. I support the project but don’t expect to get much out of it beyond another world class arts venue.
-Tucker bridge : just a bridge
-Mississippi river bridge : just a bridge
-Chouteau’s Landing – too disconnected with not enough residential in the planning to achieve critical mass.
-Chouteau’s Lake (Pond sounds dirty and dingy) would be the most transformative but I doubt that will ever happen.
-Bottle District will be canceled most likely but if it is not it will just be a tourist trap. That is all they have planned right now.
Of the choices you provided, improved Archgrounds connectivity, in the form of removing the depressed lanes of I-70 would be the most important long term project.
But the real most important project is the St. Louis Public Schools. None of these other projects will mean squat if our schools continue to churn out teens with no hope, no chance, and no reason to behave.
I second Becker’s last paragraph! Besides the problems it generates for current residents, who wants to move to a city with a really pretty hunk of metal and absolutely decimated public schools?
Although I believe that the development of the now-defunct Pyramid projects would generate the most long-term revitalization of the downtown area, I believe that the Ballpark Village deserves the most immediate attention. We currently have… (eh, we all know what is there), yet the one major attraction in downtown St. Louis lies directly adjacent. Throw up some impressive looking multi-purpose buildings and stock it full of tenants (even if they are bland chain affairs.) Even the ground floor of the John Hancock building in Chicago has al Cheesecake Factory. Provincial sophistication can come later, what we need now is $$$ flowing into downtown.
I like my tunnel idea more.
My two pennies:
Improved Arch connection: I’m a local, so I never go to the arch; once was enough.
Riverfront: Don’t care.
Gateway Mall: Don’t care.
St. Louis Centre transformation, removal of skywalks: Don’t care.
Ballpark Village: Lost interest in this a long time ago.
Kiel Opera House: Don’t care.
Tucker bridge: Already happening; should go out for bids later this year with work beginning sometime next year.
Mississippi River bridge: Already happening.
Chouteau’s Landing: Don’t care.
Chouteau’s Pond: Don’t care.
Bottle District: Free beer?
Hopefully I’ll never become a high-ranking official.
What an interesting and enlightening discussion. So much to debate. The opening few comments open the door on great challenges. Let’s begin…
“Comparing Portland to St. Louis.” Get over it already. We’re not Denver. We’re not Portland. We’re St. Louis. They have pretty vistas. We have down to earth, midwestern people. Take your pick.
“Fix the public schools, fix the city.” Beaten a dead horse lately? Sure it would good to “fix the public schools”, but with the departure of the middle class and the concentration of poor kids with absent parents, how do the SLPS compete? St. Louis is a private school city with some good suburban school districts. Work to improve the city public schools, absolutely. Wait till they’re fixed before moving to the city? See you in the next lifetime!
Ballpark Village? You’re kidding, right? Here in the town where everyone blames the “big project” obsession as being the reason we fail to pay attention to the little stuff, and someone things Ballpark Village is the most important project the city faces? Whatever…
And then “prudent driver” suggests tunneling I-70 past the Arch grounds. That’s akin to fixing the schools. Sounds good, but it won’t happen in a generation or two. If ever. Well, maybe there are some radical solutions to fix the schools. No plan for tunnneling I-70 will ever happen. Especially not now after 9/11 changed the world on engineering public infrastructure projects. Tunnels are considered death traps.
With all of “prudent driver’s” “don’t care” answers, he sounds like the perfect, satisfied, St. Louis suburbanite, ensconced in a cul-de-sac about 10 miles from downtown, viewing St. Louis city as his local tourist destination with free zoos, cheap eats, and Forest Park. One of those million critics with a sideline view.
Maybe there should be a few more choices added to the list…
dealing with absentee landlords and vacant buildings….
incentivizing homeownership in city neighborhoods…
abolition of the city earnings tax, creation of a regional tax sharing system…
more neighborhood policing, return to cops walking the beat…
help for poor families, especially those with young kids…
Where is the construction of forced labor camps for the remaining smokers to live out there miserable lives? The foundations will be furnished by the seemingly indestructible filters found on every street.
The scary thing is, I think you and a few others might actually see this as a reasonable proposition.
Steve, I’m surprised your list doesn’t include something about improved transportation. Improved PUBLIC transportation that is.
This list shows everyone’s bias. Most people don’t ride public transit, but its advocates are among the noisiest.
Many essential ponits: schools, crime, and taxes. Cannot be overstated that St. Louis public schools MUST BE improved to reaffirm a degree a confidence for educated, productive adults to consider living downtown; or in my family’s situation not moving. Also, crime must be curtailed in the city and surrounding residential areas….thugs, et al. will guarantee stagnant, gradual demise. Please God let me see my tax dollars at work in this city.
In my humble opinion, and witnessing through living/work-related travel over the years, observe other growing cities thoughout the coutry (Austin, Charlotte, for example) and follow their lead. Build on existing infrastructure that is already in place, desiralbe, and successful in the St. Louis downtown area such as Soulard and The Market, Layfayette Square, The Georgian/City Hospital as an example. Herein lies a historic area (that hosts a myriad of events throughout the year) with the potential for smaller, realistically completable projects that could connect these existing successes to create a larger, more successful draw for tourists and REVENUE. The more people are entertained, the more they will come; the more they come, the more revenue that is generated; more revenue, affords more projects to be funded. There is prime real estate, or what should be at least, surrounding the city. Maybe instead of focusing on Section 8 housing in some of these areas focus could be given to strengthing the existing infrastructure so that support can be bolstered elsewhere for an overall greater good.
