So put your money where your mouth is. Buy some worthy vacant building along MLK, renovate it (or not), and find some tenants to lease the space. Invest what you believe in! “Money talks and bullshit walks!”

Believe it or I not, I agree that “free for all urban planning” is NOT the solution. But there's a big difference between an achievable vision and an idealistic-yet-unattainable one. The heavy hand of government CAN say “No, you can't tear down any building that is ______ (fill in the blank).” The real world outcome will be a) actual preservation and renovation, b) preservation without renovation (essentially warehousing the property until the market [hopefully] improves) OR c) demolition through neglect (at some point, protecting the public safety WILL require demolition).

It all boils down to the dollars and cents of real estate investment. Ultimately, if an owner decides that a structure is no longer economically viable, they will no longer invest in its maintenance. There are limited remedies that the city can try, up to and including taking over the property, but the city hasn't had much more success than the private sector in actually saving structures like the one at MLK & Arlington – in simple terms, we, as a city, have to decide whether putting a new roof on a crumbling, vacant building is more important than repaving the street out front. We simply don't have unlimited resources, and we can't save every old building.

The West is full of ghost towns where people left after the mines closed. Detroit, East St. Louis, Granite City, Wellston and many others are following a similar path, becoming urban ghost towns, after the factories close. Chicago and Pittsburgh continue to reinvent themselves, replacing factories and heavy industry with new economies. “It's the economy, stupid.” We have a choice. If we want to “save” the city and our old buildings, we need to give people the right reasons to be here, to invest here, to live here. And if fewer and fewer people are willing to make that choice, then yes, we'll continue “to systematicly turn the city into a vacant lot.”

Very well said!

The design looks like the convention center driveway on Washington Avenue downtown. It's grand on purpose. It conveys the development rights status that the Friendly Temple has with the city. The alderman, Jeffery Boyd has been instumental and extremely cooperative with whatever plans they present. The question is how friendly has their plans been to current and previous property owners.
Wake-up Cady! You call that good? Yeah, good ground clearing. Good way to justify disspossesing previous land owners. Good to come in with the “F” word—Financing. With the” wow” cost of building that spot, the rents for space must be” in the sky” expesive, unless of course, there is a subsidy. Oh, nothing good happens in the city without a good subsidy! Good union job wages paid to many good people outside of the hood. Good to know Saint Louis U is involved, with their connections I'm sure they will find some good people from out of town to start some business there. Good luck.

Look at a grassroots creation of a entrepreneurial incubation center at Chouteau and Boyle. Compare the difference. Hometown boys have ownership and work/job training happens there. We proudly display the Billekin and the Wash U bear. However, a big developer, Restoration STL has moved in across the street with a fifty million dollar investment. The city is very partial to the “F” word. City goverment support for local youth, homegrown projects, community involvment, and economic education or empowerment are routinely pushed aside for big cash developers. Wake-up Cady and watch the city working hard at selling us out!