Just my opinions. It never ceases to amaze me regarding the potential this city has; yet progress seems to be as elusive as the sasquatch.
Becker nailed it, and St. Louis Neighbor’s “few more additions” are all important, as well. I continue to believe that McKee’s Northside project, both its many parts and its total vision, WILL be the Most Important Single Project for the next 10-15 years. If it succeeds, it will revitalize the city. If it fails, we can look at East St. Louis and Detroit for our future. All the others, individually or in combination, will have minimal impact for the larger city. But if I had to pick one from the list, the new Mississippi bridge will definitely have the biggest direct and indirect impacts. It will change traffic patterns, which will make certain properties more valuable and others less. It will also create the opportunity to discuss the removal the depressed highway at the arch. But since the highway is depressed here, not elevated like in Portland or San Francisco, I would expect a lid will be the ultimate solution.
I’m also afraid that a successful BPV will seal the failure of Union Station as an entertainment / tourist destination. We struggle with an urban fabric that’s built for more than twice our current population, and the lack of population density makes transit difficult, to say nothing of creating the critical mass needed for multiple entertainment destinations to succeed. Expecting all of the current and proposed ones (Laclede’s Landing, Union Station, BPV, Washington Ave., Soulard, the Grove, CWE, etc., etc.) to all be equally successful is simply wishful thinking – we’d be better off investing in what we got instead of building new competitors (see “Why We Aren’t [Ballpark] Village People, The civic masterpiece next to Busch Stadium would be better left unfinished”, by Ray Hartmann, in the July edition of St. Louis Magazine).
Evidence-based public health prevention interventions.
Wow. Seems to me like St. Louis “neighbor” is more negative than I am.
St. Louis “neighbor,”
In fact, I live in the city, approximately 2 miles from downtown. No, I don’t live on a cul-de-sac. I work downtown–therefore, I pay city earnings tax–the zoo ain’t free for me.
See, the majority of items on the list are nice things to have but not necessary. As an example, St. Louis has a failing sewer infrastructure and the depressed section of I-70 is horribly outdated and a traffic nightmare during peak times. It is important to spend our money more wisely in improving what’s broken before moving on to frivolous things like a mall or a pond.
Do you have a source stating that tunnels are considered death traps?
Do you speak to everyone like this, or are you just hiding behind your computer screen?
The zoo ain’t technically free for anyone paying in the ZMD district. We all pay, but you get my drift.
Call MoDOT for more information on tunnel design requirements.
Speaking from one anonymous poster to another, there is no real person to take offense.
It’s better that way. It makes it easier to focus on the issues and psychology of the region rather than individual personalities.
Improved transit.
Not sure why people are obsessed with the riverfront.
SCREW the riverfront.
There’s simply nothing we can do to make it attractive. The Mississippi River is a huge, dirty, industrial river. It’s a river of commerce, not a recreational river–swimming and boating are just too dangerous, at least around Saint Louis. Another problem: the east side of the river. There’s nothing attractive to look at over there, and considering that that bank is in another state, it’s virtually impossible to have any control over what happens. It’s also isolated/cut off from the rest of the city (although improved “Arch connections” would help), and as someone else pointed out, it’s prone to flooding. And finally, what, exactly, do people want to see there? I’m simply flabbergasted that, with all the problems this city faces, people actually think the riverfront should be the number one priority. Completely ridiculous. It’s a flat-out ugly river, and there’s nothing we can do to alter that. If you want to have a “pretty” waterway somewhere in the region, go for the Chouteau Pond idea, or improve River Des Peres. At least there’s a chance that such projects would be successful.
As for the schools: so sick of hearing it. I’d love to know of a major American city that has great public schools. Such a place is utopia (not eutopia, although it would be). And need I point out that US News has ranked Metro High School the best public high school in the state of Missouri. I know people refuse to recognize this, but the SLPS actually has a handful of high quality schools. The rest are unfixable, as someone else pointed out. A school system populated primarily by impoverished minorities, many of whom live in desperate conditions and some of whom are even homeless, is doomed to failure. Anyone who has looked into the statistics knows that inner city and rural school districts are almost all failures, while affluent suburban districts are successful. An obvious conclusion is that the socio-economic status of the student bodies is a better indicator of academic success than is any particular school district or “system.”
Ditto the crime issue. Sure, there are system tweaks we can do for our law enforcement and school districts that would marginally improve the situation, but until we can address the far more broad and deep issues that plague these communities, issues that directly cause poor academic performance and crime, nothing will really change.
And I always laugh when people say, “they” need to do something about the schools or crime. They. Someone else. I suppose those people mean the “powers that be,” but who exactly, should do something? They mayor? The Board of Aldermen? Those institutions have little-to-no direct control over schools and the police board. In any event, not only is the “they” statement childishly silly in its ignorance and simplistic worldview, but it is not even the correct statement. “I” should do something about it is much better, and if enough of us said this, things might actually change for the better.
Anyway, I voted “none of the above,” thinking that the Arcade-Wright redevelopment should be our top priority, although now that I think about it, a redeveloped St Louis Centre would also be an important step in the right direction.
Amen, Steve. Love your “they” ought to do something point. “They” be the “million of sideline critics” I am referring to as well. Danforth had one thing right. He called St. Louis a a participant sport (or something like that). Comments from the sidelines don’t mean squat.
Steve,
I agree with 100% of your post. It will be impossible to fix crime or the schools without fixing the underlying problem, impoverished minorities, many of whom live in desperate conditions.
I voted for the Arch connections as the most important physical project listed, however, I think the most important “project” for the city would be improving the pedestrian experience. This includes street connections, wider sidewalks, tree-lined streets, and proper building setbacks and standards. Seems to me that updating our requirements for these would provide the biggest bang for the buck. Unfortunately, for a politician, this doesn’t provide the oohs and aahs of projects like Ballpark Village or the Bottle District.
I think a boarded-up mall makes a worse impression than either empty grass outside a shiny ballpark or even an unsightly highway hurdle beside a shiny monument. Plus, the dead mall and its skywalk are at the convention center’s front door. Still not the most important project to St. Louis, but perhaps the most impactful to Downtown visitors.
I voted for St. Louis Centre. The removal of the skywalks will result in a major improvement to Washington and Locust, and like Brian said, its location – directly across from the convention center – is too prominent to let the building continue to fester. A successful conversion to first floor retail space and hopefully a mix of office and residential space (instead of a garage) will send a strong signal to many (especially those who don’t follow downtown development closely) that downtown has returned.
Downtown, downtown, downtown. As a neighborhood resident, it gets tiresome hearing so much kvetching about downtown. It’s funny when some people consider the Tower Grove Park are downtown. Most of the city is not “downtown”, but to listen to some urbanists, you’d think downtown is all they think about. St. Louis needs systemic change, not a “single biggest project”. Systemic change will help the whole city, not just one neighborhood or project.
While individual physical projects are important, what is more important to desirability of the area is getting all, or almost all, of the LITTLE things right. Just keeping from moving out would do wonders.
That means good government, not entrenched fiefdoms/turf.
The ability to start expand a business without having to move heaven and earth. Tom Schlafly sp? wrote a piece a few years ago as to why Maplewood was more desirable than the St. Louis. That gets played out every day. The big law firms get the ear of the government and Schlafly flies the coup. The government has got to be easier to navigate.
Yes, schools. Please don’t give me ‘Metro is one of the best schools in the country.’ Remember, that Metro gets to pick its students, the SLPS needs good schools for those not in the top 5%.
The earnings tax is a PR nightmare. Come up with a plan to scrap it by 2019, publicize it and be accountable for it.
Crime–My neighborhood, Soulard, has seem some muggings lately, and we have a rent a cop, and I don’t know what to do, but it makes me not want to raise my child there. Others have it worse, I know, but, arrogant alert, I do have choices as to where I live, and knowing about the crime on the streets, not near bars, doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
I guess that what I am trying to say that the little things make people stay in the area, not Mall of America/Inner Harbor/French Quarter.
Those of you who have the opinion that the public schools are impossible to improve should be utterly ashamed. I am amazed that literate human beings actually believe that a decent public school is impossible ANYWHERE, from Uganda to Saint Louis.
These are schools, not some magical, uncontrollable entity who we simply let be and hope it doesn’t demand human sacrifices. My god, it’s as if you find this situation acceptable….as if a proper education isn’t a basic and attainable right for every individual.
Truly appalling.
Angelo – you attended public schools in St. Charles County, right? What percent of the kids in St. Charles County high schools make it to college? What is the average household income in St. Charles County? Now compare those numbers and stats to St. Louis city.
Success in school has a lot more to do with family background than anything else. Not all kids from strong backgrounds succeed, and not all kids from disadvantaged backgrounds fail. However, all you need to do is look at the prison system to see how family background is an indicator for life outcomes. Most people locked up in prisons come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Angelo, idealism is great, but let’s deal in the here and now.
“The zoo ain’t technically free for anyone paying in the ZMD district. We all pay, but you get my drift.
Call MoDOT for more information on tunnel design requirements.
Speaking from one anonymous poster to another, there is no real person to take offense.
It’s better that way. It makes it easier to focus on the issues and psychology of the region rather than individual personalities.”
St. Louis Neighbor on 28 Jul 2009 at 11:30 am
neighbor,
I find your rate of assumption quite amusing.
Saint Louis Neighbor,
You basically just stated that you think poor kids are screwed anyways so we might as well abandon all hope of educating them.
Is it really idealistic to assert that a decent education is out of the reach of poor people? Really? I am not even talking the best education ever, I certainly didn’t receive that, but a DECENT, functional education system with at least AVERAGE results is impossible because poor people can’t learn as well?
Complete and utter B.S., if anything you simply have to adapt the educational model to the situation, making it more flexible.
Poor people can learn, just as well as you or I, we just need to craft a system that works with their conditions….and fund it.
I find your opinion to be a misuse of facts, taking what are completely variable truths and solidifying in them unjustifiable determinism. This ideological conflict shouldn’t exist; I am flabbergasted that such ignorance not only exists but is fairly common.
I voted Arch connectivity, if and only if they remove I-70 from Poplar Street Bridge to the New Mississippi Bridge, because it not only makes the Arch Grounds part of downton but also makes Lacledes Landing, Pinnacle Casino, and Bottleworks part of a greater downtown and more developable in my mind. Laclede’s Landing will only become better when the residential of the Washington Loft district seeps into Lacledes Landing.
As noted in some of the posts, I discounted any project that already started. Also, Ballpark Village is sitting on the best real estate in the area and next door to the biggest draw of people. I think it will still happen before any other single development listed.
I have the same strong opinion on the Mississippi as expressed by some. We can’t change the fact that it is a muddy, fast moving and very dangerous river even when it is not flooding. I rest my case on the fact that Arch Grounds has been trying for years to get people to ride a boat not to mention the failed attempts at dinner boats and a dying Casino boat. The riverfront trail is the best thing to happen for downtown in regards to the riverfront and can easily be developed further without these time conusuming studies.
In regards to Transit, I hope that North South metrolink line will not happen. We can accomplish a whole lot more for the city and region in general with more frequent bus service, new hybrid buses, express bus service, streetcar lines etc. Not too mention the one thing that McKee is absolutely right on. The north side’s infrascture needs every single dollar we can get in order to fix the streets, sidewalk, light posts, sewers, water pipes, etc.
Colin Powell was on TV last night talking about his upbringing in 1950s segregated New York City. He was an average (2.0 GPA) student. But he said his neighborhood was basically safe and he had a family structure that pushed him to success and accomplishment. Going to college (City College of New York), wasn’t a choice for him. His family pushed him to attend college.
Angelo, don’t you think he was trying to compare the difference of his experience with the kids growing up in tough neighborhoods with absent parents? Powell, a black kid of the 50s had more support than lots of poor black kids coming out of urban settings today.
Alderman Cohn says on his twitter that there are 1,000 kids in the city of St. Louis in need of foster/adoptive homes. 1,000. Who knows, they might even be doing better than the ones trying to eek out survival in their current “homes”.
You often hear how lots of young black men don’t think they’ll live past 25 years old, so they’re not thinking education and a career really matter to them. And this is a population of the St. Louis Public Schools. How do these kids compare to your classmates from St. Charles schools?
St. Louis needs more parking and skybridges. I’m tired of having to walk on these dirty city streets. The fewer people the better.
The question, in general, makes me blanche because it follows the City Hall mindset of “It’s THIS ONE PROJECT that will save downtown.”
“Wait, no, it’s THIS PROJECT that is crucial to the survival of downtown…” etc. forever.
A City must be concurrently working on multiple projects of all sizes all the time. StL has problems with multi-tasking…
MetroLink expansion, or streetcars, or BRT, or all three. Do mass transit right and the rest will follow.
Saint Louis Neighbor,
Just more and more justifying your backwards idea that poor people aren’t as capable when it comes to education, so they don’t deserve to be focused on.
Go tell Powell what you think, I am SURE he will agree with you that inner-city kids’ education should be put on the back-burner because you’ve heard some ANECDOTES and misinterpreted some statistics. I’m sure our inner-city president would hop onboard your bandwagon….perhaps his inner-city supreme court nominee would back you up too.
While you’re at it….why don’t you actually meet one of those inner-city kids. Tell them their education isn’t really important since they have a harder time learning anyways. Tell them that improving downtown is a top priority, not them. Oh, and try to explain to them how they are going to get a decent job, lift themselves out of poverty, and such without a decent, basic education.
Your arguments aren’t worthy enough to be debated. I’d sooner debate with a creationist than you.
Angelo – Are you suggesting that if we threw more money at the SLPS and were able to hire the best of the best principals, teachers, administrators in the country that suddenly the school district would become one of the best and all of the children would succeed? I fail to believe that and history proves it.
The fact is, doing these things in all likelihood would improve the school district, but not by much and certainly not enough to meet the standards of the best school districts in our region. A childs education is not fully dependent on the quality of school they attend.
If we were able to instead replace all the parents of these kids with parents that pushed their kids to go to school, study, and get a quality education, I believe in fact that these kids would succeed at a much better rate than simply throwing money at the schools.
So how do we fix it? Unfortunately there are few success stories as this is such a challenging problem. In my opinion you have to tackle it from multiple angles as there is no “one” solution. You must do what you can to improve the quality of education within the schools by setting standards for teachers, adminstrators, etc… However, somehow, you must also increase the involvement in parents and guardians of these children. You must find a way for them to spend time with their children, motivate them, push them, get them to school everyday, keep them busy after school, etc… This is the most difficult piece of the puzzle.
So, I don’t think anyone here is claiming that low-income children can’t learn as well as a middle or upper-income child. However, let’s face the fact that on average the amount of motivation and encouragement a child from a low-income family receives is greatly reduced from that of a middle or upper-income family on average. Many of these children come from broken homes, no home, one guardian who works three jobs just to get by and is never around, etc… Somehow we must fix this.
Dave,
“I fail to believe that and history proves it.”
Where the hell has that ever been tried, sweetheart? Dear god, where is the example of full-investment in inner-city education?
As for the rest, Dave, this is awfully ridiculous. My suggestion, my pie-in-the-sky idea, is to fully fund and staff the public schools in Saint Louis.
Your realistic plan is to:
Replace all of the (poor,black) parents in Saint Louis with hand-crafted perfect-parents from….somewhere.
Not only is the “it’s all the parent’s fault” rhetoric completely baseless; your solution borders on lunatic even if you were right about the source of the problem!
Also, I think bad parenting is a problem in all socio-economic groups; the real difference is access to resources and education. I don’t understand how you can actually think that poor access to educational resources is not a major problem…..when it comes to education results.
No, no, no! For heaven’s sakes, it’s obviously worthless to give people equal and proper access to teachers, books, computers..etc.. The real thing we have to work on is re-engineering everyone’s parents!
Good show, Dave! No wonder this city comes up with the most coherent, sensible solutions to its problems!
Angelo, the tone of your posts suggests that some of us are out of touch with life in city’s roughest neighborhoods. What about you?
Have you ever seen a gang shrine? Do you know anyone personally who has been shot in a drive-by shooting? Have you ever known anyone who died a murder victim by shooting? Do you know personally any city residents whose school-aged children have either been murdered or committed murder?
Some of us can answer “yes” to all of these questions. Please do not suggest that we are out of touch with the challenges facing families living in St. Louis’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Your writing off of the importance of family background on educational outcomes really is a denial of reality.
Angelo, are you crazy?
“Not only is the “it’s all the parent’s fault†rhetoric completely baseless …”
How can you even say that? The number one indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. It does not matter what the teacher does if the parents are working against them. Having numerous family and friends that are teachers, I have heard all the horror stories of bad parents. Good parenting trumps bad schools every time. Unfortunately it doesn’t work in reverse.
This isn’t to say every student will get into MIT if there parents push them. But I would lay money on a kid graduating high school if I knew the parents were involved and valued education.
Wow, while I love some ideas on this blog and see valid points…I have just seen discrimination at its worse by Angelo. I cannot believe the paragraph that said…
*Go tell Powell what you think, I am SURE he will agree with you that inner-city kids’ education should be put on the back-burner because you’ve heard some ANECDOTES and misinterpreted some statistics. I’m sure our inner-city president would hop onboard your bandwagon….perhaps his inner-city supreme court nominee would back you up too.*
Amazing, I’m a minority and I don’t like everything the president represents especially his latest comments about police in MA. But this statement has offended me. thanks
P.S. I most needed project is without question, the arch connection with downtown st. louis as that’s proven time and time again the largest tourist source of revenue. thanks
It think that Toby is correct that STL has a problem with multi-tasking. But it isn’t because concurrent projects aren’t going on. It is because there is a distinct lack of coordination of a grand vision for St. Louis coming out of the Mayor’s office. Is there a master plan for the city? It doesn’t seem there is. Every time someone announces a project they jump all over it saying it is going to be wonderful even though financing isn’t even assured and they try to get everyone excited. It is depressing to continually hear about all of these failed projects and it is no wonder people don’t take the city seriously. The city government needs to take a step back, review their zoning and develop a master plan based upon all of the seemingly great ideas and then do whatever it takes to make sure they happen. I am just tired of hearing about the next great thing only to have it collapse yet again since no one has vision or the ability to see beyond their puny little ward to make these things happen. The list is endless and includes most of the items on this poll. If I had to guess I would say that most of them won’t occur in my lifetime, yet they all need to occur under a grand vision supplied by our mayor with the proper incentives and with residential being a major component of all of it. Eventually someone is going to have to have the cajones to repeal the income tax, fix the schools and provide attractive development to encourage people to want to live in this city again. It can be done but it won’t be as long as we have the antiquated old boys network working against us.
Jsut my two cents, but it is very frustrating to be a business owner in downtown right now.
Terrence,
That is a complete distortion of the point of my statement. Let me spell it out for you:
The other guy used Colin Powell as an example of someone from the inner city to back up his viewpoint.
I continued with his example with three more people from the inner-city….all of whom are extremely successful. I indicated that none of them, including the person he used as an example, would back up the point of view that the inner-city schools shouldn’t be fully-funded. None of them would say the primary reason for lower results in public schools falls directly on the idea that most of the parents are bad parents.
None of that has anything to do with having to take their opinion because of their ethnic or racial heritage. I said nothing of the kind….and it’s fairly interesting to me that you would go so far off-base with my statements while completely ignoring the people who think that poor people (black and white) don’t deserve to have an equal right to educational resources.
But nope, gotta side against the person that thinks poor people deserve books. Another perfect example of why nothing gets done in this city.
Kevin,
So, we have someone else who feels that resources do not trump background….I am hearing again and again that inner-city poor people are just generally bad parents…which is why their children’s grades and aptitudes are not up to par. That doesn’t bother Terrence? It doesn’t bother him that people are calling poor, inner-city people bad parents as a general rule? And want all of them REPLACED?
Come on people, you’ve gotta at least have an inkling that what you’re saying is complete bilge. How can you honestly justify thinking that a majority of poor parents are bad parents? I mean, you have to understand the implication here. If you actually directly equate performance with parentage, and any group generally does worse with educational performance….you come to the conclusion that black people are worse parents than white people. Considering the grade curve for African Americans is lower than White Americans currently. You come to the conclusion that poor people are worse parents than middle and upper class people.
I find it hard to believe that this isn’t ringing alarm bells here, I am also amazed that my comments draw the most ire. I may have a rather nasty bite, but I am advocating BOOKS FOR POOR KIDS. Not REPLACING THE PARENTS OF POOR KIDS.
I will state my simple beliefs, for one final time:
Poor people are just as good parents as rich people.
Black people are just as good parents as white people.
The only obvious differences are economics, segregation, and funding discrepancies.
If you disagree, then you are plainly stating that black people, and poor people, are worse parents…and that’s why their kids aren’t doing as well.
Come, on….yeeeeeeesh.
Angelo – now you are the one distorting things. Race has not been the primary issue of this discussion We have been primarily been discussing family background, incomes, middle class advantage, and parental involvement. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white, these things matter.
As 1990s era candidate-for-mayor Freeman Bosley Jr once said, the city of St. Louis is like a piano keyboard. We don’t make music without the white keys and the black keys playing together. We are way beyond the simplicity of tying all of these issues to race.
It’s interesting that you did not make any mention in your last post about personal experiences facing gangs, drugs, and murders involving school aged city kids.
Some of us deal with these things in our normal routines. Let’s talk about ways to get to these kids. I’d say they face far greater challenges than kids from St. Charles County. Wouldn’t you?
St. Louis Neighbor,
I’m sorry if you didn’t notice the demographic difference between Saint Charles and Saint Louis. I am also sorry you didn’t know that African Americans are disproportionately represented in the inner-city poor populations.
Apparently an irrelevant quote from some almost-mayor from the 90’s has something to do with those facts.
I’ve been skirting the race issue for abit, until someone decided to call me a racist. At that point, and since noone else seemed to notice the implications, I decided I might as well go for it. I know it is horrendous to note the following logical conclusion:
A) Inner-city kids aren’t as able to learn because they tend to have bad parents.
B) Inner-city kids should have their parents taken away from them.
C) African Americans are disproportionately represented in the inner-city.
D) African Americans are disproportionately bad parents.
E) African Americans should have their parents taken away in disproportionate numbers.
Apparently this slipped under your radar. Or is realizing the real-world impact of people’s ideas a racist thing to do?
“It’s interesting that you did not make any mention in your last post about personal experiences facing gangs, drugs, and murders involving school aged city kids.”
I can’t tell you how happy I would have been if any of you had raised real environmental issues like that. I would have given you a kiss and fed you nothing but grapes and strawberries upon a gold and linen couch. That, unlike “poor kids all have crappy parents”, is a real problem.
However, you must have noticed the downward trend in crime over the past two decades. Crime has dropped everywhere in the USA. From Saint Louis, to Biloxi, to New York…the overall trend for twenty or so years is safer and safer streets.
Oddly enough, Saint Louis’s schools have gotten WORSE. To the point of losing their accreditation recently. If anything, the trend should have been from loss of accreditation 20 years ago and then getting it BACK recently.
So, while crime is a problem there doesn’t seem to be a direct correlation. Or, something else is blocking the correlation from occurring. Say, you know, not enough educational resources?
Also, I completely disagree with the idea that county kids have it easier than inner-city kids. Materially speaking, on average, yes…they have more playstations and televisions. However, they suffer from a different set of problems. Murder rates are lower but suicide rates are way higher.
Drug use is actually not different, the types of drugs tend to be. Odd, non? There have been many studies that show self-reporting to be about the same when it comes to drug and alcohol use.
Oh, and here’s another kicker…..self-reporting of crime is about the same too. (I was a criminal justice major for awhile, dontcha know). That doesn’t go for the more extreme crimes. But, it isn’t as if murder is actually all that common. Even in the worst parts of the inner-city, you are far more likely to kill yourself, either accidentally or on purpose, than be killed.
Again, the only statistically significant difference between the inner-city kids and the suburban kids was…you guessed it…ACCESS TO RESOURCES!
Quite the shocker, non?
Single parents, especially young/teenage ones, have far fewer resources (primarily time [if they’re working and/or going to school] and money) than married couples where both partners have at least graduated from high school. The young (< 18), single parent is almost always also “poor” since they have less education and fewer skills than someone older. Statistically, in St. Louis, a larger percentage of single, teen mothers are African-American; in Denver, the larger percentage is Hispanic; in Appalachia, the larger percentage is Caucasian. It’s not so much of a racial issue as a cultural one. In too many poor communities, getting pregnant at 15 or 16 and keeping the child(ren) is perfectly acceptable, as is the concept of not accepting parental responsibility on the male side.
Given comparable resources (education, employment, maturity and social networks), a couple that’s 21+, be they black, brown or white, gay or straight, will tend to be equally successful both economically and as parents. Comparing a parent at 22 with one at 15 will result in HUGE differences. Unfortunately, for many reasons (the kids, the cycle of poverty, the racial stereotypes, the costs to society), being the child of a poor, urban, African-American here in St. Louis too often equates to too many obstacles, too few resources and too little success.
Given that construct, I’ll agree that “Poor people” can be “just as good parents as rich people.” and “Black people” can be “just as good parents as white people.” The unfortunate reality is that poverty combined with single teen parenthood is, for their kids, far too often, a predictor of mediocrity, if not failure, not success. And here, in St. Louis, where the majority of our poorest residents are black, the kids struggling to succeed will also be black. Will there be exceptions? Sure – there always are. But the deck IS stacked against both the parents and their kids, be it in the poorer parts of St. Louis, the barrios of East LA or the hills of Appalachia – there is a difference between “can be” and an all-encompassing “are”.
Jimmy Z,
I find your comments to be well-rounded and perfectly reasonable.
However, some contentions:
“Statistically, in St. Louis, a larger percentage of single, teen mothers are African-American; in Denver, the larger percentage is Hispanic; in Appalachia, the larger percentage is Caucasian.”
The problem here is: Denver’s teen pregnancy rate is overall lower….and the rate for African Americans IN Denver is higher than the Denver average…higher than the Caucasian teen pregnancy rate. The national teen pregnancy rate for the racial populations would also show a disproportionate slant for African Americans.
Just like with our prison populations: Most prisoners are white. However, African Americans have a higher proportion of their population in prison.
That’s using statistics properly.
So, let’s take the parent removal plan into reality. What might happen is this:
10% of white parents lose their kids.
25% of black parents lose their kids.
However,
1,000,000 white parents lose their kids.
500,000 black parents lose their kids.
Again, that’s the trickiness of statistics. More whites are affected than blacks, but black people are disproportionately affected with regards to their presence in the overall population.
“Given comparable resources (education, employment, maturity and social networks), a couple that’s 21+, be they black, brown or white, gay or straight, will tend to be equally successful both economically and as parents.”
Completely and utterly true. That is precisely the point I am making. The problem is, black people are at a proportional disadvantage when it comes to those resources. This I believe is NOT their fault, it is the fault of some poor planning, some bad luck, and the history of racism in this country which still has not been counteracted completely.
First step: Fund the goddamn schools.
We are already making great strides in crime prevention. But economic success, in this day and age, is predicated on educational advancement. There aren’t any well-paying unskilled jobs available. You need a degree, either technical or liberal arts….and you can’t get either without some high school. (even a High School degree isn’t going to get you very far these days).
Now that we’ve beaten the education issue pretty much into the ground, why don’t we talk about some things that we can actually do? That is unless Angelo, you have some actual suggestions besides “more money” to improve educational outcomes in the city. Those I’d like to hear.
You’ve analyzed the problem forwards and backwards. So what can be done about it, besides “full funding”? Let me ask the question another way…if money was no object (say if Obama’s stimulus funds went to urban education), what would you change about urban education?
Let me ask the question another way…if money was no object (say if Obama’s stimulus funds went to urban education), what would you change about urban education?
Longer school days/longer year. Keep the bad culture/environment/values from taking hold of the students. This means being under supervision more of the time. Have the kids just ‘hang out’ after school is just fine, but with responsible adults nearby to keep them out of trouble. In essence take the burden off of the parents as much as possible to raise their children, as too many parents are too stretched and/or bad parents to do a good job. Not exactly 3 Rs education, but definitely preparation for life after school.
As a taxpayer, I have a real problem with the “if money were no object” premise. Schools are not meant to be daycare centers or surrogate parents, and tax dollars are not unlimited. But, accepting the premise, the three best ways to spend unlimited dollars would be a) discouraging single-teen parenthood, especially before graduation from high school, b) figuring out how to bring back some respect for teachers and fellow students, and c) creating some viable vocational education programs for students who don’t have the skills, interest and/or the resources to go to college.
Becoming a single parent at 16 may have some sort of perverse allure at 16, but that fades rapidly by the time someone is 20, still working at McDonald’s, trying to figure who’ll take care of the kid(s) and which bills can be paid this week. Planned Parenthood offers a whole range of resources, but the combination of “just say no” as the only answer and a cultural acceptance of motherhood in the mid-teens conspires against delaying parenthood until after graduation.
Respecting teachers and giving them the tools to maintain control of their classrooms is critical to creating an environment in which kids can actually learn – we can’t have “the inmates running the asylum”. The same goes for creating programs that have real meaning for every student – it’s simple, if you get excited about learning, you will; if you’re bored, you won’t. Conjugating verbs or working quadratic equations will excite some students, but offering vocational classes in hair styling, the culinary arts or bricklaying will excite others.
I am not talking about “unlimited” cash, I am talking about “enough”. So I will not get into such a pointless conversation.
This is like talking about starvation in Africa, and I say “I want people to have enough to eat, we have enough resources to do it.” And you ask me “what would you like them to eat, if they could be given unlimited food.” Not relevant to my point of view, not relevant to reality. I just wants books in the hands of kids, and food in the hands of everyone. Period, STOP, halt, end.
For some reason I find the Pond idea (along with removing 70 from the arch) the most interesting. The arch should be connected with downtown and highways just kill areas by splitting them. The riverfront though is not really easy to develop because of flooding concerns. The Pond could give us a connection to a controlled waterfront that developers would be more inclined to build around. It also brings life to the south of 40/64 that is divorced from downtown.
The RR tracks might have to be diverted, but cargo traffic shouldn’t really go through Downtown anymore anyway.
Angelo-
I’ve reread my statements that you attacked, and I agree that I should have re-worded this:
“If we were able to instead replace all the parents of these kids with parents that pushed their kids to go to school, study, and get a quality education, I believe in fact that these kids would succeed at a much better rate than simply throwing money at the schools.”
I did not mean to imply that I would prefer to move the African-American community out of the inner city and replace them with white parents from St. Charles. This is the complete opposite of what I want. In fact, I tend to dislike areas like St. Charles due to the layout and general political and economic views of it’s residents. Additionally, I am drawn to areas with diversity in both color and economic status, something that unfortunately only a few St. Louis neighborhoods achieve.
However, what I was trying to state was if the parents of children in these distressed areas were instead able to provide the necessary discipline, time, encouragement, and resources that would make a larger impact on the children’s education than investing more money in their schools. That’s why I feel any additional money should be spent on improving the children’s home and after-school environments, as opposed to giving it to a school board with questionable motives.
Again, this is my opinion.
Dave,
“…than investing more money in their schools.”
One word:
“Enough”. Enough money in their schools. Until you people start being honest with your language I will drive this word into your skulls. Enough. Enough. Enough! We need enough money in our schools!
But anyways, it doesn’t matter if you really thought far-enough ahead to figure out who you’d be replacing the parents with. You’d either be replacing them with mostly white parents…..or you’d have to get some sort of robot-parents from Japan. But I am assuming now that you’re not really serious of that sort of program anyways, so it’s all moot.
As for the realistic issue of parents spending the time, energy, and resources on their kids. That would be great, try doing that with two or more horrible jobs that still don’t pay you above the poverty line.
The schools are an excellent way to GET resources to kids, in a way that can easily be tracked and accounted for. Schools can provide all the resources, advice, and support that a kid needs to succeed.
Most parents in the inner city, poor or otherwise, are good, loving parents. They may need some help providing the resources to get their kids up to a proficient level of educational attainment….who knows, maybe even an excellent level.
Define “enough”. SLPS already has one of the highest, if not the highest, per-student funding levels in the state!
I agree, it’s not the kid’s fault if their parent(s) made bad choices. But it takes more than love to raise a child, it takes resources, financial, physical and emotional. If you’re “doing that with two or more horrible jobs that still don’t pay you above the poverty line”, whose “fault” is it, really? Yours or society’s?
Having sex is a choice. Protection is a choice. Keeping a child you can’t afford to raise is a choice. Dropping out of school is a choice, and one that will likely confine you to lifetime of “horrible jobs that still don’t pay you above the poverty line”. Finishing high school as a single mom is also a choice – a tough one, but still a choice.
I agree, many parents in the inner city, poor or otherwise, want to be good, loving parents. I also agree, many need help providing the resources to get their kids up to a proficient level of educational attainment. The question becomes one of how do we break the cycle we’re apparently stuck in?
We already have multiple programs aimed at keeping at-risk students in school. They’re apparently not working, and probably not because of a lack of money – kids are still getting pregnant too young and/or dropping out. I’m guessing that the real problem isn’t the schools, it’s the continued decline of our local economic base. When the only options for someone with “just” a high school diploma is retail, hospitality or sales, all notorious for being low-paying careers, one needs to wonder what things would be like if we still had a major manufacturing segment available? If there aren’t the jobs available for “doing the right things”, then why even bother? And if the government is going to reward you for being a poor, single parent, then why not follow that path, over a minimum wage one?!
Angelo,
Jimmy Z’s response is spot-on. I feel like we provide “enough” money to the city schools, and providing more will do little to help the underlying problems.
“But anyways, it doesn’t matter if you really thought far-enough ahead to figure out who you’d be replacing the parents with. You’d either be replacing them with mostly white parents…..or you’d have to get some sort of robot-parents from Japan.”
Are you saying that it’s not possible to have middle-class non-white parents? You should question how rascist you are before accusing others. “robot-parents from Japan”? Hmm…
“As for the realistic issue of parents spending the time, energy, and resources on their kids. That would be great, try doing that with two or more horrible jobs that still don’t pay you above the poverty line.”
I absolutely agree this must be incredibly difficult and is a serious problem. However, just loving your child is not being a good parent. Regardless of your situation, your responsibility as a parent is to provide the time, energy, and resources for your kid. If you can’t or couldn’t, you shouldn’t have had sex to begin with.
“The schools are an excellent way to GET resources to kids, in a way that can easily be tracked and accounted for.”
Agreed.
“Schools can provide all the resources, advice, and support that a kid needs to succeed.” Disagreed. Schools do not raise kids, parents do.
The Admiral